Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02.14.24 OSBT Packet
Open Space Board of Trustees February 14, 2024 OSBT meetings have moved to a hybrid format with options for in-person (in Council Chambers) and virtual attendance. MEETING AGENDA (Please note that times are approximate.) I. (6:05) Approval of the Minutes II. (6:10) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing III. (6:25) Matters from the Board A. Trustee questions on written memo items or public comment B. Develop a process for responding to City Council’s request of what the top two to three community issues are for OSBT in 2024 IV. (6:55) *Request for approval and recommendation to City Council to approve a request by Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology department, to use certain City of Boulder open space lands to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter V. (7:25) Matters from the Department A. Open Space & Mountain Parks Comprehensive Fee Review (25 min) B. 2023 Annual Prairie Dog Update and 2024 Management Plans (45 min) C. Director verbal updates (5 min) VI. (8:40) Adjourn *Public Hearing Written Information A. North Foothills Habitat Conservation Area Implementation B. Update on the City-Tribal Updated Memorandum of Understanding C. US 36 / North Foothills Highway Bikeway Feasibility Study D. Marshall Mine Coal Seam Mitigation and Marshall Mesa Improvement Project 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 January 30, 2024) February 22, 2024 Joint OSBT-City Council Public Hearing March 13, 2024 April 10, 2024 May 8, 2024 South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation: City Utility's Request for permanent use and management of OSMP Land for flood mitigation purposes: Part 1: Staff Recommendation and Presentation and Public Hearing/Testimony (180 min) Matters from the Board: • Trustee questions on Written Memo items or public comment (5 min) • Outgoing Board Member proclamation (10 min) • Response to Council on top 2 to 3 issues in 2024 (10 min) Action Items: • South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation: City Utility's Request for permanent use and management of OSMP Land for flood mitigation purposes: Part 2: OSBT Deliberations and Consideration of the Request (No additional Public Testimony) (90 min) • Recommendation to City Council on the proposed annexation into the city of ~4.1 acres of OSMP- managed land needed for the construction and ongoing use of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation project (15 min) Matters from the Department: • Fort Chambers-Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update (60 min) – NOTE: this item will take place at the beginning of the meeting • Director verbal updates (5 min) Matters from the Board: • Swearing in and welcoming of New Trustee (5 min) • OSBT officer Elections (10 min) • Trustee questions on Written Memo items or public comment (10 min) Action Items: Matters from the Department: • Volunteerism update and National Volunteer Week Declaration (30 min) • Boulder to Erie Regional Trail (BERT) update on Conceptual Trail Alignments (45 minutes) • Marshall Mine Remediation/Mitigation and Marshall Mesa Trailhead Improvement project Updates (45 min) • Director verbal updates (5 min) Matters from the Board: • Trustee questions on Written Memo items or public comment (10 min) Action Items: • Fort Chambers-Poor Farm Site Management Plan (60 mins) Matters from the Department: • Update on the North Foothills (HWY 36) Bikeway feasibility study (45 min) • Update on WUI Wildfire Mitigation Plan (30 min) • 2025 Budget Update: First touch with the OSBT (35 min) • Director verbal updates (5 min) *All items are subject to change. A final version of the agenda is posted on the webpage the week of the OSBT meeting. OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Action Minutes Meeting Date January 17, 2024 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, Chair Michelle Estrella, Vice-Chair Jon Carroll Brady Robinson Harmon Zuckerman OSMP STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Dan Burke Jeff Haley Jennelle Freeston Brian Anacker Leah Russell Sam McQueen Burton Stoner Bethany Collins Don D’Amico GUESTS FROM UTILITIES Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (4:44) Michelle Estrella moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to adopt the minutes from Dec. 6, 2023. Jon Carroll seconded. This motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (7:00) Lynn Segal spoke about the University of Colorado and CU-South. Harlin Savage spoke about the request from the City of Boulder’s Utilities department. AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Board (13:56) The board asked about the written information item, “Request from Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology department to approve utility agreements for the use of certain City of Boulder Open Space lands to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177, of the City of Boulder Charter.” Dan Burke gave an overview of this item and highlighted what will be forthcoming to the board. AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Department (18:40) Dan Burke, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Director, and Sam Mcqueen, Business Services Senior Manager, presented the “High-Level Strategic Guidance informing annual budget and work plan development.” The board discussed the questions proposed by staff: 1. Is there a particular past or current Strategic Enhancement the OSBT is interested in having a greater understanding of? 2. Is there a particular Tier One strategy the OSBT is interested in having a greater understanding of in terms of how OSMP is elevating this area? 3. Is the OSBT interested in having a greater understanding of the city’s SER Framework and how/why SER is becoming an important consideration in budget and work plan development for city departments? 4. Because the department has already submitted the 2024 budget, does the OSBT wish to provide any other high-level strategic guidance regarding accelerations for 2025- 2026? (1:11:15) Bethany Collins, Real Estate Senior Manager, Don D’Amico, Senior Resource Project Manager, and Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities, presented on the “Request from City of Boulder’s Utilities department to permanently use and manage an approximately 2.2-acre portion of the Van Vleet Open Space property to construct, access, operate and maintain elements of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project, together with: 1. Proposed conveyance of approximately 119 acres of land and 30.2 shares of Dry Creek Ditch #2 water rights to the City for Open Space purposes and management by the Open Space and Mountain Parks department. 2. Temporary use and restoration of approximately 1.9 acres of the Van Vleet Open Space property for construction as well as ongoing, periodic maintenance access related to the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project. 3. Proposed mitigation, restoration and monitoring work associated with the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project, including the comprehensive restoration of the 119 acres of land described above. 4. The associated annexation and redesignation of a portion of the city-owned Van Vleet Open Space property with an OS-A designation under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.” The board discussed the questions proposed by staff: 1. Is the information presented in the memo structured/organized in a way where trustees can access the information they need? 2. Is there information not included in this memo and presentation that trustees feel is needed in order to consider the transfer request in accordance with disposal provisions of the Boulder City Charter or the L&D Guidance? 3. Do the trustees have questions related to the upcoming process and timeline? The board additionally discussed next steps, including the upcoming joint OSBT and City Council meeting on February 22. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Russell CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 14, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Request for approval and recommendation to City Council to approve a request by Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology department, to use certain City of Boulder open space lands to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter PRESENTERS Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director Bethany Collins, Real Estate Sr. Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item is the consideration of a request received by the Open Space and Mountain Parks department (OSMP) from Public Service Company (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder’s Innovation and Technology (IT) department to approve utility agreements for the use of portions of the City-owned Batchelder Open Space property (“OSMP Property” shown on Attachment A), which is managed by OSMP, to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring. The utility project would entail a phased approach to wholesale underground of all existing overhead utilities, as well as new city-owned broadband fiber, via joint trenching/co-location within the same corridors in the Chautauqua area. This proposal includes removal of the existing overhead utilities and connectivity to the city-owned Enchanted Mesa Water Tank; emergency radio tower used by OSMP rangers; and OSMP Ranger Cottage as well as the greater Chautauqua campus, and approval of this request would replace the previously approved alignment for IT installation of broadband fiber under Enchanted Mesa Trail/Road. The proposed utility corridors are conceptually depicted on Attachment A and are requested in alignments which generally have existing utility, trail, fencing and other infrastructure, and which have been selected to minimize environmental, resource and visitor impacts. Benefits associated with undergrounding the overhead utilities at Chautauqua and co-locate electric and telecommunication infrastructure together, include enhanced reliability, wildfire protection, improved aesthetics, preservation of historic viewsheds, mitigation of overall impacts, and preparation for electrification and electrical vehicle adoption. Agenda Item 4 Page 1 The corridors would be 10’-wide except for an area along the eastern alignment where there would be 20’x20’ area to accommodate a new electric cabinet. In some areas the utility corridors may overlap the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) leasehold or private property with existing utility easements, with less than 10’ on the OSMP property. The IT service connection to the Enchanted Mesa Water Tank is still being analyzed and may require a separate tie-in as conceptually depicted on Attachment A. While some of the installation may occur via boring, it most will likely require open trenching due to the topography and geological conditions. The total surface disturbance for installation via trenching is anticipated to total under one acre. See Attachment B for a typical joint trench design. OSMP program staff have not expressed concern with the request and have not identified any sensitive or rare resources in the proposed alignments. Anticipated visitor impacts will be mitigated via coordinated timing, detours, informational signage, and on-site personnel during the construction. Because the utility installation involves ground disturbance, the utility providers will be required to coordinate a cultural resource survey prior to installation, and work with OSMP staff to adjust alignments if warranted. Authorizing uses of open space land by a utility provider or another city department must be consistent with Article XII, sections 175(a) and 177 which require an Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) approval and recommendation to City Council. If recommended and approved by OSBT and approved by City Council, OSMP staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) to draft the utility agreements and will monitor and enforce their terms which will include provisions related to construction/reconstruction disturbance, restoration (including revegetation and weed control), and ongoing maintenance access. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Open Space Board of Trustees make a motion to approve and recommend that City Council approve the use of the Batchelder Open Space property lands by the Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology department to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring in the general alignments depicted on Attachment A pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic: Increased and more reliable electrical and telecommunication connectivity will allow improved services to city residents and the open space system, which supports the city’s quality of life, attracts visitors and helps businesses recruit and retain quality employees. •Environmental: The upgraded, buried utilities will enhance reliability and provide wildfire protection, improved aesthetics, and preservation of historic viewsheds which helps OSMP staff preserve, protect and enhance the values of the city’s open space system, and impacts can be mitigated and restored effectively. •Social: Increased connectivity and communications will provides benefits community- wide as well as enhanced operation and monitoring of important utility infrastructure and allowing OSMP staff to better communicate safety issues to city residents during emergencies or natural disasters affecting OSMP facilities. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal: The overall value of the transfer of this land interest is generally included in the city’s franchise framework with PSCo and considered to be net-neutral due to the benefits Agenda Item 4 Page 2 to OSMP of having future connectivity and use of the emergency communications framework this infrastructure will provide. There is no cost to the open space fund for the installation or maintenance of the utilities. •Staff time: Staff time towards this project is part of the normal 2024 work plan for the OSMP Real Estate Services workgroup. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS This item is being heard as part of this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on February 11, 2024. A Notice of Disposal of Open Space Lands was published in the Daily Camera on February 2 and 3 pursuant to Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter. ANALYSIS OSMP staff have reviewed and support the request to allow the undergrounding and colocation of multiple utilities via joint trenching or boring. OSMP program staff have not expressed concern with the request and have not identified any sensitive or rare resources in the proposed alignments. This collaborative approach to construction and use will limit impacts, closures and user impacts during construction and ongoing access for operation and repair. Additionally, the undergrounding will support wildfire mitigation objectives and improve the aesthetics and viewshed in the scenic Chautauqua Park area. OSMP staff has and will continue to work onsite with the stakeholders and their contractors to finalize alignments, construction methods and timing, and ensure restoration to the same or better condition. CONCLUSION OSMP staff supports the request and recommends that OSBT approve this motion and make a recommendation to City Council. If recommended and approved, the matter will be considered for approval by City Council and, if approved, OSMP staff will work with CAO to the appropriate utility agreements for the electric and telecommunication infrastructure with terms and conditions related to disturbance, restoration and ongoing access. The agreements will also include provisions for reversion and termination of the use if the infrastructure is removed or abandoned. ATTACHMENTS: •Attachment A: Property Map with Utility Corridors •Attachment B: Typical Joint Trench Design Agenda Item 4 Page 3 #* #*EnchantedMesaEnchantedM esaBatchelder Austin - Russell Enchanted Mesa N. I. S. T. CE Baseline Rd Baseline RdBaseline Rd Bellevue Dr12th StSumac Dr Kinnikinnic RdGoldenrod DrChautauquaP arkR dColumbine Ave M esaCanyonDrWild Rose RdAstor Ln 13th StClematis Dr BluebellAve11th StPrimrose Rd Gaillardia Ln M orningGloryDr Lupine Ln Mar iposaAve10th St13th StKinniki nnicRdCl e m a tisDrUser: cassidyj Date: 1/8/2024 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\Chautauqua Area Properties\Location_ChautauquaBoardMap.mxd Attachment A-Property Map and Utility Corridors I 0 150 300 450 600Feet Legend 10'-wide-Utility Corridor 10'-wide Broadband Fiber Service Connection #*Transformer #*Switch Cabinet Hiking Trail Properties Managed by COB Parks and Recreation OSMP Ownership OSMP Easement Agenda Item 4 Page 4 Attachment B: Typical Trench Design Agenda Item 4 Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director, Central Services Sam McQueen, Business Services Sr. Manager DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Open Space & Mountain Parks Comprehensive Fee Review ________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this update is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with information on the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) department’s upcoming, holistic fee and cost recovery study. OSMP staff most recently provided an update on revenues from codified special activities, permits, and fees at a March 2023 business meeting, included in Attachment A. During that meeting, staff recommended undertaking a fee study to determine the cost of a program so that fees are in line with program costs. These fee studies can be done by the department or by an outside, paid consultant. In 2024, OSMP will hire a consultant to carry out the fee study. Background OSMP charges fees to customers to provide services in the following programs: 1.Voice and Sight Tag Program: The Voice and Sight Tag (Tag) Program was updated in 2014 (changes effective in 2015) via Ordinance 7967 with a unanimous motion from City Council to adopt six department-recommended program enhancements. The Tag Program, first implemented with a “Green Tag” in 2006, underwent a comprehensive review in 2012-13 when City Council identified it as one of several over-arching issues related to sustaining the overall health of OSMP natural resources. 2.Parking Charges: Visitors with vehicles that are not registered in Boulder County must purchase either a daily or annual parking permit in certain areas and trailheads. OSMP parking charges are codified. Additional to deciding to codify the fees, OSBT and Council have made previous motions in 2012 outlining locations where parking fees should be charged. Fees are collected from visitors on Flagstaff Mountain, in Gregory Canyon, and at Doudy Draw, Flatirons Vista, Greenbelt Plateau, Marshall Mesa, South Boulder Creek West, and South Mesa Trailheads. 3.Special Activity Permits: OSMP charges fees to engage in special activities. These permits include: a.Commercial Use Permits: Commercial operators are required to obtain a Commercial Use Permit if they charge a fee for a service that brings people or animals to OSMP lands or facilities. A fee can be a charge, purchase of goods or services, or a required donation for a service or as a condition of participation. Commercial operators include for-profits and nonprofits. Fees for Commercial Use Permits are codified. b.Woodlot Permit: Wood generated by the City of Boulder’s forest management operations is made available to contract-holding members of the public. Fees for Woodlot Permits are not codified but are set by the department. Facility Rentals: OSMP allows for reservation of shelters and facilities to accommodate group gatherings that also foster appreciation and use that sustain the natural values of the land for current and future generations. Fees for facility rentals are not codified but are set by the department. Visitors have the ability to book facilities beyond the current year, so revenues are often collected in one year Agenda Item 5A - Page 1 for events in a future year. For example, a visitor can access the facility rental platform in November 2023 and pay to rent a facility for a date in March 2024. Comprehensive Fee Review As shared during the March 2023 business meeting, the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) advised that increasing fees beyond cost recovery would be an issue under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). TABOR mandates that taxes be approved by voters in an election. Fees do not require approval from voters. Colorado court decisions describe the difference between a tax and a fee, and the standards that courts use to differentiate between them. Revenue generation for the department beyond cost recovery may be considered a tax, which requires voter approval. In Attachment A, CAO provides additional information and describes the difference between taxes and fees. Department staff have traditionally performed internal cost recovery calculations and have shared those analyses with the OSBT. Looking ahead, the department will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to work with a consultant in 2024 to determine the cost to provide services that currently charge a fee, determine if the current fees are sufficient for providing associated services, and recommend changes to fees to recover costs. The details of the RFP are included in Attachment B. If the awarded consultant recommends changes to amounts charged for fees or structure of fees, OSMP staff will review recommendations internally and will bring updates to the OSBT. Fee changes will not be incorporated into the 2024 or 2025 budgets. OSMP staff will update OSBT as the comprehensive fee review progresses. Attachments: •Attachment A: Written Information: Update on revenues from codified special activities, permits, and fees •Attachment B: Request for Proposal: Open Space & Mountain Parks Comprehensive Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services Samantha McQueen, Business Services Senior Manager DATE: March 8, 2023 SUBJECT: Written Information: Update on revenues from codified special activities, permits, and fees ________________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary The purpose of this update is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with information on program revenues for those Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) programs that are reflected as “Leases, Rents and Royalties,” “Licenses, Permits & Fines,” and “Parking Revenue” on the department Fund Financial. This information was first provided to the OSBT in October of 2021, when the OSBT requested a ten-year lookback on program revenues and expenses. At that time, 2021 revenues had not been finalized. This written information item will provide updated information around revenues from 2021 and 2022. An update on the Habitat Conservation Area Off-Trail Permit Program is also included in this memo. Programs will be referred to as codified special activities, permits, and fees in this update. This update will also provide information on program expenses and cost recovery. The following programs make up codified special activities, permits, and fees in the department: •Voice and Sight Tag Program •Parking Charges •Special Activity Permits •Facility Rentals Background OSMP staff provided an update on revenues from codified special activities, permits, and fees at an October 2021 business meeting. The 2021 update provided a look back at ten years of revenues from these programs. At the OSBT retreat in 2022, the OSBT requested an update around program revenues and expenses from 2021 and 2022. This information is provided as part of the March 2023 business meeting to align with yearend accounting cycles. Revenues from 2022 continue to be posted, processed, and audited during the first quarter of 2023. It is possible that additional 2022 revenue may be posted after the sharing of this written information. To remain consistent with the structure of the October 2021 packet, this memo will also provide a ten-year revenue lookback, with information on 2013-2022 revenues. Moving forward, OSMP staff commit to sharing a comprehensive list of revenues as part of annual budget planning process. Voice and Sight Tag Program The Voice and Sight Tag (Tag) Program was updated in 2014 (changes effective in 2015) via Ordinance 7967 with a unanimous motion from City Council to adopt six department-recommended program enhancements. The Tag Program, first implemented with a “Green Tag” in 2006, underwent a comprehensive review in 2012-13 when City Council identified it as one of several over-arching issues related to sustaining the overall health of OSMP natural resources. The six recommended program adjustments that were adopted by Council in 2014 via Ordinance 7967 required: ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 3 1.all participants provide proof of current rabies vaccination for all dogs to be registered in the program, 2.all City of Boulder residents to purchase a City of Boulder dog license, 3.all participants to attend an education session every five years, 4.increased fines for violations, 5.annual program renewal for participants with a graduated fee schedule based on residency, and 6.targeted education and outreach strategies. Ordinance 7967 established the Tag Program as a cost recovery program. By establishing a graduated fee schedule based on residency, the ordinance did impact annual revenue collections, and program revenues in 2015 increased over 2014 levels by roughly 112% to $164,602. During the 2016 budget development process in 2015, previous OSMP finance staff indicated that they anticipated program revenues to be around $227,000 annually within the established fee structure. However, annual revenues since 2015 have never reached that target, nor have they ever reached 2015 revenue numbers. Revenue collections from Voice in Sight in 2020 were 31% lower than revenues collected in 2015, but annual revenue collections have fluctuated significantly. It is worth noting that from a program administration perspective, 2015 represents the first year that the department had the ability to track annual sales. Before 2015, community members were required to purchase the tags one time and were not required to renew annually. Notably, 2015 is also when the city deployed its new financial system, which radically improved the ability of the department to track revenues and expenses related to the program. In response to the OSBT request for a ten-year program revenue history, that information has been provided below. However, revenues from 2013-2014 have been pulled from the previous financial system, which did not have strong functionality around program- specific tracking, and the city records retention policy requires that detailed revenue backup be kept for only three years. Therefore, there is a lower level of confidence in numbers from 2013-2014. OSMP Business Services staff worked extensively with the Finance Department to access archived data from the previous financial system and to review and compile journal level revenue detail to provide revenue numbers for 2013-2014. The combination of programmatic changes and financial system changes that occurred in 2015 allow confidence in numbers from 2015 to present. Revenues Tag Program revenues have fluctuated over the last several years. As previously shared with OSBT, the launch of a new software to manage Voice and Sight Tag sales and training led to decreased revenues in 2019. Both community members and staff had trouble working with the vendor to migrate information and fulfill orders during go-live. OSBT was updated on the issues with Docupet go-live as well as the 2020 improvements to the system in September and December 2020 business meeting packets. Remedied issues are reflected in the return to normal revenues in 2020 and 2021. Revenues for 2022 are still under review consistent with the yearend accounting process, and staff anticipates that final 2022 program revenues will be consistent with previous years. During Docupet contract renewal in the fourth quarter of 2022, OSMP agreed to slight increases in software fees which will have a minor impact on program revenue. Voice and Sight Tag renewal season begins in late 2022 for 2023 tags. We are anticipating a normal year for Voice and Sight Tag sales in 2023 and expect to see around the same number of renewals as previous years. The department has used Docupet as the software for Voice and Sight Tag sales and training for five years. Consistent with our technology approach, OSMP has resourced staff time in the 2023 work plan to review use of the software and any alternative platforms to ensure the best possible product is selected for use by the department and community. ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 4 Table 1: 2013-2022 Voice and Sight Tag Program Revenues Year Voice and Sight Tag Program Revenues Percent Change 2013 $42,590 N/A 2014 $77,791 82.65% 2015 $164,602 111.60% 2016 $110,156 -33.08% 2017 $121,288 10.11% 2018 $110,188 -9.15% 2019 $81,124 -26.38% 2020 $113,761 40.23% 2021 $115,243 1.30% 2022 $84,304 -26.85% Expenses The Tag Program is recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee structure. Expenses in 2022 are less than the costs presented to OSBT in previous years, as go-live costs and other significant technology costs were not needed for the program. Revenues collected by the Tag Program are expended by the program. In years when revenues exceed expenses, net revenues remain dedicated to the program and are used to offset losses in other years. This approach to financial management has ensured that the department has funds available to adequately manage the day-to-day operations of the program, and to make needed periodic enhancements. For example, revenues have been utilized to configure, deploy, and maintain software systems to ensure community members can purchase Voice and Sight tags both online and in person. Table 2: 2022 Voice and Sight Tag Program Revenue and Expenses* *Expenses do not include staff time after tag is issued, including enforcement, compliance, and trailhead maintenance costs Parking Charges Visitors with vehicles that are not registered in Boulder County must purchase either a daily or annual parking permit in certain areas and trailheads. OSMP parking charges are codified. Additional to deciding to codify the fees, OSBT and Council have made previous motions in 2012 outlining locations where parking fees should be charged. Fees are collected from visitors on Flagstaff Mountain, in Gregory Canyon, and at Doudy Draw, Flatirons Vista, Greenbelt Plateau, Marshall Mesa, South Boulder Creek West, and South Mesa Trailheads. ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 5 Revenues Parking revenues in 2020 were significantly lower than previous years. In March 2020, the department made the decision to suspend parking fees for several months during early COVID-19 response. This decision was made to allow Rangers to repurpose the time it takes to collect parking fees towards an increase in patrol and emergency response as visitation levels increased during the early months of the pandemic. It also minimized risk to Business Services staff in gathering as a group to process cash. Revenues increased after fee collection resumed in 2021 and 2022. The increase reflected a return to pre- COVID levels of growth. OSMP expects to maintain this growth in the coming years. The 2013-2022 parking fee revenues are as follows: Table 3: 2013-2022 Parking Fee Revenues Year Parking Fee Revenue *Note: CAMP fees not included Percent Change 2013 $128,659 N/A 2014 $146,967 14.23% 2015 $151,967 3.40% 2016 $198,397 30.55% 2017 $227,430 14.63% 2018 $240,606 5.79% 2019 $262,803 9.23% 2020 $184,707 -29.72% 2021 $297,291 60.95% 2022 $299,866 0.87% Expenses The Parking Fee Program is recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee structure. Net revenue generated by the program becomes part of the Open Space Fund Balance. Fund balance is then allocated in next year’s budget to support core maintenance and other land management activities. Over the next several years, fund balance will be allocated to support permitting for mobile hotspots to expand internet access at trailheads. Internet access allows for deployment of the ParkMobile parking application, which is a platform community members can use to pay by phone for parking permits. The goals of the hotspot/ParkMobile project are to increase compliance among visitors who do not carry cash, to encourage online pay to reduce staff time spent on cash processing, and to improve consistency with parking practices across the city by utilizing the same mobile platform and same vendor. Revenues and expenses in 2022 are as follows: ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 6 Table 4: 2022 Parking Fee Revenue and Expenses* *Expenses do not include staff time after parking permit is issued, including enforcement, compliance, and trailhead maintenance costs Special Activity Permits As shared in previous revenue updates, the term “Special Activity Permits” is not widely utilized by OSMP, but rather is a citywide tracking code that captures similar programs across departments to understand community engagement with these programs. In OSMP, the revenue object for “Special Activity Permits” generally refers to Commercial Use Permits and Special Use Permits, with some revenue accounting for the Wood Lot program. Revenues Revenues for Special Activity Permits increased in 2021 and 2022 over 2020 levels. In 2020, a decision was made to close the permit program from March through July due to COVID-19. The closure was meant to minimize safety risks and ensure businesses were meeting state and local guidelines for group size limits. As a result, program revenues decreased in 2020. Revenues increased in 2021 and 2022 as the permit programs fully reopened. The department saw many of the permitted activities from the 2020 closure rescheduled to 2021 and 2022 dates, leading to increased revenues. OSMP staff worked with permit holders to process permits for activities during this period. The 2013-2022 revenues for the permit programs are as follows: Table 5: 2013-2022 Special Activity Permit Revenues Year Special Activity Permit Revenue Percent Change 2013 $14,095 N/A 2014 $21,110 49.77% 2015 $21,870 3.60% 2016 $26,030 19.02% 2017 $30,330 16.52% 2018 $33,600 10.78% 2019 $33,105 -1.47% 2020 $29,903 -9.67% 2021 $53,382 78.52% 2022 $53,638 0.48% ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 7 Expenses Special Activity Permits are recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee structure. Significant improvements have been made in recent years to the Commercial and Special Use Permit Programs that allow for this cost recovery. In 2017, OSMP and other city departments launched a new permitting system called Energov. The system was configured to meet department Commercial and Special Use Permit goals of improving efficiency, reducing program cost and staff time, improving customer service through reduced time to issue permits, minimizing system impacts through education around Leave-No-Trace principles, and enhancing reporting capabilities. Overall, the move from paper forms to Energov reduced the administrative staff time to manage the program from 60-hours per week to 20-hours per week. Revenues and expenses in 2022 are as follows (Wood Lot revenues and expenses captured under “Special Activity Charges” are excluded): Table 6: 2022 Special Activity Permit Revenue and Expenses* *Expenses do not include staff time after permits are issued, including enforcement and compliance costs Facility Rentals OSMP allows for reservation of shelters and facilities to accommodate group gatherings that also foster appreciation and use that sustain the natural values of the land for current and future generations. Fees for facility rentals are not codified but are set by the department. Visitors have the ability to book facilities beyond the current year, so revenues are often collected in one year for events in a future year. For example, a visitor can access the facility rental platform in November 2021 and pay to rent a facility for a date in March 2022. Payment for that rental will be reflected on the Open Space Fund Financial as 2021 revenue. Revenues Revenues in 2020 were significantly impacted by COVID-19. OSMP adjusted group size limits to adhere to state and local guidelines throughout pandemic response, and many community members opted to either cancel or reschedule their group gatherings for future years. Revenues increased in 2021 when the program fully reopened, and that level of collection was maintained in 2022. Like the scenario that led to an increase in revenues for Special Activity Permits, the department saw many of the events from the 2020 closure rescheduled to 2021 and 2022 dates. Additional growth beyond pre-COVID levels can also be attributed to increased interest in use of outdoor shelters and facilities for activities. The 2013-2022 revenues for the programs are as follows: ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 8 Table 7: 2013-2022 Facility Rental Revenues Year Facility Rental Revenue Percent Change 2013 $52,250 N/A 2014 $49,415 -5.43% 2015 $50,613 2.42% 2016 $62,238 22.97% 2017 $62,238 0.00% 2018 $54,171 -12.96% 2019 $96,686 78.48% 2020 $38,890 -59.78% 2021 $141,657 264.25% 2022 $118,337 -16.46% Expenses The Facility Rental Program is recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee structure. Net revenue generated by the program becomes part of the Open Space Fund Balance. As shared in previous updates to OSBT, cost recovery in this program can also be attributed to technology improvements. In 2018, OSMP migrated the Facility Rental program to a software called FareHarbor. Under the previous application, only one community member could use the reservation system at a time, while other community members were kept in an online waiting room. This resulted in a high volume of calls to the front desk requesting manual reservation of facilities to avoid long wait times to access the system. The new system reduced staff time and improved efficiency in the Facility Rental Program. Revenues and expenses in 2022 are as follows: Table 8: 2022 Facility Rental Revenue and Expenses* *Expenses do not include staff time after permits are issued, including enforcement and compliance costs Habitat Conservation Area Off-Trail Permit Program The Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) Off-Trail Permit Program provides a free auto-issued permit to staff and the public to travel off designated trails in HCAs. While the program does not generate revenue for the department, information on permits issued are included in this update. This permit program was developed in response to findings in the 2005 Visitor Master Plan. The goal of establishing HCAs is to minimize impacts on large areas of habitat and naturally functioning ecosystems. To support this goal, the HCA Off-Trail Permit Program seeks to manage access and promote low-impact activities in these established areas. This is only one tool to manage off-trail activities in the department. Rangers monitor access to HCAs as part of regular patrol work, Education & Outreach staff educate the public on use of trails and off-trail permissions, and Recreation & Cultural Stewardship staff monitor visitor activity. ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 9 HCA Off-Trail Permits are most frequently requested by and issued to OSMP staff. Revenues are not collected for the free permit. Expenses are also minimal for the department, as the auto-issued permits require variable levels of monitoring from staff from year to year. The number of HCA Off-Trail Permits issued from 2013-2023 is as follows: Table 9: Habitat Conservation Area Off-Trail Permits Year HCA Off-Trail Permits Issued Staff or Visitors Included in Permits 2013 189 976 2014 290 1394 2015 206 902 2016 185 820 2017 222 1047 2018 180 790 2019 108 475 2020 347 1291 2021 344 1258 2022 304 997 City Attorney’s Office Determination Regarding Fees vs Taxes and TABOR As shared in the October 2021 update, the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) has provided guidance on city process for updating fees. Like staff, CAO recommends that OSMP undertake a holistic public planning process to update program fees, regardless of whether they are codified in the B.R.C. The opinion of the CAO is that the public has an “expectation that the city will engage in a thorough process of community engagement before increasing fees paid by community members for the use of city facilities and programs”. CAO stated that increasing fees beyond cost recovery would be an issue under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). TABOR mandates that taxes be approved by voters in an election. Fees do not require approval from voters. Colorado court decisions describe the difference between a tax and a fee, and the standards that courts use to differentiate between them. Revenue generation for the department beyond cost recovery may be considered a tax, which requires voter approval. In Attachment A, CAO provides additional information and describes the difference between taxes and fees. When any department considers updating fees, CAO advises departments to undertake a fee study to determine the cost of a program so that fees are in line with program costs. Per CAO, these fee studies can be done by the department or by an outside, paid consultant. CAO encourages OSMP to utilize a planning process to ensure adequate research, public engagement, and sign-off on key changes from City Council and the City Manager. If it is not possible to utilize a planning process, CAO recommends the department complete a holistic fee study. Next Steps Staff recommends that adjustments to fee programs be considered as part of a holistic fee and cost recovery study. The 2023 work plan includes a project to develop a scope of work and cost estimates to hire a consultant to project manage a comprehensive study. The project will likely take place in the third quarter of 2023. OSMP staff will update OSBT as the project progresses. Attachments •Attachment A: City Attorney’s Office Memorandum on Fees vs Tax and TABOR ATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 10 MEMORANDUM To: Sandra Llanes From: Todd Conklin and Ava Cusack RE: Taxes vs. Fees Date: June 3, 2021 The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) mandates that taxes be approved by voters in an election. Fees, however, do not require approval from voters. Colorado case law describes the difference between a tax and a fee, and the standards that courts use to differentiate between them. Courts define a tax as a charge that is intended to raise revenues to cover the general costs of government. Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 248–49 (Colo. 2008). A fee is defined as a charge that is not intended to raise revenues to cover the general costs of government, but one that is imposed for the purpose of covering the cost of a specific governmental program. Id. Courts determine whether a financial charge is a fee or a tax by looking to the dominant purpose of the financial charge at the time the enactment calling for its collection was passed. Id. Courts will use several factors to determine the dominant purpose of the financial levy. Tabor Found. v. Colorado Bridge Enter., 2014 COA 106, ¶ 22, 353 P.3d 896, 901. Firstly, Courts will review the language of the statute that enabled the financial charge. Id. If the language of statute states that the primary purpose of the charge is to fund a specific service, then the charge is a fee. Id. If the language of the statute describes that the primary purpose of the charge is to raise revenue for general government spending, then the charge is a tax. Id. Next, courts then look to the primary purpose for which the money is raised, but they do not look to the manner for which the money is spent. Id. At this stage, courts will ascertain whether the charge functions to fund a specific program or to generally fund the government. Id. Finally, courts will determine whether the primary purpose of the charge is to cover the cost of a service provided to those who must pay the charge. Id. For example, the Colorado Supreme Court found that the City of Aspen’s charge on non- reusable grocery bags was not a tax. Colo. Union of Taxpayers Found. v. City of Aspen, 2018 CO 36, 418 P.3d 506, 509. Since the primary purpose of the charge was not to raise revenue but to “defray the reasonable direct and indirect costs of administering the city’s specific regulatory, waste-reduction scheme” and recoup the costs of recycling the bags that shoppers were still permitted to use, it was found to be a fee and not a tax. Id. Additionally, if a charge is to be a fee, the amount charged must reasonably be related to the required cost of the service, but a mathematically exact match between the fee amount and cost is not required, and courts reasonably respect the discretion of the legislature in assessing the appropriate amount. Tabor Found. at 901. Finally, if a fee indirectly or incidentally raises revenue, it does not automatically convert from a fee to a tax. Id. March 8 - ATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 11 In conclusion, if the principal purpose of a charge is to raise revenue for general governmental use, then it is a tax. Colo. Union of Taxpayers Found. at 509. If the charge is imposed as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme and its purpose is to cover reasonable direct and indirect costs of providing a service or regulating an activity, the charge is a fee and not subject to voter approval under TABOR. Id. March 8 - ATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 12 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO Finance Department / Purchasing Division 1136 Alpine P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Telephone: 303-441-3232 Email: mccreeryc@bouldercolorado.gov REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP NO. Open Space & Mountain Parks Comprehensive Fee Review ISSUE DATE: DUE DATE: March 8, 2024 CONTACT: Samantha McQueen 303-906-7391 mcqueens@bouldercolorado.gov ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 13 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO NOTICE OF CALL FOR PROPOSALS – RFP CONSULTING/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OPEN SPACE & MOUNTAIN PARKS COMPREHENSIVE FEE REVIEW Issued: The City of Boulder is seeking proposals from qualified consultants to develop a comprehensive analysis of current fees charged to customers in the Open Space & Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department, including an evaluation of cost recovery in each category of fee and recommendations for fee changes in each category of fee. Solicitation Documents will be issued electronically only. A copy of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may be obtained from the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System at: www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado The City will only accept electronic submissions in response to this RFP. Electronic submissions are required to be considered for an award. Please plan for a maximum file size of 2GB. To submit your RFP online, please visit www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado.The submission deadline is Friday, March 8 at 4:00 p.m. MST. If you experience problems submitting your electronic response, please contact the Bidnet Direct technical support team (800-835-4603) prior to the submission deadline. The 4:00 pm deadline is a hard stop. You must save your submission to the site before the deadline, or you will be locked out and your submission will not be accepted. Proposals shall be prepared at the proposer’s expense and becomes a city record and therefore a public record. The services upon which proposals are submitted shall equal or exceed the specifications outlined in the RFP. Preference is hereby given to labor, materials, supplies, or provisions produced, manufactured or grown in Colorado, quality and price being equal to articles or services offered by competitors outside the State of Colorado. The City is committed to socially responsible procurement and promoting social equity through our contracts. We work to ensure open and fair procurements, competitive and fair pricing, environmentally sustainable solutions, and encourage members of the underserved business community to participate in our competitive solicitations. The lowest responsible and best proposal shall be accepted; provided, however, that the city, acting through its duly authorized representatives, shall have the right to reject any and all proposals and waive any informality or irregularity contained in said proposal. City of Boulder, Colorado A Municipal Corporation ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 14 Section I. General Information A.PURPOSE The City of Boulder (the “City”) is seeking proposals from qualified consultants to develop a comprehensive review of fees charged by the Open Space & Mountain Parks (OSMP) department to external customers. The consultant will determine the cost to provide services that currently charge a fee, determine if the current fees are sufficient for providing associated services, and recommend changes to fees to recover costs. The consultant will collaborate with the City to understand rules, regulations, and code requirements for charging fees and will ultimately provide an analysis of their findings and recommendations for changing fees charged to external customers. B.BACKGROUND OSMP charges fees to customers to provide certain services. Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) mandates that taxes be approved by voters in an election. Fees do not require approval from voters. Colorado court decisions describe the difference between a tax and a fee, and the standards that courts use to differentiate between them. Revenue generation for the department beyond cost recovery may be considered a tax, which requires voter approval. The department charges fees to provide services in the following programs: 1.Voice and Sight Tag Program: The Voice and Sight Tag (Tag) Program was updated in 2014 (changes effective in 2015) via Ordinance 7967 with a unanimous motion from City Council to adopt six department-recommended program enhancements. The Tag Program, first implemented with a “Green Tag” in 2006, underwent a comprehensive review in 2012-13 when City Council identified it as one of several over-arching issues related to sustaining the overall health of OSMP natural resources. 2.Parking Charges: Visitors with vehicles that are not registered in Boulder County must purchase either a daily or annual parking permit in certain areas and trailheads. OSMP parking charges are codified. Additional to deciding to codify the fees, OSBT and Council have made previous motions in 2012 outlining locations where parking fees should be charged. Fees are collected from visitors on Flagstaff Mountain, in Gregory Canyon, and at Doudy Draw, Flatirons Vista, Greenbelt Plateau, Marshall Mesa, South Boulder Creek West, and South Mesa Trailheads. 3.Special Activity Permits: OSMP charges fees to engage in special activities. These permits include: a.Commercial Use Permits: Commercial operators are required to obtain a Commercial Use Permit if they charge a fee for a service that brings people or animals to OSMP lands or facilities. A fee can be a charge, purchase of goods or services, or a required donation for a service or as a condition of participation. Commercial operators include for-profits and nonprofits. b.Woodlot Permits: Wood generated by the City of Boulder’s forest management operations is made available to contract-holding members of the public. 4.Facility Rentals: OSMP allows for reservation of shelters and facilities to accommodate group gatherings that also foster appreciation and use that sustain the natural values of the land for current and future generations. Fees for facility rentals are not codified but are set by the ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 15 department. Visitors have the ability to book facilities beyond the current year, so revenues are often collected in one year for events in a future year. For example, a visitor can access the facility rental platform in November 2021 and pay to rent a facility for a date in March 2022. Section II. Scope 1.Review relevant information to inform project. a.Review existing policy, plans, and studies relevant to fees charged by OSMP, including (but not limited to) the following: i.Boulder Revised Code ii.City of Boulder Sustainability Equity and Resilience Framework iii.Open Space & Mountain Parks Master Plan iv.City ordinances to establish programs and/or fees v.Memos created by OSMP staff to update the Open Space Board of Trustees on revenue collections vi.Current methodology for assessing the cost of running programs vii.Fee collection data for the following OSMP programs: 1.Daily parking permits 2.Annual parking permits 3.Voice & Sight tags 4.Special activity permits 5.Facility rentals 2.Collect data and study existing conditions. a.Compile data to determine the total costs to provide services associated with each fee charged by OSMP. i.Meet with OSMP staff to collect number of hours worked to support services associated with each fee charged by OSMP. 1.Collect salary information from OSMP staff. ii.Meet with OSMP staff to collect non-personnel costs services associated with each fee charged by OSMP. This could include equipment purchases, software fees, or costs for materials. iii.Identify gaps in data and assign responsibility for data collection or alternative evaluation methods. 1.Research and recommend methods for collecting Ranger staff hours to enforce compliance with program rules and regulations. 2.Determine if the funds collected from summonses should be calculated toward cost recovery. b.Identify the total cost of providing each service at the appropriate activity level and in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws, statutes, rules and regulations governing the collection of fees, rates, and charges by public entities. 3.Prepare a report with a comprehensive fee analysis by July 12, 2024, including (but not limited to) the following: a.Determine the necessary and appropriate rate of recovery for all programs by type of fee. b.Determine if the current fees are sufficient for providing associated services. c.Compare service costs with existing recovery levels. This includes identifying and reporting on all current fee and rate levels that are lower or higher than total cost recovery. d.Make recommendations for expense items the department should include in our cost recovery analysis. ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 16 e.Make recommendations regarding changes to fees charged to external customers. The proposal shall include all subcontracted work as needed to complete the above scope by outside consultants. Section III: Administrative Information and Requirements A.SOLICITATION OFFICIAL CONTACT Upon release of this solicitation, all vendor communications should be directed to either the project manager or the Solicitation Coordinator listed on the front page of this Solicitation. Unauthorized contact regarding this solicitation with other city employees may result in disqualification. Any oral communications will be considered unofficial and non-binding on the city. Vendors should rely only on written statements issued by either the Project Manager or the solicitation Coordinator. B.PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE The procurement schedule for this project is as follows. The city reserves the right to adjust this schedule as necessary. The deadline for submitting a proposal is 4:00 p.m. on March 8. C.QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SOLICITATION Vendors who request clarification of the solicitation’s requirements may submit written questions to the Project Manager by 4:00 PM (Mountain Time) on February 28. An email attachment sent to Samantha McQueen at mcqueens@bouldercolorado.gov is preferred. All questions and answers will be posted as an addendum on Rocky Mountain Bidnet. D.RESPONSE PREPARATION GENERAL INFORMATION Vendors must prepare submittals using an electronic version of the forms provided in Section V of this solicitation. This approach will allow all the submittals received to be compared in a consistent manner. E.RESPONSE SUBMISSION Submission Format: Electronic Submissions The city is using only electronic submissions for this solicitation. Please plan for a maximum file size of 2GB. To submit your proposal online, please visit www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado. If you experience problems submitting your electronic response, please contact the Bidnet Direct technical support team (800-835-4603) prior to the submission deadline. Bidnet will hard close the solicitation at 4:00 PM (Mountain Time). Any submittal still in process at 4:00 PM will be shut out. Late submittals will not be accepted, nor will additional time be granted to a specific vendor. All submittals and accompanying documentation will become the property of the city and will not be returned. ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 17 F.EVALUATION PROCEDURES The evaluators will consider how well the vendor's proposal meets the needs of the city as described in the vendor's response to the outlined scope and attached forms. It is important that the responses be clear and complete so that the evaluators can adequately understand all aspects of the submittal. As such, the contract will be awarded to the lowest cost proposal that meets all our base requirements, including: • Vendor’s understanding of the city’s needs and its general approach to providing services in support of the described scope of work. • Qualifications, demonstrated expertise, references, and directly related experience of the proposed project manager and technical staff assigned to the project of vendor. • Demonstrated ability of vendor to perform quality work, control costs, and meet time schedules. • Proposed costs and fees. The city reserves the right to request additional information from any proposing firm. The city may contact and evaluate the firm’s and subcontractor’s references; contact any firm to clarify any response; contact current users of the firm’s services; and seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process. Section IV: Required Proposal Response Forms Consultants should submit a brief (no more than 15 pages, including attachments) proposal that includes the following information. • Cover Letter • Vendor Background and Experience, • Project Understanding, Approach and Deliverables (including what data and information the consultant will need to obtain from the city to facilitate the assessment) • Proposed Schedule and Workplan, including information on all the work tasks proposed to be performed which shall serve as the basis for the Cost and Fee Proposal • Project Staffing, including qualifications of key team members and any subcontractors (including the percentage of overall scope of work the subcontractor would perform) • Vendor organization chart which identifies each member of the firm proposed to be involved with the project • Relevant Qualifications Form 1 (Optional) • Cost and Fee Proposal • Non-Collusion Certificate Form 2 •Acceptance of Terms and Conditions Form 3 ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 18 FORM 1: RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS (Optional) Please list three (3) clients for whom you have, over the past ten (10) years, completed work similar to the scope of work requested. Agency/Customer/Client Name: Government (Y/N): Start Date/End Date: Contract Amount: Reference name: Title: Phone number: Mailing address: Email Address: Service Description: Agency/Customer/Client Name: Government (Y/N): Start Date/End Date: Contract Amount: Reference name: Title: Phone number: Mailing address: Email Address: Service Description: Agency/Customer/Client Name: Government (Y/N): Start Date/End Date: Contract Amount: Reference name: Title: Phone number: Mailing address: Email Address: Service Description: ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 19 FORM 2: NON‐COLLUSION CERTIFICATE NON-COLLUSION CERTIFICATE The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the person, firm, association, partnership- or corporation herein named, has not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in the preparation and submission of a proposal to the City of Boulder for consideration in the award of a contract on the improvement described as follows: CONSULTING/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - OPEN SPACE & MOUNTAIN PARKS COMPREHENSIVE FEE REVIEW ______________________ (Firm Name) By: ______________________ (Authorized Signature) Title ______________________ STATE OF ______________________ ss. COUNTY OF ______________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, this ______ day of __________________, 20___, by __________________, as ______________. ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 20 FORM 3: ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS Please indicate exceptions to the RFP itself in this form. Proposals which take exception to the specifications, terms, or conditions of this RFP or offer substitutions shall explicitly state the exception(s), reasons(s) therefore, and language substitute(s) (if any) in this section of the proposal response. Failure to take exception(s) shall mean that the proposer accepts the conditions, terms, and specifications of the RFP. Submitters that take exceptions to any terms and conditions or offer language substitutions shall explicitly state the exception(s), reasons(s) therefore, and language substitute(s) (if any) in this section of the proposal response. Failure to take exception(s) shall mean that the proposer accepts the terms and conditions as contained in this RFP. Note that such exceptions may render the proposal nonresponsive and cause the proposal to be rejected. If your firm takes no exception to the specifications, terms, and conditions of this RFP, please indicate so. The City of Boulder asks that vendors do not submit their own contract. Signed, By: ___________________________ Title: __________________________ Date: __________________________ For: __________________________ ATTACHMENT B - 2.14.24 Fee Review Agenda Item 5A - Page 21 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director, Resource Stewardship Andy Pelster, Agriculture and Water Stewardship Sr. Manager Victoria Poulton, Prairie Dog Conservation and Management Ecologist DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: 2023 Annual Prairie Dog Update and 2024 Management Plans ________________________________________________________________________ Background: Staff held a virtual public meeting on Dec. 11, 2023, to provide updates to the community on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) 2023 prairie dog management actions including modifications to the program reducing conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated agriculture, implementation of the prairie dog working group recommendations, prairie dog population status on OSMP, prairie dog relocations and removals, restoration and agricultural sustainability. This meeting was also an opportunity for staff to share and present plans for 2024. Prior to the virtual meeting, presentations on each of these topics were released for public viewing as videos (prairie dog meeting materials). At the meeting, OSMP staff gave summaries and updates for the online presentations, answered many of the questions that were submitted by the community during the meeting, and informed participants how they can continue to offer comments or questions after the meeting. Annual Meeting Summary Prior to the annual meeting, staff sent 900 postcards to property owners with property adjacent to OSMP land with prairie dogs in addition to the typical methods of advertising the meeting (prairie dog stakeholder list, press release, webpage, Field Notes/Natural Selections email). The postcards announced the public meeting and gave information on joining the stakeholder email list and where to find up-to-date information online. The online meeting had 37 attendees from the community as well as two Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) members and staff. This number is slightly higher than previous years when postcards were not sent out – typical attendance in past years has ranged from approximately 22 to 30 community members. In addition, community members had the option of watching the meeting online and accessing the individual presentations recorded prior to the meeting. Overall, the annual meeting presentation recording has been viewed 25 times, and each of the individual pre-recorded presentations has been viewed between 15- 33 times. The most views were for the presentation related to prairie dog removals and the lowest number of views was for the presentation on irrigated agricultural land restoration. Following the meeting for one week, OSMP staff continued to collect comments and questions from the community on 2023 management of prairie dogs and 2024 management plans. All items related to the meeting, and questions received and answered can be viewed at: prairie dog meeting materials and question and answers are also included in Attachment A. Comments are summarized later in this memo and included in full in Attachment B. Agenda Item 5B Page 1 Accomplishments in 2023 Prairie dog management and agricultural land restoration accomplishments in 2023 included: •Evaluation of and improvements to the program to decrease conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated agriculture including discussions with the community, OSBT, City Council. o OSBT recommendation to implement most staff recommended changes. o City Council approval to expand removal program system-wide on irrigable agricultural lands designated as transition and removal areas. o City Council approval to expand burrow disturbance allowance for agricultural activities to 6 inches (12 inches with notification) system-wide on irrigable agricultural lands designated as transition and removal areas. •Distribution of two doses of sylvatic plague vaccine in the Southern Grasslands. •Relocation of 484 prairie dogs from approximately 27 acres of the Axelson property to the Pueblo Chemical Depot. •Removal using lethal control of approximately 98 acres of prairie dog colonies from irrigated agricultural properties including Lore, Ellison, Axelson, Brewbaker and Stratton •Approximately 17,310 feet of prairie dog exclusion barrier constructed at relocation and removal sites. •Use of passive relocation techniques by staff and contractors for small (< 1 acre) conflict areas along trail projects and where prairie dog barriers were installed. •Agricultural and land restoration work on over 450 acres of prairie dog relocation and removal sites from 2018-2023 •Support for a collaborative learning project investigating ways to grow crops and graze livestock on an OSMP parcel that is inhabited by prairie dogs. •Continued work on updating prairie dog habitat suitability modeling on OSMP properties. •Work with the City Attorney’s Office to draft a framework for a barrier cost share program as recommended by the Prairie Dog Working Group that is consistent with City Council direction and city codes and policies. •Interacting with agencies, researchers, tenants, neighbors and the community to communicate about prairie dog management, hear concerns and provide recommendations or support for conflict minimization. In addition, staff completed annual system-wide prairie dog colony mapping that has taken place since 1996. Prairie dog acres decreased 9.8% from 2022 to 2023, and the number of irrigated agricultural acres in conflict with prairie dogs in the northern project area is now 451, down from 967 acres in 2020. The Southern Grasslands maintained 10.4% occupancy, which is within the occupancy goals set in the Grassland Management Plan (10-26% occupancy). The Grassland Management Plan states that relocations to Grassland Preserves will not occur when occupancy is 10% or higher. As a result, prairie dogs captured for relocation in 2023 were not taken to the Southern Grasslands, but rather to the Pueblo Chemical Depot – a site where prairie dog populations were being increased to support Agenda Item 5B Page 2 reintroduction of Black-footed Ferrets (which occurred in late 2023). Further details are available in the recorded presentations about prairie dog management, population monitoring, prairie dog removal, and agricultural land restoration referenced above. Implementation Plans for 2024: Staff evaluated irrigated agricultural fields across the OSMP system to determine the highest priorities for management in 2024. The criteria to establish priority as presented in the council-approved preferred alternative in 2020 are: •areas designated as removal and transition areas •areas where the likelihood of effective removal, exclusion, and restoration are most likely to be successful •areas leased by tenants that are most affected by prairie dog occupation •areas that are currently unleased but can be restored to production •areas where successful management will increase OSMP lease revenue •areas where removal will have least impact to associated species •areas with the highest degree of neighbor conflict •areas that provide some degree of relief to the greatest number of tenants In addition, some areas were included due to very small, recently established colonies where removal of prairie dogs now can reduce the likelihood of further impact to the irrigated field and need for much larger scale removal in the future. Plans for 2024 Implementation presented to the community in December 2023 included the following: •Continued implementation of priority Prairie Dog Working Group recommendations. o Continued work on the prairie dog habitat suitability model to include social suitability factors. o Initial pilot year of a cost-sharing program with neighbors for prairie dog barriers. o distribution of sylvatic plague vaccine at sites in the Southern Grassland Preserve and at planned take sites for relocation as directed in the City’s Plague Management Plan. o begin discussions and evaluation of the feasibility of future black-footed ferret reintroduction on city land. •Removal by relocation of approximately 18 acres of prairie dogs from the western field at Teller South (irrigated agriculture) if relocation receiving sites are identified outside the OSMP land system (e.g. Pueblo Chemical Depot). If suitable receiving sites cannot be identified, these colonies will be removed using lethal control. •Hiring and training of a new prairie dog management program manager and seasonal staff member and purchase of PERC equipment for in-house removal of prairie dogs. •Removal by lethal control of approximately 134 acres of prairie dogs from properties likely to include Autrey, Hartnagle, Warner, Straty Cline, Deluca, Teller Farms North, Teller Farms Middle, Anderson, Steele North, and Boulder Valley Ranch properties (irrigated agricultural land only). Specifics of removal and other Agenda Item 5B Page 3 management on each property will be determined early in 2024 based on field assessments and current conditions. •Installation of barriers where necessary to prevent recolonization of properties following removal. •Maintenance and improvement of irrigation infrastructure on several properties including Boulder Valley Ranch, Steele, Autrey, Oasis, Bennett, Belgrove, Johnson South, and Stratton. •Continuation of lease and work with Shared Learning Collaborative for agricultural management on the Minnetrista II property in the presence of prairie dogs. •Restoration of agricultural properties after removal to encourage enhanced agricultural sustainability and soil health. •Annual fall mapping of prairie dog occupation across OSMP properties. During and after the meeting, questions were submitted by the community. Several questions were answered verbally during the meeting, but all questions received a written response, included in Attachment A and posted on the meeting webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/events/osmp-prairie-dog-annual-meeting In addition to collecting comments and questions at the Dec. 11, 2023, meeting, staff received additional feedback and suggestions via email through Dec. 18, 2023, for implementation of prairie dog management in 2024. All comments received are included in Attachment B. Staff evaluated all comments received and looked for opportunities to address feedback in 2024 plans. Feedback received did not include suggestions related to specifics of 2024 plans, so staff remain confident in our plans for 2024 as presented at the public meeting. Some common themes from the comments include: •Concerns over prairie dog impacts to OSMP land, especially at the Brewbaker and Stratton Property (weeds, lack of agricultural production, etc.). •Concerns over the degree to which nesting eagles are influencing the management plans on Brewbaker and Stratton. •Concern over the use of lethal control in prairie dog management on OSMP. •Comments from neighboring property owners with concerns about prairie dogs moving from OSMP land onto their private property and the resulting impacts. •Comments related to the benefit of delta dust in managing plague in prairie dogs. •Support for continued implementation of the Prairie Dog Working Group recommendations. •Requests for Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan Update (to reduce lethal control and increase implementation of Prairie dog working group recommendations). Next Steps: Following presentation to the board at the Feb. 14, 2024, meeting, staff will prepare an information item for City Council detailing the 2024 Implementation Plans. Staff will finalize plans for removals and contract for installation of barriers and relocation in the spring. Lethal control will begin on planned sites outside of the March 1 – May 30 prairie dog pupping season once barriers are completed and staff are hired and PERC equipment purchased. Exact timing will be determined in collaboration with lessees on the property. Agenda Item 5B Page 4 Relocation, if possible, will begin later in the summer. Restoration, agricultural infrastructure improvements and soil health treatments on properties will occur this year for properties where prairie dogs were removed in 2023 and on the properties not fully restored from previous years’ control efforts. It is likely there will be some follow-up prairie dog removal required on properties where prairie dogs were removed in 2020-2023. Later in 2024, staff will once again hold an update meeting to provide the community with information on progress in 2024 as well as preliminary plans for 2025. The format for this meeting will be evaluated by staff and will consider the desire by some community members for an in-person option. Attachments: •Attachment A – 2023 Annual Prairie Dog Meeting Questions and Answers •Attachment B – Community Comments on OSMP Prairie Dog Management 2023 Agenda Item 5B Page 5 Attachment A. 2023 Annual Prairie Dog Meeting Questions and Answers Co-existence 1. Is Viability of agriculture part of the goals of your coexistence strategy? How are you assessing agricultural viability? Answer: The Shared Learning Collaborative project on the Minnestrista II and Canino leasehold is intended to address the question of co-existence. The group is tracking time and money going into the project; field productivity for the agricultural tenant; soil health and vegetation community responses to management actions; and health condition scoring of livestock on the property. However, the Minnetrista II and Canino properties are not currently in a state where agriculture is viable, even if prairie dogs were removed. As such, the first years of the collaborative’s activities are more geared to trialing various methods and livestock utilization to rehabilitate the property in the presence of prairie dogs. These trials will ultimately contribute to a better understanding of what agricultural practices and site conditions are possible or required for co-existence. If trials perform well, it may be possible in the future to define standards for viability that can be measured as part of this experiment. 2. What exactly happens to the P.Dogs when you apply your techniques on the land? Answer: Prairie dog populations expand and contract over time based in various environmental conditions. Wet years that result in abundant vegetation growth naturally reduce prairie dog colony size on OSMP land. We are working to mimick this natural process by seeding species that rapidly grow tall and dense in the summer on irrigated fields that are occupied by prairie dogs. Colonies shrink as the abundant vegetative growth is not favorable for prairie dogs which results in colony contraction through an increase in animal density in a smaller area; dispersal, if surrounding habitat is more favorable; increased competition between family groups; and likely increased predation as visibility for spotting predators is reduced through the taller and more dense vegetation. Irrigated Ag Land Removals 3. Confirming that the 2023 evaluation of the pdog removal on irrigated ag lands applies ONLY to irrigated ag lands? Answer: Implementation of the project and expansion system-wide as a result of the 2023 program evaluation is limited to irrigable agricultural properties. 4. It was mentioned that post 2023 evaluation, the scales of removal would be the same. Does this mean a no net gain or loss of removals will be a guiding factor in management? ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 6 Answer: The annual removal goals remain the same: 100-200 acres removed via lethal control, and up to 40 acres removed via relocation. Cumulative removal is dependent upon how much irrigable land is occupied by prairie dogs over time. 5. Why did staff want to expand the project area beyond the originally designated project area? Answer: The two main factors were that there are higher quality irrigated land / better agricultural opportunities at some sites outside the project area. A second factor is that some small, isolated colonies outside the project area can be more cost effectively controlled before they grow and while impact to the irrigated field is limited, leading to less removal over the long- term. 6. Since lethal control will be managed in house by OSMP, when will lethal control begin on the irrigated agricultural fields? Answer: Lethal control will not take place between March 1 and May 31 during the prairie dogs pupping and dependent young season. Control activities can happen any time outside of this date range if weather and field conditions are appropriate. It is possible that hiring and training staff in 2024 may delay lethal control activities until after June 1. 7.Doesn’t it make sense to start early in June to make sure that all parcels are managed in a timely manner? Answer: It generally does make sense to start lethal control activities as early in the year as possible. With in-house capacity for lethal control, contractor availability will no longer be a limiting factor on the timing of removal. However, other considerations also contribute to decisions around timing of removal- weather can impact the appropriate timing of lethal control, and our practice is to have barriers in place prior to lethal control activities and barrier construction takes a significant amount of time in some cases. There may also be some instances where it is more conducive for the agricultural tenant for us to wait until later in the year to implement control activities depending on how densely the agricultural field is occupied. 8.Will regeneration/restoration of those parcels begin as soon as the prairie dogs are removed? Answer: This will vary from property to property. Infrastructure work and some rehabilitation efforts can occur prior to the removal of prairie dogs, however most of the rehabilitation work does have to wait until prairie dogs are removed. When prairie dogs are not removed until late in the fall or early winter, it is typical that rehabilitation work is delayed for between three to nine months following removal. Rehabilitation on sites where prairie dog removal occurs early in the summer and early fall will allow rehabilitation work to start immediately following removal. 9.What, if any removal action is planned for Boulder Valley Ranch? If it is lethal control, how is that management permitted in the Grassland Plan and policy on lands designated as Grassland Preserve? ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 7 Answer: Removal by lethal control is planned on approximately 74 acres of irrigated hay fields and irrigated pastures in the Boulder Valley Ranch area. This area is within the northern grassland preserve. The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan allows for prairie dog removal from grassland preserves to maintain existing irrigation facilities and irrigated fields and when prairie dog occupation exceeds 26% and is impacting vegetation conditions. In addition, the 2020 City Council direction for prairie dog removal in irrigated agricultural fields included all irrigated agricultural fields in the Northern project area, regardless of management designation. 10. Can you please confirm that removals are only planned for lands designated irrigated, agricultural lands? Answer: Removals are planned only for colonies on irrigated agricultural parcels, though in some cases, portions of colonies may stretch outside of the irrigated portion of a property. In these cases, whether the entire colony is removed, or only the irrigated portion will depend on the extent of occupation on and off irrigated portions of the property, and the potential for successful management of the property with portions of the colony remaining after removal. Budget/Expenditures 11. How are you tracking costs of coexistence? What costs are you including in your costs of coexistence? Answer: See the answer to question 1. Although rehabilitation in the presence of prairie dogs is providing insight into potential co-existence strategies, at this point, this work is geared toward stabilizing and improving agricultural infrastructure, soil health, and vegetation communities until actions more directly related to prairie dogs are undertaken. As a result, these actions are embedded in a full, robust program of agricultural property management and restoration that is funded from a variety of budget areas. Budget numbers presented in annual summaries include capital and operating funds, but not staff time. Other than tracking time spent managing noxious weeds, we do not currently have a system in place to specifically track crew work time on specific project sites in relation to prairie dog co-existence. 12. What is the total annual budget for all prairie dog management activities and land restoration actions? It appears that the budget requirements for all of the management and restoration actions estimated for 2024 are close to $1,000,000. Is that an accurate estimate? Answer: There is a total of $890,000 of OSMPs 2024 budget allocated to prairie dog conservation and agricultural land restoration activities. This is comprised of $690,000 in the 2024 capital budget allocated for prairie dog conservation and management and irrigated agricultural land restoration and an additional $200,000 in operating funding to support prairie dog working group initiatives and prairie dog conservation. These figures do not include staff time and associated personnel budgets. ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 8 Regulations 13. Are there any Colorado state level laws or initiatives that are addressing this issue on a State level? Answer: State law affects prairie dog relocations in that a permit must be issued by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to move prairie dogs from one land parcel to another. Furthermore, if prairie dogs are to be relocated to another county, the County Commissioners of the receiving county must approve the relocation. Black-tailed prairie dogs, which are the species that occurs in the Front Range, have no regulatory protection at the state level, aside from a seasonal shooting closure on public lands during spring and early summer to protect females and pups during the breeding season. CPW does recognize that prairie dogs are an integral component of native prairie ecosystems and are crucial for black-footed ferret recovery, and CPW staff and researchers are very involved in plague and habitat management and population monitoring for prairie dogs. In addition, chemical methods of prairie dog lethal control are regulated by the State’s pesticide application laws. 14.Before a lethal removal is executed by the city, do they have to state the reasons for the lethal control? Answer: Lethal control that is done by the City of Boulder must be permitted through the Planning and Development Services Department under the regulations set forth in the City’s wildlife protection ordinance. The permitting process does require that the reason for lethal control be stated. Lethal removal of prairie dogs on irrigated agricultural lands in the OSMP system was granted a Special Permit since it is considered a public improvement project that was approved by City Council. Neighbors 15. Of the 900 OSMP adjacent neighbors, how many have been helped with reducing conflict and how many remain outstanding? Answer: We estimate that approximately 95 neighbors adjacent to OSMP have had prairie dog conflicts reduced as a result of removal projects since 2020. In addition, staff have supported dozens of additional neighbors through the past several years through one-on-one conversations discussing options available to the landowner and best ways to approach the conflict. We should note that the 900 neighbors contacted about the annual meeting were identified through a spatial search for properties within 50 feet of an OSMP property with prairie dog occupation. This approach to identify neighbors to receive prairie dog information was designed to capture all landowners that had the potential to experience prairie dog conflict related to prairie dogs on ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 9 OSMP, not those landowners actually experiencing conflict, which is likely much lower than this number. 16. I am a neighbor and have never heard of the neighbor communication program. How do I find out about this? Answer: Staff sent out information postcards to 900 neighbors in 2023 with the goal of providing neighbors who might not be aware of these programs the information necessary to understand the prairie dog management program on OSMP and how to get in touch with staff for more specific conversations about their circumstances. This information was detailed in online presentations and at the 2023 public meeting (both of which can be found on the OSMP Prairie Dog Conservation and Management page). Neighbors may contact OSMP staf and receive updates on prairie dog management through a variety of ways: •Inquire Boulder- available on City of Boulder webpage- receives prompt response from appropriate staff •By phone- 303-441-3440 (voicemail, will be sent to appropriate staff) •Open comment at Board of Trustees meetings (typically second Wed of month), City Council Meetings (Thursday evenings), Information on board and city council meetings is available at bouldercolorado.gov •Attend annual community prairie dog meeting- ask questions, provide feedback •Join prairie dog stakeholder email list- https://bit.ly/prairie-dog-updates 17. FYI, when I used Inquire Boulder it literally took months before someone from OSMP got back to me. The message I received from OSMP was basically we, as neighbors, are on our own. OSMP takes no responsibility for any prairie dog issues on neighboring properties. Is this still true? Answer: The expectations of staff include prompt responses to requests that come in through Inquire Boulder (usually only a few days depending on staff availability and other work). Although we do not know what the specific circumstances of your inquiry were that led to the lengthy wait for a response, in some cases, inquiries are incorrectly assigned to the wrong department or staff member, and may take a while to make their way to the appropriate person. Based on your characterization of the response you received, it does not appear to include the level of detail or information that should be included in responses from OSMP prairie dog staff. In general, prairie dogs are native wildlife that occur naturally on the landscape. OSMP does not typically attempt to control the movement of wildlife across the landscape, including prairie dogs, except in cases where we build barriers to keep them out of removal/restoration areas as directed by City Council. We are happy to discuss options with neighbors who want to prevent prairie dogs from coming on their property or remove existing prairie dogs. We also plan to pilot a cost-sharing program in 2024 for neighbors who want to build prairie dog barriers to reduce the likelihood of prairie dogs moving into their property (see related questions below). Associated Species ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 10 18.I believe restoration of natural ecosystems balance should be a priority to the extent possible. With that in mind wouldn't coyotes be considered a natural predator to PDs? What is OSMP view of coyotes/natural predation and Is CPW receptive to repealing the open year-round season on trapping/killing coyotes to support natural predation? Answer: Prairie dogs on the OSMP system are prey to many wildlife including coyotes, badgers, bobcats, hawks, eagles, and owls. Part of OSMPs goals in preservation of natural lands in Boulder County is supporting native species and ecosystems, including natural predator-prey dynamics. Hunting and trapping is prohibited on all City of Boulder properties. We do not have control over CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) policies regarding coyotes outside of OSMP lands and elsewhere in Colorado- those policies are set by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Parks and Wildlife Commission. 19. Do burrowing owls use unoccupied or abandoned prairie dog burrows for nesting? How do burrowing owls determine prairie dog burrow occupancy? Answer: Burrowing owls use unoccupied prairie dog burrows. They probably figure out occupancy easily if they try to enter a burrow with a busy prairie dog family, as its unlikely that prairie dogs would want to share their immediate space with burrowing owls. Burrowing owls often spend time in various parts of a colony before settling on what burrows they will use as nest burrows. This time likely gives them time to learn about prairie dog activity on the colony, and find appropriate, unoccupied burrows. Barrier Cost Share Program 20.Will the cost share program share the maintenance of the barriers? Answer: Barrier maintenance will be the responsibility of the private land-owner since the barrier will belong to them- the cost-share program is intended to offset some of the cost to the landowner of installing their own barrier. 21. Would you please post the location/link that describes the chicken-wire standards mentioned by Tori during the discussion of the barrier-cost-share program. Answer: These standards will be available when the program gets closer to going live. 22.Does cost of barrier in cost sharing program include the materials and labor to install the barrier or just the materials? Answer: The barrier cost-sharing program will provide 50% of the barrier cost (up to a to-be determined maximum) based on the standard, per-foot cost to build chicken wire barrier, including materials and labor for the number of linear feet proposed by the applicant. ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 11 23. Does reimbursement cost of barrier in the proposed cost sharing program include both the materials and labor to install the barrier or just the materials? Answer: See above. Habitat Suitability Model 24.What are the so-called “social components” incorporated into the prairie dog habitat suitability model? Answer: We are still working on defining these, but they likely will include things like irrigated agricultural, structures, irrigation infrastructure, stock corrals, parking lots, and trails, roads, etc. We also are still working on how best to incorporate the adjacency of private neighbors as a factor. 25.We are happy to share the social factors we incorporated into our Homes on the Range modeling Answer: Thank you! We are aware of the Homes on the Range project and have been reading the reports to see how social factors used in this model might translate to our smaller-scale modeling project. Population/monitoring 26. Can you please share the number of colonies after the 2023 monitoring occurs? I.e.: a 9.8% decrease and decrease in number of colonies was reported in 2023 for 2022; when will the 2023 numbers be complete and can you please share them with us when they are attained? Answer: There were 111 active colonies identified during 2023 mapping which was completed during September to early October. This was a decrease from 131 colonies identified during 2022 mapping. The 9.8% decrease was for total active acres of prairie dogs, not colonies. OSMP did not perform removal or relocation on this number of colonies, so some of this reduction was due to other factors- for example, some 2022 colonies were small satellite colonies that with the robust vegetation growth in 2023 may have re-joined adjacent colonies, or two colonies grew together, forming one larger colony from two smaller ones. 27. So, after the 2023 colonies that were managed or removed are recorded, there could tentatively be less than 111 colonies (down from the 131)? Answer: In most cases, mapping occurs after removal. In other cases, removal occurs on only a portion of a colony (where it overlaps with irrigated agriculture), so although there may be a slight reduction in the overall number of colonies after the fall mapping effort, this would be minimal. ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 12 28.What are the prairie dog occupied acres vs. desired prairie dog occupied acres (in acres and percentage occupied) on each of the three grassland preserves for 2023? Answer: Grassland Preserve Total Grassland Preserve Acres Desired Prairie Dog Occupied Acres (10- 26%) 2023 Occupied Acres % Occupied Southern 4,127 412-1,073 428 10 Northern 3,187 318-829 2,062 65 Eastern 728 73-189 419 58 Grassland Plan 29.What is considered Multiple Objective Areas? Answer: Multiple Objective Areas have preservation of prairie dogs and their associate community as one of several management goals, and prairie dogs will not conflict with other management goals, land uses, or restoration efforts, or the colony provides habitat for a sensitive associated species (e.g nesting burrowing owl) regardless of conflict. They are not used as receiving sites for relocated prairie dogs. (See Page 106 of the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp-plans-and-reports) Barriers 30. A brand new prairie dog fence (approximately 200 meters long) was just installed in Axelson Open Space running north-south from the Axelson boundary fence near 49th street. I contacted OSMP for information on this installation and could not find anyone who knew about it. If you all have any information on it, we would appreciate it. Answer: Please reach out to staff through Inquire Boulder on the City of Boulder webpage or call 303-441-3440 and ask specifically for Andy Pelster, and he will get in touch with you to discuss more specifics. Management Planning 31. what criteria do you use when determining when to use lethal control vs bordering and other methods? Answer: Lethal control is used as a removal method only on irrigated agricultural lands. We decide whether to use lethal control or relocation based on a number of factors including size of ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 13 the property, ability to access and use traps without interference from other land uses, and the ability to safely use Deltadust insecticide prior to trapping (which is required by the state permit). We also factor in how we can use barriers (where and what kind of barrier materials) to prevent recolonization after prairie dog removal, if barriers might have negative impacts for other wildlife, vegetation, or weeds, and how restoration of irrigation and soil will work on the property. In most cases, removal through lethal control or relocation is accompanied by barrier installation to minimize the potential for prairie dogs to recolonize the property after removal. Weed Management 32. is curly dock on your weed control list? It is absolutely taking off across the landscape throughout city of boulder and boulder county. Answer: Due to state and county regulations and resources, capacity available for weed management, OSMP staff focus weed management efforts primarily on State prioritized noxious weeds. As curly dock is not a state identified noxious weed, we do not directly manage the species unless it is interfering with the success of rehabilitation activities or incidentally as we are managing noxious weeds such as common teasel and Canada thistle. Rehabilitation occurring on these properties is the best method for ultimately reducing the occurrence of curly dock on OSMP properties as it thrives in denuded and compacted moist soil with minimal competition from other plant species. 33. I don't see cheat grass on your lists and the County is going to great lengths to address this weed chemically with a controversial herbicide. Do we not have cheat grass on City properties? Answer: There is cheatgrass on OSMP, however, it is not currently a concern on the irrigated agricultural properties we are rehabilitating following the removal of prairie dogs. Ultimately, we suspect cheatgrass will not be able to compete with the diverse and robust plant community supported by irrigation water that is being re-introduced to these properties during the rehabilitation process. Other topics 34.Are these plans based on the premise of maintaining a static population number of prairie dogs within City of Boulder Open Space? If not, how might we best account for the species’ exponential annual growth? Answer: The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan (2010; see Appx D viewable at https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp-plans-and-reports) describes management targets for prairie dogs. Three indicators address prairie dog occupancy on the OSMP system: Percent of prairie dog occupied acres in Grassland Preserves, Multiple Objective Areas, or Prairie Dog Conservation Areas, (with a Very Good Ranking if >85% of occupied acres occures in these management designations, not transition or removal areas); Grassland Preserve occupancy ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 14 between 10% and 26%; and total acres of active prairie dog colonies on the OSMP system (with a Good ranking for 800-3,137 acres). OSMP does not have a management goal to maintain static population numbers of prairie dogs due to the challenges presented by natural cycles beyond our control. Prairie dog populations do not increase exponentially; prairie dog reproduction is density-dependent, meaning reproduction slows down when populations are dense, and populations react to conditions including food availability, vegetation growth, harsh winter conditions, etc. In fact, occupied acres on OSMP decreased between 2022 and 2023 by 9.8% due to on-going removal efforts as well as shrinking of some colonies likely due to high vegetation growth during the wet spring and early summer. 35. How about birth control instead of lethal management? Answer: We remain interested in birth control to manage prairie dog populations; however, the current state of the technology requires that individual prairie dogs be captured and injected with contraceptive. It would be prohibitively time consuming and expensive to trap and inject enough prairie dogs to influence population dynamics on the scale of OSMP prairie dog colonies and given the relatively short life span of prairie dogs (typically less than five years in the wild), it would have to be repeated regularly. Researchers are interested in oral contraceptives for prairie dogs, but the research and approval process is in early stages and crucial evaluations are still needed, including investigating the potential for non-target species to be exposed to and impacted by the contraceptive, creating potential ecosystem-wide issues. 36. You mentioned colonies, are their names for same, if so I live near north 47th street can you tell me their name? Answer: We distinguish prairie dogs by unique names and identification numbers. Names often correspond to the name of the property where the colony is located. The best way to see those identifiers is by accessing the City of Boulder Open Data Portal (https://open- data.bouldercolorado.gov/) where we have prairie dog colony maps resulting from each year of mapping and click on a specific colony- a pop up will appear with colony information, including the name OSMP uses to identify it. 37.what is the definition of “infestation” and “infected” and how does it relate to Prairie Dog original habitat parameters? (If the area of infestation is within original prairie dog habitat how is it considered an “infestation?) Answer: These are not terms used at OSMP to describe prairie dog populations as they are not meaningful in a biological or management way since prairie dogs are a native species. Typically, we describe properties with prairie dogs as “occupied” and we might describe a colony as densely occupied or not very densely occupied. Since prairie dogs are colonial and social, they group together on the landscape, and we don’t really see “sparsely” occupied colonies. The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan recognizes that prairie dogs are a native grassland species and play an important role in this ecosystem. OSMP strives to protect robust prairie dog ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 15 populations in native prairie areas where they can exist in mostly intact, functioning grassland ecosystems. Because OSMP owns and manages many lands historically converted to agriculture from native prairie, with ongoing human use, our charter purposes recognize the importance of conserving both native species and ecosystems as well as the agricultural heritage of the Boulder Valley. When prairie dogs occupy irrigated lands where they impact agricultural activities, we consider these prairie dogs in conflict with the desired land use, and we make decisions about how to manage them due to that conflict in the context of property specific, and system-wide management goals. ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 5B Page 16 Attachment B. Community Comments on OSMP Prairie Dog Management 2023 1. I understand the intended purpose of barriers but one of the unintended consequences of, for instance, the solid metal barrier on Axelson is that prairie dogs can no longer travel east and that will push prairie dogs to the north and west where many private landowners - who do not want prairie dogs - are neighbors of OSMP. This barrier could be seen as a direct cause of increased prairie dogs on private lands. Has OSMP in effect created a new conflict? OSMP has fenced itself from itself but in turn may be creating more problems for their neighbors. What will OSMP do to help those landowners and be a good neighbor? A cost share does not seem sufficient. 2.I am not a fan of the virtual meeting. It is very sterile, unfriendly, selective and completely controlled by OSMP. I feel very much that OSMP is talking at us, not talking with us. 3. We back up to the open space that is west of 95th across from Phillips Road and borders the White Rocks Trail. There is a huge prairie dog settlement there. The trail itself is being impacted with the prairie dog holes and is difficult for anyone to use that trail. Connecting to the trail is a bridal path that goes around our subdivision. That is part of our property. We currently have 13 prairie dog holes on the bridal path and 10 in our yard. We first spent several hundreds of dollars with Critter Control only to have the prairie dogs return within a week. In addition, we spent almost $2K 18 months ago putting up a chicken wire fence that was 3.5 feet high and went out into the bridal path. Spikes were put in the ground to keep the chicken wire down. I personally observed the prairie dogs climbing the fence both in and out of our yard. If there is any consideration to update the White Rocks Trail, there must be something done about the prairie dogs first. My question is what is being done with this prairie dog population as we are directly impacted by their presence. This issue is definitely going to affect our property value if and when we need to move. We hope to hear a response from you concerning our personal issues with the prairie dogs. 4.Front Range Eagle Studies (FRNBES) is a 5013c research organization that studies raptors in the northern Colorado Front Range. Since 2015, our studies have focused on raptor nest sites and critical habitat for both territorial and migratory raptors, much of which coincides with City of Boulder Open Space (OS) land. From that background, we would like to share our comments on the current City of Boulder Prairie Dog management on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) lands. While we understand the concerns of agricultural tenants and private landowners and conflicts with prairie dogs, we propose that the COB adopt a management practice that carefully considers key ATTACHMENT B Agenda Item 5B Page 17 nesting and migratory raptor habitat—on all OS lands, irrigable agricultural lands included—and carefully establish restricted areas with scientifically defensible distances where prairie dogs will be preserved. We would also like to remind the COB of Section 176 on “open space purposes-open space land” that citizens voted upon and approved in 1986. In OSMPs current priorities to satisfy agricultural tenants and private landowners, some of the foundational purposes of open space land with respect to native species, species of special concern, and wildlife habitat are not being upheld under the current prairie dog management plan. Subsection (A) under Section 176 requires that COB open space be preserved and maintained for the “preservation of …native species” and subsection (B) requires the “preservation of…wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems”. Based on these fundamental purposes to protect native species and wildlife habitat, all OSMP lands need to be reevaluated to identify the most critical nesting and migratory raptor habitat, which can thus ensure that raptors in these areas can be sustained by the protection of their most important prey source—prairie dogs. In contrast, a mostly blanket management plan has been recently adopted by the COB and is now imposed on all irrigable agricultural open space land. The science-based requirements for preservation of prairie dogs to protect nesting raptors and some of the most utilized raptor habitat is not being adequately considered in the COBs current prairie dog management plans. The Brewbaker property serves as a key example of how open space purposes under Section 176 are no longer being upheld by the COB, and why a new process needs to be incorporated into the management strategy. The Brewbaker open space fee property is split between the City of Boulder and Boulder County. We have been informed in written communication from Boulder OSMP managers that prairie dogs are being removed on the Brewbaker property by both the COB and Boulder County. Yet, this is one of perhaps only two tree nesting golden eagle sites in the northern Front Range. Currently, OSMP is removing prairie dogs at ¼ mile or greater from the nest, whereas Boulder County plans to remove all prairie dogs on their side of the property, regardless of distance from the nest. Both OSMPs and Boulder County’s prairie dog management strategies at Brewbaker are woefully insufficient to protect the well-being of the resident nesting golden eagles. While OSMP states that it is trying to strike a balance to meet the goals of the prairie dog management plan and conserve golden eagles, the nesting golden eagles are the definitive loser in that unevenly weighted decision making. In a written 2022 communication to Front Range Eagles Studies, one the leading experts on golden eagles from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Robert Murphy, stated that from their extensive studies (Murphy et al 2023; Murphy et al, 2017) the protection and health of nesting of golden eagles is contingent upon protecting prairie dog colonies within one mile of nests. Studies by Bove and others 2023 (an 87-nest study on bald eagles in the northern Front Range; accepted by Western Birds Journal) provide data that demonstrates ATTACHMENT B Agenda Item 5B Page 18 that up to 53 percent of prey for nesting bald eagles is obtained within ½ to 1 mile from nests, not < ¼ mile from nests. OSMPs “balance” of protecting prairie dogs less than ¼ mile from the Brewbaker golden eagle nest eliminates an important prey source in this key hunting and foraging area— colonies at distances from ½ to 1 mile from nests. Instead, OSMP is imposing a rather meaningless protection limit of ¼ mile, which is historically based on buffer guidelines aimed mostly at protecting eggs and young at eagle nests from disturbance (Bove et al. 2023; CPW raptor guidelines, 2020) versus protecting nearby hunting and foraging areas (1/2 to 1 mile from nests) We understand that prairie dog management is a contentious issue. However, COB/OSMP needs to adapt, revisit, and seriously consider key raptor habitat and nest sites and assure that prairie dogs are not removed at meaningful distances to preserve the prey source, even on irrigable, agricultural land in these situations. These are small, manageable, and attainable efforts, but must be incorporated through an adaptive process where reasoned community input is considered. 5. First lets talk about the brand new fencing: OSMP has spent thousands of dollars recently installing fencing around Boulder. One area, the North East portion of Boulder Valley Ranch Open Space, had installation of prairie dog (PD) fencing this past summer—good try but you really need to go back to the drawing board!. As of today, a good few feet of fencing is broken and the plastic is no longer adhered to the fence line. The high winds we receive in Boulder is not compatible with this method of fencing and you should go back to the meeting room to come up with a better solution. My suggestion to you: Total removal of PD’s from any lands adjacent to agricultural properties and homes. 6. Second, let’s talk about weeds: Many weeds are listed in your notes, Med sage, knapweed, leafy spurge, thistle, and teasel. I have emailed OSMP several times about another weed Buffalo Bur (see attached) I have seen this highly invasive weed not only at Boulder Valley Ranch (BVR) but at Gunbarrel Hill (north portion near 95th). Myself and a handful of others have spent 3 years pulling it from the pastures at Boulder Valley Ranch since I identified it. I have repeatedly asked OSMP to place weed dumpster at the ranch for disposal but this appears to be written to deaf ears, since no one has responded to my emails nor a dumpster supplied. Last summer I saw this weed South of the cow pond and also up near the Mesa reservoir. Additionally I sent 1 hour pulling it for the side of the trail just north east of the outhouse (video attached). OSMP should be vigilant about this weed. It can take over miles of trail and open space lands in one season. Suggested removal is herbicide and hand pulling. ATTACHMENT B Agenda Item 5B Page 19 As for mowing and weed whacking, this has made a very small change to the first horse pasture that was treated by these methods the last 2 years BVR, but OSMP is inconsistent. All the pastures their need mowing before the seed heads develop. Thistle was over 6 feet tall this year, teasel is spreading, med sage is ridiculous. As for the Burdock, a handful of us at the ranch cut the burdock every year, but we need a dumpster as we have to place the cuttings near the horse trailer junk pile, and with our winds the seed heads are blowing all over the open space. As for the buffalo bur, Bob Lover is allowing us to place it in his personal garbage dumpster to prevent spreading. I would like to see OSMP being more mindful of requests like a dumpster to help us in any way we can. It appears OSMP is more concerned about building a new trail then maintaining the ones we have right now. Oddly enough the Buffalo Bure appeared on the side of the trail in the area specified above near the outhouse, after all the fill was brought in to redo the trail. As for weed management, sometimes you just need to use herbicides. In many cases, since the lands are so infested from lack of maintenance, you have to use this application to begin restoration. Let’s move forward and get things done so we can restore the lands and get equipment safely on land restoration to begin NOW! 7.Third, let’s talk about relocation practices: PD relocation practices should no longer be on the table. I have been trying to find information on how many pounds of plastic tubing has been installed on our grasslands for relocation purposes—no luck here! I also can not find any information on the removal of the plastics which appear to be left in the ground forever. This method is not viable and the $$$ spent on such a high mortality rate application is economically unfeasible. Additionally, I suggest we no longer spend out $$ and time treating any PD colonies near or adjacent to agricultural properties to allow an alternative method of Sylvatic Plague to clear them out. 8.We support the City and staff rehabilitating agricultural lands in the presence of prairie dogs. As we continue to find ourselves in a biodiversity crisis locally and globally, we applaud all efforts to restore public, private, agricultural and wildlife habitat lands in the presence of prairie dogs and their associates. Prairie dogs are a native, burrowing grazer. Their ecosystem services are obvious: they churn the soil, they provide nitrogen deposition, they garden what vegetation is available and discourage invasive species when they can. Pollinators and macro invertebrates have been found in higher abundance in some on colony experiments than off. For these reasons and more, we applaud the City's efforts to restore our public lands in the presence of our local wildlife. Some of the most innovative work on the grasslands in the west throughout the prairie dog range is taking place on the ATTACHMENT B Agenda Item 5B Page 20 City of Boulder's Open Space & Agricultural lands. Learning and discovering techniques such as soil amendments, seeding cover crops, keylining, vegetation management and strategic irrigation are some of the best coexistence activities occurring to date and we will continue to support and partner with City staff where we can on these efforts. Please contact us for any assistance requests. We will also continue to share what we learn locally and beyond for prairie dog coexistence strategies. We encourage the departments to continue working together on these efforts. 9. We support the Shared Learning Collaborative. Thank you for continuing to support this group's learning collaborative on the land. From a physical and social perspective, much is being rehabilitated. As this effort is a learning endeavor involving a diverse range of participants and educational backgrounds; we understand and are experiencing that quantifying associated costs in a learning effort may not always be applicable due to the novelty of the project and experience of individual participants (I.e.: it may only take one group member to document or record a finding; but several group members may want to be present to experience and learn the finding or the same can be true for implementation activities as certain activities may also require labor from 1-2 people; but 5-6 people may want to experience and learn how to keyline or seed or map etc.). Furthermore, the findings this group discovers will also be worthy and places value on both sides of an effort such as this. 10. We support a no-net gain approach to the amount of prairie dogs being lethally controlled system wide. While we support and respect that staff likely knows their properties best and understand the project area's changes; accordingly, we do not support an increase in any lethal prairie dog control. Please respect the community members who appreciate the local wildlife and wish to maintain their presence throughout the system. Please do not increase the amount of lethal prairie dog management originally proposed (i.e.: 1-200 acres of lethal and up to 40 acres of relocation for prairie dogs designated as Removal). Please maintain the same scale of removals. 11. We support regenerative farmers and young farmers learning and implementing coexistence strategies on leased ag lands Through our participation in the Shared Learning Collaborative, we have met several new and younger famers in Boulder. We respect their work and how expensive it is to be a Boulder farmer. We also recognize prairie dogs are inhabiting many degraded lands and appreciate any willingness to keep any and all local wildlife on lands so we can learn and discover and preserve their ecosystem services while in the presence of agriculture. ATTACHMENT B Agenda Item 5B Page 21 12. Human quality of life can be degraded knowing local wildlife suffered on our public lands. As many of us are members of this local community where we live in and or work; we feel a responsibility to let our decision makers know that we are saddened and feel a loss when we pass through colonies that are no longer in existence. To experience the quietness and stillness where a colony was once teeming with life and relationships, flowers, and associated species can create negative mental and physiological responses. Knowing we contributed to this loss with our local tax dollars is a disconnect with our values. 13. We appreciate and recommend staff reducing lethal control when they can. In 2020, our team removed via translocation prairie dogs from the IBM property to Waneka. While the ag manager for this property could have removed via non-lethal and lethal the entire colony on the property; the barrier they installed preserved many acres of prairie dogs on the land. This action is very much appreciated and respected. Thank you for this action and any same actions that may have been taken since then. We spotted a bald eagle near this property today. Thank you for translocating prairie dogs this year. We hope a release site is secured in 2024. 14. AS sylvatic plague continues to wipe out prairie dog populations range wide and mitigation methods only protect a portion if any prairie dogs on colonies experiencing epizootic and enzootic plague, we support any and all prairie dog ecosystem conservation actions. 15. Wow, that’s some incredible progress on ag properties 16.Impressive before/after pics with the ag restoration work. Appreciate that! ATTACHMENT B Agenda Item 5B Page 22 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director, Central Services Kacey French, Planning Senior Manager Marni Ratzel, OSMP Principal Planner DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Written Information: North Foothills Habitat Conservation Area Implementation ________________________________________________________________________ The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) is preparing an ordinance for City Council consideration that “activates” the designation of the North Foothills Habitat Conservation Area (North Foothills HCA). The ordinance would establish the North Foothills HCA boundaries and give the city the authority to enforce rules adopted to protect habitat conservation areas for visitors within these boundaries. This activation supports the Master Plan strategies of EHR.1) Preserve and restore important habitat blocks and corridors RRSE.6) Support a Range of Passive Recreational Experiences. Background Visitor Master Plan – North Foothills HCA identification The 2005 Visitor Master Plan (VMP) created a framework to manage for high-quality visitor experiences while ensuring city open space lands are protected and preserved for future generations. It identified four Management Area Designations for city open space land: Agricultural Area (AA), Natural Area (NA) and Passive Recreation Area (PRA), and Habitat Conservation Area (HCA). The VMP identified this area to be managed as HCA as depicted in Attachment A, and named it the North Foothills HCA. The North Foothills HCA consists of a large, relatively unfragmented habitat block, including a mosaic of mixed grass prairie, woodlands, shrublands, and riparian habitats. It includes a variety of steep draws and flatter mesas and many Colorado Natural Heritage Program-identified sensitive plant communities, including Foothills ponderosa pine savanna, Foothills ponderosa pine scrub woodland, Great Plains mixed grass prairie, mixed foothills shrubland, shortgrass prairie, and xeric tallgrass prairie. The HCA also includes important shale barren outcrops of the Niobrara and Pierre shale formations. Wildlife includes extensive prairie dog habitat (part of the management area is included in a designated Prairie Dog Habitat Conservation Area), rare butterfly habitat, and rare plants such as Bell’s twinpod and birdsfoot violet. Some of the rare butterflies that depend on this area include cross- line skipper, arogos skipper, and two-spotted skipper. The HCA is an important habitat for ground- nesting birds because it offers a large block of high-quality grassland habitats. It also is a major raptor use area along the foothills. Historically and to this day, eagles nest on the Palisades, a striking vertical cliff-face in this area, which is included in the seasonal wildlife closures. Because HCAs have special regulatory requirements such as restricting travel to designated trails, the VMP also identified the need to complete a Trail Study Area (TSA) plan to establish visitor access and recreation resource management priorities and actions prior to formally designating the North Foothills HCA by ordinance. Once the area is “activated” or designated by ordinance pursuant to section 8-8-2, “Habitat Conservation Area Designation,” B.R.C. 1981 the associated regulations such Written Information - Item A - Page 1 as restricting travel to designated trails, and applicable dog regulations would apply to visitors and be enforceable. Newly Acquired Properties and the North TSA Process Since the VMP was completed and prior to the North TSA planning process, the city acquired the Joder Ranch, and within that the separate Joder-Cox property (Joder/Cox Property). As a part of those acquisitions, the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and City Council recommended the properties be managed as HCA and included in the North Foothills HCA as they are a continuation of the natural resource values found within the North Foothills HCA. At the same time, the OSBT acknowledged the decision to include the Joder/Cox properties in the North Foothills HCA was made with minimal public process. With the subsequent timing of the North TSA planning process, the OSBT recommended the planning process include a review of the decision to manage the area as HCA. The department led a robust planning process for the North TSA plan that represented a diversity of perspectives in the community including people visiting trails within the area, neighbors, stakeholder organizations, youth and families. The Council approved plan recommended to “Retain the Joder and Cox property designation (T1) as a Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) and include as part of the North Foothills HCA.” Attachment B depicts the management area designations for the North Foothills HCA. The North TSA also established the visitor access and recreation resource management priorities for the area as called for in the VMP. Those include, among other actions, the construction of a 3.5 mile north-south connector trail from the Foothills Trail to the Joder Ranch Trail west of U.S. 36, the North Sky Trail. North TSA Plan Implementation and HCA Activation timing As shared with the board in a September 2022 update, the activation or designation by ordinance of the HCA is planned to coincide with the North Sky trail completion/opening. This will serve to help concentrate the likely increase in visitors and redirect existing use that is currently more dispersed across the landscape to the new trail itself thereby allowing habitats to better remain in high quality condition and provide relatively undisturbed refuges for wildlife away from the trail. Currently, the North Sky Trail is anticipated to be complete in June 2024, weather permitting. Once the HCA ordinance goes into effect and the trail is opened, visitors must: •Remain on trail to protect rare plants and habitat in this area. •Leash their dogs when dogs are allowed on the trail from August 1 to April 30. Dogs are not allowed on the trail from May 1 to July 31 to protect nesting bird habitat. These regulations are consistent with the North TSA Plan management strategies to reduce the impacts of new recreational opportunities on natural resources outside the trail corridor as follows: •Off-trail permits not allowed in the North Foothills HCA except for areas west and north of Joder Ranch Trail and inside the planned Mahogany Loop (NF19). •Dogs: Leash required. Seasonal closure from May 1 – July 31 on North Sky Trail. •Include the North Sky Trail in the muddy closure program. to improve trail sustainability and reduce trail maintenance costs (NF14). Written Information - Item A - Page 2 •Post educational signs about the North Foothills HCA to educate visitors about the important natural resources and safety concerns of the area, such as rattlesnake awareness (NF15). Next Steps OSMP staff will present an ordinance for City Council consideration this spring in April. The objective is to enact and implement the designation of the North Foothills HCA by City Council ordinance prior to the opening of the North Sky Trail in early June. Staff will return to the OSBT this spring/early summer to provide an update on the North Sky Trail opening and next steps. Attachments: •Attachment A: VMP Map of Management Area Designations •Attachment B: North Trail Study Area Plan Map of Management Area Designations Written Information - Item A - Page 3 Southern Grasslands WesternMountainParks Doudy Draw EldoradoMountain North Foothills ShanahanFlatirons /MountainBackdrop East Boulder Valley NorthBoulder ValleyEast Beech NorthernTier Wonderland Flag staff / C hautauqua AnemoneHill Boulder Valley Ranch Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - PRA LowerBoulderCreek WestSanitas Tallgrass Prairie East SouthMesa NorthernTier We stMa rshall M esaEastBoulderValley Diagonal EastBoulder SanitasValley Diagonal EastMa rshall M esaEa s t B ould er SouthBoulderCreek DryCreek NorthernTier JewelMountain ValmontReservoir RedRocks Sombrero Marsh Northern Tier North FoothillsNorthernTier Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - NA LowerBoulderCreek EastBoulderValley CottonwoodGrove ElephantButtress LefthandCanyon Va lm ont R es e r v oir CreekConfluence EastBoulderTallgrass PrairieEast SouthernGrasslands NorthernTier NorthernTier NorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTier Northern Tier Southern Grasslands WesternMountainParks Doudy Draw EldoradoMountain North Foothills ShanahanFlatirons /MountainBackdrop East Boulder Valley NorthBoulder ValleyEast Beech NorthernTier Wonderland Flag staff / C hautauqua AnemoneHill Boulder Valley Ranch Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - PRA LowerBoulderCreek WestSanitas Tallgrass Prairie East SouthMesa NorthernTier We stMa rshall M esaEastBoulderValley Diagonal EastBoulder SanitasValley Diagonal EastMa rshall M esaEa s t B ould er SouthBoulderCreek DryCreek NorthernTier JewelMountain ValmontReservoir RedRocks Sombrero Marsh Northern Tier North FoothillsNorthernTier Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - NA LowerBoulderCreek EastBoulderValley CottonwoodGrove ElephantButtress LefthandCanyon Va lm ont R es e r v oir CreekConfluence EastBoulderTallgrass PrairieEast SouthernGrasslands NorthernTier NorthernTier NorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTier Northern Tier Southern Grasslands WesternMountainParks Doudy Draw EldoradoMountain North Foothills ShanahanFlatirons /MountainBackdrop East Boulder Valley NorthBoulder ValleyEast Beech NorthernTier Wonderland Flag staff / C hautauqua AnemoneHill Boulder Valley Ranch Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - PRA LowerBoulderCreek WestSanitas Tallgrass Prairie East SouthMesa NorthernTier We stMa rshall M esaEastBoulderValley Diagonal EastBoulder SanitasValley Diagonal EastMa rshall M esaEa s t B ould er SouthBoulderCreek DryCreek NorthernTier JewelMountain ValmontReservoir RedRocks Sombrero Marsh Northern Tier North FoothillsNorthernTier Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - NA LowerBoulderCreek EastBoulderValley CottonwoodGrove ElephantButtress LefthandCanyon Va lm ont R es e r v oir CreekConfluence EastBoulderTallgrass PrairieEast SouthernGrasslands NorthernTier NorthernTier NorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTier Northern Tier Southern Grasslands WesternMountainParks Doudy Draw EldoradoMountain North Foothills ShanahanFlatirons /MountainBackdrop East Boulder Valley NorthBoulder ValleyEast Beech NorthernTier Wonderland Flag staff / C hautauqua AnemoneHill Boulder Valley Ranch Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - PRA LowerBoulderCreek WestSanitas Tallgrass Prairie East SouthMesa NorthernTier We stMa rshall M esaEastBoulderValley Diagonal EastBoulder SanitasValley Diagonal EastMa rshall M esaEa s t B ould er SouthBoulderCreek DryCreek NorthernTier JewelMountain ValmontReservoir RedRocks Sombrero Marsh Northern Tier North FoothillsNorthernTier Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - NA LowerBoulderCreek EastBoulderValley CottonwoodGrove ElephantButtress LefthandCanyon Va lm ont R es e r v oir CreekConfluence EastBoulderTallgrass PrairieEast SouthernGrasslands NorthernTier NorthernTier NorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTier Northern Tier Southern Grasslands WesternMountainParks Doudy Draw EldoradoMountain North Foothills ShanahanFlatirons /MountainBackdrop East Boulder Valley NorthBoulder ValleyEast Beech NorthernTier Wonderland Flag staff / C hautauqua AnemoneHill Boulder Valley Ranch Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - PRA LowerBoulderCreek WestSanitas Tallgrass Prairie East SouthMesa NorthernTier We stMa rshall M esaEastBoulderValley Diagonal EastBoulder SanitasValley Diagonal EastMa rshall M esaEa s t B ould er SouthBoulderCreek DryCreek NorthernTier JewelMountain ValmontReservoir RedRocks Sombrero Marsh Northern Tier North FoothillsNorthernTier Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - NA LowerBoulderCreek EastBoulderValley CottonwoodGrove ElephantButtress LefthandCanyon Va lm ont R es e r v oir CreekConfluence EastBoulderTallgrass PrairieEast SouthernGrasslands NorthernTier NorthernTier NorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTier Northern Tier Southern Grasslands WesternMountainParks Doudy Draw EldoradoMountain North Foothills ShanahanFlatirons /MountainBackdrop East Boulder Valley NorthBoulder ValleyEast Beech NorthernTier Wonderland Flag staff / C hautauqua AnemoneHill Boulder Valley Ranch Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - PRA LowerBoulderCreek WestSanitas Tallgrass Prairie East SouthMesa NorthernTier We stMa rshall M esaEastBoulderValley Diagonal EastBoulder SanitasValley Diagonal EastMa rshall M esaEa s t B ould er SouthBoulderCreek DryCreek NorthernTier JewelMountain ValmontReservoir RedRocks Sombrero Marsh Northern Tier North FoothillsNorthernTier Gunbarrel /Heatherwood - NA LowerBoulderCreek EastBoulderValley CottonwoodGrove ElephantButtress LefthandCanyon Va lm ont R es e r v oir CreekConfluence EastBoulderTallgrass PrairieEast SouthernGrasslands NorthernTier NorthernTier NorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTierNorthernTier Northern Tier BoulderBoulder MarshallMarshall GunbarrelGunbarrel NiwotNiwot LafayetteLafayette BroomfieldBroomfield WestminsterWestminster EldoradoSpringsEldoradoSprings Crescent VillageCrescent Village PlainviewPlainview LouisvilleLouisville SuperiorSuperior LongmontLongmont JoderReservoir SpurgeonReservoirNo. 1 Dodd ReservoirLoukonenReservoir Boulder Reservoir T w in L akesValmont Reservoir Leggett-OwenReservoir Hillcrest Lake BaselineReservoir Marshall Lake Mower Res. ErieLake StearnsLake EgglestonReservoir No. 3 Standley Lake GreatWesternReservoir UpperChurch Lake PrinceLake No. 1 PrinceLake No. 2 LafayetteReservoir Ketner Res. AutreyReservoir Hodgson-Harris Reservoir EgglestonReservoir No. 4 Reservoir No. 2Cowdrey VieleLake RockyFlatsLake Harper Lake LouisvilleReservoir Burke Lake Wonderland Lake HaydenLake Gaynor LakesCootLake LagermanReservoir LefthandReservoir Swede Lakes Clover Basin Reservoir Steele Lakes BohnLake Allens Res. DavisReservoir TrevartonReservoir Sombrero Marsh Lefthand Valley KosslerLake (Private) (Private) SixmileReservoir(Private) (Private) (Private) (Private) WanekaReservoir Lake No. 5Teller TellerLake SawhillPonds Walden Ponds Reservoir(Private) GrossReservoir Ouray Dr.Nimbus Rd.N. 73rd St.Niwot Rd. Monarch Rd. L ee HillR d .Mineral Rd.79th St.Olde Stage Rd.Lee Hill Dr.28th St. Ext.Diagonal Hwy.Violet Ave.63rd St.Jay Rd.Jay Rd.57th St.19th St.47th St.Li nden Dr.95th St.N. 26th St.Independence Rd.Kalmia Ave. Isabelle Rd.Iris Ave.28th St.30th St.61st St.Va lm o nt Dr.Folsom St.P o or man Rd.BroadwayValmont Rd.Edge w o o d D r.Foothills Pkwy.Balsam Ave.9th St.Su ns h in e Dr . F o u r mile C a n y o n Dr.20t h St. Pe arl S t.63rd St.Mapleton A v e .Pi ne S t.Canyon Blvd. Pe arl S t.Canyo n B lv d .Arapahoe Rd.Arapahoe Rd. Arapa h o e A v e .17th St.Folsom St.75th St.University Ave.28th St.9th St.B o u l der Canyon Dr.30th St.Cherryvale Rd.Baseline Rd.Baseline Rd.Foot hills Pkwy.76th St.Moorhead Ave. So ut h Bo ulde r R d.Table Mesa Dr.Main St.S. Foothi l l s Hw y. Cherry St. M a r s h a l l D r .C h e rry v a le R d .Carbon Rd.Eldorado Springs Dr.Coalton Dr.McC asli n B l vd .S. Foothills Hwy.Alkire St.Sugarloaf Rd . J a m es Ca n y on Dr.Lefthan d C a n y o n D r . Sunshine Dr. Fourmile Canyon Dr. Oxford Rd.49th St.W. 108th Ave. 96th Ave.Indiana Rd.McCaslin Blvd.88th St.Dillon Rd.S. 96th St.Via AppiaSouth Boulder Rd.Centennial Pkwy.P ine St.95th St.Valmont Dr. Yarmouth Ave. Pea r l P kw y.Valmont Rd.51st St.55th St.Baseline Rd. S. B ro a d w ay Lehigh St.Gross Dam R d.Gro s s Dam Rd .Kossl er Lake Rd. Coal Creek R d. Broadway Em p ire Dr. W. 100th Ave.N. 39th St.N. 49th St.N. 55th St.St. Vrain Rd. Nelson Rd. Rogers Rd.N. 87th St.Airport Rd.N. 85th St.9th Ave. 3rd Ave.N. 65th St.Ken Pratt Blvd.Sunset St.Pike Rd. Coal Creek Rd.N. Foothills Hwy.Plateau Rd. Rogers Rd. Nebo Rd.39th St.Neva Rd.N. 41st St.St. Vrain Rd. Prospect Rd. Pike Rd. Ogalalla Rd.Hover Rd.Plateau Rd. Oxford Rd.95th St.Main St.Niwot Rd.N. 81st St.N. 83rd St.63rd St.Lookout Rd.71st St.N. 71st St.55th St.75th St.Diagonal Hwy.55th St.Oxford Rd. Mineral Rd.GreenbriarBlvd. W al nu t S t.Arapahoe Rd.107th St.Baseline Rd. Empire Rd. Oxford Rd.N. 63rd St.Nimbus Rd.Ge e r Ca nyon Dr.N. 51st St.Nelson Rd. Nelson Rd.N. 75th St.N. 75th St.Plateau Rd.107th St.107th St.Mineral Rd.N. BroadwayLefthand Canyon Dr.N. 77th St.75th StLookout Rd. Dillon Rd.66th St.C o a l C r e e k Dr.Table Mesa D r . Bison Dr. - Private F la g staff D r.Flagst aff Dr .R o ck Cr. Pkwy. M a gnolia Dr.N. 63rd St.L ookout Rd. Brainard Dr. Northwest ParkwayColorado Ave. Alpine Ave. Hawthorn Ave. Linden Dr. Longhorn Rd. 36 36 36 36 36 119 119 119 157 157 1197 7 7 7 7 119 170 170 93 93 52 93 52 121 72 42 287 287 287 287 93 7 36 7 128 128 42 119 I OPEN SPACE & MTN. PARKSMANAGEMENT AREAS 0 1 20.5 Miles Designated Trail Other Public LandsIncorporated Cities Map Legend Management Area Designations * See Detailed Descriptions of Management Areas Natural Area*Agricultural Area*Habitat Conservation Area* Passive Recreation Area* Map 4.5 ATTACHMENT A Written Information - Item A - Page 4 BFL3n! n :'@n .+B>>.@,'L5B@In! %5,.n^n `^n ËăW Ą ąķ ãäî ğĠķ ưɘ ļɉɘÇÚ ƂĽÛĪɘ @ɘ kǻŲÜ,ľɘM Ǽǽɘ¢nj ƉƵ,ɘ ɑɘɒɘ aǠĿÝȕŀɘÞɘŁɊɘbǍƶƷłĠȬ ǎƸɘ jɘ 2ɘ lŃǾƊſßȖńɘàƹɘÒƺīǿƋƀáȗĬɘÈǡâƌ ɘ ɓɘɔɘ ³Ņ7ǏȳȘ ɘãɘrƍȀș ƻųɘÉä ƨɘ AɘBɘ ´ņǞåƎ)ɘæƼɘpɍƏȁȭƟƽŴɘÊǢçƐ ɘ ×ɘ Øɘ c ǐȂɘèĭɘµȃȚǑɘțƃŇɘdȴ)ǷňƾȜɘNƩƑƁƱʼnƿȝɘ ķ £éɅŊɘêǀɘsƒȄȞǁŵɘ¶ǒëĮɘ ŋɋɘ ìŶŌƲō"ȟɘOǴŰíɘmŎȅŷ"ȠǓȆɘ į îȡȵ ǣïɘPŏðɘ 2¤ 5±Vķ /eÒķÿķ 8c ¹Ėº÷ł RŸȶȢȷǥô ɘSõɘ ł RNW)r HS# r $ U!"r ¥ęĞķ {ÿ |789:Hÿ 1 ãÿ x äÿy å zÿ 3#4c/ )/_ _*MPSC_215D<=_ )7K 7B=J=KS_P=7_ =RDBK7SDMKR_ Ĝł ǹƄɘËöƓɘº-ȸįɎɘ¥ ÷ǂƔ$ŹɘT*œøɘ 1ɘɖ53ɘC»¦ɘwƦź?nǟ ȹŔȉ.ǦùɘÌúƕƪɘ XŽǬƜĨɁ ȦɂǶĜ ɘYǭţčɘ yĎğȧďȨɘf ȑŤ ǺĐ/ƥ'ɘZǮđɘĝł *ȣƅɘûƮɘ¼-Ⱥİɏɘ½ȻĞü+ŕýȊɘ ɗɘD¾§ɘȼƯ.Ɩ8ÓȋŖɘǧþ ơɘ ĒȩɃ+ēɘ[ǯťĔɘ E¿¨ɘÿƢ ƆŗĀıɘ üķFÀ©ɘu IJǃŻɘUġĢ Ȍȍɘ ±ĕȔƝɇŦɘ¹ŧĩǰŨĖȪ ǙLjɘ\DZűɘ LƲɘoėȒũƳŪ&0ɘǚDzɘGÁªɘVģĤŘȎȏɘ«ǔƗ Ȥɘ t ù ť (DŽ9H¬ɘā Ăřijɘx ƧƘ żɘǨăƙƫɘ ~ǝƞlj0!ɐɘ ɌNJūĸ>ɘgǛɄ&Ȳ=ĘNj ęžŬĹɘĝ#ĺɘ IÃɘ¸ŚĥǩśĄȯƣǕ ą ɘtŜĆȥȽǪŝɘWĦħŞȓɘ (Dž:JÄ®ɘć ĈşĴɘȾƬȰƤ;ÔȐŠɘÍǫĉ !ɘ ¡/ƈŭdzɘvǜɈŮǸ ƴů$ȫɘĚĻɘ S a»àêÂ!ÿ¥Úáÿ°³Ï¼v ×ͱÿ«´ÐØâÎà Ý/ÿ }ɘ `ǖȿƭĵɘeǗɀ%ȱɘÎɘǵěƚƇšĊĶɘ 6ɘ4 Âɕɘ ǘdž<Kůɘ°ċ%LJŢķɘÏČƛɘ "¬º0¦fÿÙÔ§¾Åÿ¤Ä½¹lËÖµÌÊÿÜ Æÿ² ¶ÓIÿ ís ¤ñȇȈɆŐɘ·őŒòȮƠ'#ɘQǤóɘ ©ÚķĀā 7Wķ 7 Ă ķ ķķķ ķķ ķå ATTACHMENT B Written Information - Item A - Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Phillip Yates, Senior Communications Program Manager Christian Driver, Senior Cultural Stewardship Program Manager DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Update on the City-Tribal Updated Memorandum of Understanding ________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this document is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees the memo (Attachment A) that will be provided to City Council for their Feb. 15, 2024 meeting. The purpose of the attached memo is for City Council to consider approval of an updated and consolidated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations and the city. This work is the culmination of government-to-government consultations since 2019 and honors Tribal Nations’ connections to Boulder since time immemorial. In the March 2023 consultation, Tribal Representatives and city staff reached consensus on the proposed MOU. Attachments: •Attachment A – February 15, 2024 City Council Memo on the City-Tribal MOU Written Information - Item B - Page 1 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 15, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to approve a memorandum of understanding between federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations and the City of Boulder and to authorize the city manager to execute the memorandum of understanding PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager Dan Burke, Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks Aimee Kane, Equity Officer Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Janet Michels, Senior Counsel Phillip Yates, Senior Communications Program Manager Christian Driver, Senior Cultural Stewardship Program Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is for City Council to consider approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations and the city related to ongoing work across these governments. This work is the culmination of government-to-government consultations since 2019 and honors Tribal Nations’ connections to Boulder since time immemorial. In the March 2023 consultation, Tribal Representatives and city staff reached consensus on the proposed MOU. ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 2 The proposed MOU seeks to consolidate past City-Tribal Nation Memorandums of Understanding developed in 1998, 2002 and 2004 that focus on city open space lands and incorporate additional provisions discussed in multiple government-to-government consultations since 2019. Broadly, the MOU seeks to: •Set a foundation for sustaining future collaboration, engagement, and consultation; •Support Tribal Nation input into Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) decision-making on topics important to Tribal Nations; •Develop a way to identify areas on open space of special concern to Tribal Nations to help guide future cultural resource consultations; •Outline a process for ceremonial access and explore a permanent ceremonial location; •Develop a process for limited harvesting of plants and other materials important to the tribes and; •Continue ongoing cultural resource protection, consultations and notifications. To date, three Tribal Governments have signed the MOU including the Comanche Nation, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Pawnee Nation. We anticipate additional signatures from Tribal leaders throughout 2024 and are bringing this document before council now to honor commitments to our first three signatories and to demonstrate to our other Tribal partners that we are formally committed to the terms resulting from multiple years of government-to-government consultation. The City of Boulder acknowledges the city is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of Indigenous Peoples who have traversed, lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since time immemorial. Those Indigenous Nations include the: Di De’I (Apache), Hinono’eiteen (Arapaho), Tsétsėhéstȧhese (Cheyenne), Nʉmʉnʉʉ (Comanche), Caiugu (Kiowa), Čariks i Čariks (Pawnee), Sosonih (Shoshone), Oc'eti S'akowin (Sioux) and Núuchiu (Ute). The city recognizes that Indigenous knowledge, oral histories, and languages – handed down through generations over thousands of years – have shaped profound cultural and spiritual connections with Boulder-area lands and ecosystems and that those connections are sustained and celebrated to this day. We extend our gratitude to our Tribal Nation partners for the continuing opportunity to listen and learn from them and appreciate the opportunity to work beyond our land acknowledgement as part of several ongoing projects with their Nations. Staff want to share that our land acknowledgment may change over the years as city staff and the Boulder community continue to learn about and address the intergenerational trauma caused by the violent colonization of Indigenous land. Page 2 ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – No immediate direct impact, however enhancements to the city’s OSMP system resulting from MOU implementation may generate future increases in visitation. •Environmental – Ongoing collaboration with Tribal representatives may include their guidance on land stewardship. •Social – Engagement with Tribal representatives will continue to provide significant guidance on cultural resource preservation, Indigenous ceremonial needs, and Indigenous education and interpretation on city-managed land to support inclusivity and educational opportunities in Boulder. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – There is no immediate need for additional funding to execute the MOU. •Staff time – Executing the MOU can proceed using existing staff resources. BACKGROUND Tribal Engagement and Consultation History While the city held regular consultations in the late 1990s and early 2000s, consultations between the city and Tribal Nations paused in the mid-2000s. The city’s adoption of the Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution in 2016, which directed the city to receive input from Tribal Nations to rename Settler’s Park, and staff’s desire to re- establish relationships with Tribal Nations led the city to host a consultation with American Indian Tribal Nations in Boulder in March 2019. Below is an overview of past city consultations with Tribal Nations: •1998: The City of Boulder began consultations with Tribal Nations as part of conversations regarding National Institute of Standards Technology. Those agreements resulted in: Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve a memorandum of understanding between federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations and the City of Boulder and to authorize the city manager to execute the memorandum of understanding ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 4 o Memorandum of Understanding A in which the city and American Indian Tribal Nations agreed to create a spiritual, moral and policy partnership to protect the land south of Boulder. o Memorandum of Understanding B, in which the city agreed to provide reasonable fire protection services for permitted tribal cultural use of a protected area during fire bans. •2002: Another City-Tribal Nation MOU outlines the need for annual consultations and outlines city agreements regarding Tribal Nation notification of finds of funerary objects and human remains on OSMP land and ceremonial access requiring temporary structures and/or fire. It also provides specific Tribal notifications for an open space property south of Boulder. •2004: The city and Tribal Nations agreed to update the procedures related to ceremonies involving fire and temporary structures – such as tipis and sweat lodges – on Valmont Butte east of Boulder. Read the MOU amendment. •2016: Boulder City Council adopted the Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution. It plays a crucial role in helping the city to rebuild relationship with Tribal Nations by directing us to receive their guidance to rename Settler's Park in west Boulder. •March 2019: City hosts first tribal consultation in 14 years. A name for Settler’s Park was discussed, along a with celebration for a potential renaming. City staff and Tribal Representatives also determined that MOUs need to be updated. •May to August 2019: City staff invites Tribal Representatives to participate in a working group to discuss and suggest changes to the four agreements the city shares with American Indian Tribal Nations. Discussions during those working meetings helped shape the proposed, updated MOU. •Spring 2020: Plans for a tribal consultation are paused due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. •Feb. 18, 2021: City staff held a conference call with Tribal Representatives to hear their preference for formal government-to-government consultations with the city during 2021. During the meeting, city staff and Tribal Nations agreed to conduct an online consultation in April 2021 to discuss an updated MOU, a final renaming recommendation for Settler’s Park and a proposed land acknowledgment. •April 2021: Tribal Representatives and city staff consulted on a proposed, updated MOU and renamed Settler’s Park in west Boulder to The Peoples’ Crossing. Staff and Tribal Representatives also agreed to establish a city-Tribal Nation working group to help develop education and interpretation materials and plan events to celebrate The Peoples’ Crossing name change. Tribal Representatives also provided guidance on a ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 5 draft land acknowledgment. •September 2022: City staff and Tribal Representatives continued discussing a proposed, updated city-Tribal Nation MOU. Tribal Representatives also provided guidance on public events to celebrate the renaming of The Peoples’ Crossing. •March 2023: Tribal Representatives and city staff reached consensus on a proposed, updated MOU and participated in site visits to city-managed open space. During a site visit to The Peoples’ Crossing in west Boulder, Tribal Representatives and city staff removed inaccurate and dated signs as part of an ongoing collaborative effort to update Indigenous-related interpretative signage on city open space and continue fulfilling the Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution. Federal, State and City Consultation Requirements There are no specific federal or state laws that require the City of Boulder to engage/consult with Tribal Nations. It is our best understanding that City of Boulder is one of only a few municipalities that initiate and participate in ongoing consultation with Tribal Nations. While there is no law or ordinance requiring the city to engage or consult with federally recognized Tribal Nations, specific direction for ongoing consultation and conversations with Tribal Nations come from: •Previous government-to-government consultations and meetings with Tribal Representatives. •Four existing agreements the city shares with Tribal Nations. These agreements, which focus on city open space, were initially developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. •A city staff land acknowledgment based on the city’s Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution and further developed with guidance and input from American Indian Tribal Nations and the Boulder community. •The city’s 2016 Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution. The resolution led to the recent renaming of Settler’s Park to The Peoples’ Crossing and also directs the city to “correct omissions of the Native American presence in public places, resources and cultural programming.” In addition, the resolution directs city staff to implement “accurate curricula relevant to the traditions, history and current issues of Indigenous People inclusive of and as part of our shared history.” •The OSMP Master Plan, which directs the department to “support citywide efforts to work in partnership with federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations and other city departments through formal government-to-government consultations to help support American Indian Tribes and Indigenous Peoples’ connections to their ancestral homelands.” •The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which states that the city follows a government-to-government consultation process with Tribal Nations. The plan also recognizes that meaningful engagement with Tribal Nations needs to also happen at a regional level. ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 6 Tribal Sovereignty Sovereignty for Native peoples has existed since time immemorial, pre-dating the U.S. Constitution.i Federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Nations are governments and their special relationship with the United States is recognized under the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions.ii The unique legal status of Tribal Governments requires that official relations with federal agencies to be conducted on a government-to-government basis – a framework that the City of Boulder and other municipalities follow. Tribal Engagement and Consultation Framework City staff recognize the importance of honoring Tribal sovereignty and self-determination and conducting ongoing government-to-government engagement and consultation conversations with Tribal Nations. The city’s engagement and consultation framework with federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations is based on: •State of Colorado guidance on Tribal Nations with a historic connection to the state. •Federal and state frameworks for government-to-government relationships, in which federally recognized Tribal Governments appoint Representatives to speak on their behalf. •Guidance provided by Tribal Representatives during past and ongoing consultations. •Existing Memorandums of Understandings with Tribal Nations, which were developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While the City of Boulder has a framework for consultation with federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations, city staff also recognize the importance of collaborating with local Indigenous communities and organizations in the Boulder area. Current Tribal consultation does not preclude the city from conducting different collaboration processes with local Indigenous communities and organizations, and staff recognizes the need to work with regional partners to establish broader, community-wide Indigenous collaboration practices. The city also recognizes that the Latinx and Spanish-speaking community has communities who recognize and celebrate their Indigenous heritage, which should be honored as well. Community Participation As expected from government-to-government consultations, large, formal City-Tribal consultation and engagement meetings are closed to the public to facilitate conversations among city staff, Tribal Representatives and elected and appointed community leaders that may include sensitive topics such as cultural resources. However, due to public interest, the city develops information for the community following large, formal consultations. Page 6 ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 7 ANALYSIS If approved, the City of Boulder would become the fourth signatory to the MOU following Comanche Nation, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Pawnee Nation. Additional Tribal partners who have participated in consultation and are now considering signing the MOU include: •Apache Tribe of Oklahoma •Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes •Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe •Eastern Shoshone Tribe •Jicarilla Apache Nation •Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma •Northern Arapaho Tribe •Northern Cheyenne Tribe •Rosebud Sioux Tribe •Southern Ute Indian Tribe •Standing Rock Sioux Tribe •Ute Mountain Ute Tribe •Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation To aid Tribal Nations in their decision making, the City of Boulder created a graphic memo (Attachment B) and video for Tribal representatives and elected officials to review alongside the updated MOU itself. Summary of Proposed MOU The proposed, updated MOU seeks to set a foundation for future City-Tribal Nation collaboration and help ensure ongoing government-to-government consultation and help support Tribal Nation input into OSMP public lands decision-making on topics of importance to Tribal Nations. The proposed MOU: •Consolidates and Updates Past City-Tribal MOUs: Those MOUs resulted from Consultations in the 1990s and the early 2000s. City consultations initially began because of issues related to the construction of a National Institute of Standards and Technology building in south Boulder in the late 1990s. (Whereas Text and Section 11) •Helps Support City-Tribal Nation Decision-Making: Tribal Representatives have a unique capacity to provide guidance concerning land management, cultural resources management, ceremonial needs, and Indigenous education and interpretation. The proposed MOU commits the city to supporting Tribal Nation input on decision- making relating to city-managed OSMPs lands. (Whereas Text and Section 3) •Recognizes open space purposes in City Charter: “Tribal Nations and the City shall work together to uphold and support the open space purposes,” such as natural land preservation and passive recreation. (Whereas Text and Section 1) •Invites Ongoing Cultural Resource Consultations: This work would identify and protect areas of traditional, cultural and spiritual significance and help interpret cultural resources on OSMP land. The city also agrees to provide Tribes with the opportunity to review known or suspected Indigenous cultural materials and objects currently held by the city and will seek Tribal Nation input on a planned Cultural Resources Management Plan (Section 5). ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 8 •Requires Notification of Inadvertent Discoveries: In the event of the inadvertent exposure or disturbance of human remains, objects of cultural significance or patrimony, sacred objects, or associated or unassociated funerary objects on OSMP Land, the City shall comply with the requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C.A. § 3001 or the State Unmarked Burial Process C.R.S. §§ 24-80-1301, whichever jurisdictional authority applies. (Section 5(g)) •Continues Tribal Nation Ceremonial Access: Upholds a permit process for ceremonies that require the building of a temporary structure – for example, a sweat lodge or tipi – or that involve the use of fire. The MOU details specific Tribal groups that can seek a permit for a ceremony involving fire and a temporary structure, and outlines requirements that have been discussed as part of 2004, 2021 and 2022 Consultations. (Section 6) •Exploring Other Ceremonial Needs: The city agrees to explore the possibility of a dedicated, permanent site on city lands for use in sacred ceremonies and to consider the limited harvesting of plants or materials for medicinal use. The city also agrees to identify city land that can be used for limited collection for personal use, utilizing a process that will be the subject of a future consultation and will be implemented after agreement by the Tribes and the city. (Sections 7 and 8) •Supports City-Tribal Nation Education Collaboration: Continues work to provide accurate educational information about the history and culture of each respective Tribe. This will develop truthful Indigenous Peoples’ stories – both past and present – through educational materials, such as educational curriculum and signage. The city is developing an ethnographic report with Tribal Nations to help fulfill this section. (Section 9) •Allows Future Changes: The proposed MOU provides a structure for the city and Tribal Nations to propose new amendments, which can lay the groundwork for future collaborative opportunities and partnerships. (Section 10) •Welcomes other Tribal Nations to join the MOU: Other federally recognized Tribal Nations not part of previous consultations may sign on to the MOU and participate in ongoing consultations and conversations with the City of Boulder. (Section 2) NEXT STEPS If the City Council approves the MOU, city staff will proceed with developing any additional required processes to fulfill its provisions. Engagement with the Tribes will continue as outlined through formal consultation, working group activities, a Tribal Nation ethnographic-education report development of the OSMP Cultural Resource Management Plan and ongoing collaboration with Arapaho and Cheyenne Nations for city-managed that is associated with the events of the Sand Creek Massacre. The next ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 9 immediate event with Tribal representatives will take place March 14, 2024, when we will formally celebrate the renaming of the Peoples’ Crossing and offer a public event to learn more about our Tribal partners and our relationships. Invitations to council members for these events are coming soon. ATTACHMENT(S) •Attachment A: Proposed Memorandum of Understanding •Attachment B: City of Boulder-Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding Graphic Memo State-Tribal Consultation Guide: An Introduction for Colorado State Agencies to Conducting Formal Consultations with Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes. (2014). https://bldr.fyi/consultation- guide ii Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation, Nov. 30, 2022, https://bldr.fyi/consultation- memorandum ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 10 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“Agreement"), made effective this of ________________________ , 2024, and consolidates previous agreements made the 14th day of August, 2002, as amended January 3, 2004, by and between The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, The Comanche Nation, The Eastern Shoshone Tribe, The Jicarilla Apache Nation, The Kiowa Tribe, The Northern Arapaho Tribe, The Northern Cheyenne Tribe, The Oglala Sioux Tribe, The Pawnee Nation, The Rosebud Sioux Tribe, The Southern Ute Indian Tribe, The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation ("Tribes") and the City of Boulder (the "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City of Boulder acknowledges Tribes have had a significant presence on City lands since time immemorial – including on City Open Space and Mountain Parks land; and WHEREAS, the City’s Indigenous People Day Resolution and its land acknowledgement recognize the City has benefited and continues to benefit directly from the colonization of Indigenous lands and from removal policies that violated human rights, broke government treaties and forced Indigenous Peoples from their homelands; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that Indigenous knowledge, oral histories and languages – handed down through generations over thousands of years – have shaped profound cultural and spiritual connections with Boulder-area lands and ecosystems and that those connections are sustained and celebrated to this day; and WHEREAS, Tribal Representatives have provided critical guidance in helping the City to update past agreements and to begin work to help fulfill the City’s land acknowledgment, its Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution and the City’s Racial Equity Plan; and WHEREAS, the City’s Open Space and Mountain Parks Master Plan directs the department to support citywide efforts to work in partnership with federally recognized American Indian Tribes and other City departments through formal government-to-government consultations to support American Indian Tribes and Indigenous Peoples’ connections to their ancestral homelands; and WHEREAS, the City is trustee of the Open Space and Mountain Parks land; and WHEREAS, Section 176 of the City Charter limits the use of Open Space and Mountain Parks land as follows: Open space land shall be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained, and used only for the following purposes: a)Preservation or restoration of natural areas characterized by or including terrain, geologic formations, flora, or fauna that are unusual, spectacular, historically important, scientifically Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 11 2 valuable, or unique, or that represent outstanding or rare examples of native species; b)Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, scenic areas or vistas, wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems; c)Preservation of land for passive recreational use, such as hiking, photography or nature studies, and, if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing; d) Preservation of agricultural uses and land suitable for agricultural production; e)Utilization of land for shaping the development of the City, limiting urban sprawl, and disciplining growth; f)Utilization of non-urban land for spatial definition of urban areas; g) Utilization of land to prevent encroachment on floodplains; and h) Preservation of land for its aesthetic or passive recreational value and its contribution to the quality of life of the community. Open space land may not be improved after acquisition unless such improvements are necessary to protect or maintain the land or to provide for passive recreational, open agricultural, or wildlife habitat use of the land. WHEREAS, Tribal Representatives have a unique capacity to gather information and convey advice concerning land management, cultural resources management, ceremonial needs, and Indigenous education and interpretation; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to the preservation of its Open Space and Mountain Parks land and the cultural resources located thereon and desires to protect traditional, naturally significant places, and sacred areas of religious, cultural significance and sensitivity to the Tribes; and WHEREAS, no party is obligated by this Agreement to any expenditure of funds or any participation in litigation; and WHEREAS, the Tribes and the City seek by this Agreement to continue a partnership to ensure ongoing consultation and collaborative decision-making regarding Open Space and Mountain Parks land and help protect any cultural resources that may exist on Open Space and Mountain Parks land; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to update and consolidate past agreements with Tribal Nations – which were developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s and that focus on open space the City manages – based on guidance provided at City/Tribal Nation consultations in 2019, 2021 and 2022, and at City/Tribal Nation working group meetings in 2019; and WHEREAS, the City and Tribes wish to provide a process for federally-recognized tribes that are Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 12 3 not a party to this Agreement to join this Agreement and participate in ongoing consultations to provide guidance regarding land management, cultural resource preservation, ceremonial access, and Indigenous education and interpretation. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: (1)The Tribes and the City shall work together to uphold and support the open space Charter purposes. (2)Initially, this Agreement shall be binding on the City and the Tribes that execute it, and the City and additional, non-signatory tribes may be added as parties to this Agreement with the consent of at least half of the signatory Tribes. (3)The City agrees to support tribal input on decision-making relating to the City’s Open Space and Mountain Parks land. The City will provide the Tribes with an opportunity to meet with members of the Open Space Board of Trustees and that whenever feasible such meetings will coincide with any planned government-to-government consultations. (4)The City agrees, subject to annual budget appropriations, to consistently host formal government-to-government consultations in Boulder with the Tribes to facilitate the ongoing consultation contemplated by this Agreement. It is the desire of both the City and the Tribes to let no more than four years lapse between consultations. (5)The Tribes and the City agree to an ongoing consultation about cultural resources on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands for the purpose of identifying and protecting areas of religious and cultural significance and interpreting cultural resources in the area. Specifically, a.The City agrees to provide Tribes with the opportunity to review known or presumed Native American cultural materials and objects currently held by the City. b. The Tribes agree to provide cultural resource evaluation and advice in support of Open Space and Mountain Parks land acquisition and management in accordance with the City Charter. c.The Open Space and Mountain Parks department shall seek tribal input in its development of a future Cultural Resources Management Plan (“CRMP”) that will include, but not be limited to the following elements: i.A framework for the City and the Tribes to identify and protect significant landscape features and areas of special concern, including but not limited to, the Jewel Mountain Open Space Area, (“Areas of Special Concern”). The definition of "features” and “areas” shall be defined in the CRMP and will include, but may not be limited to sites, structures, views, flora and fauna communities, and other features of traditional, religious and cultural significance to the Tribes (“Cultural Resources”). Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 13 4 ii.Except in cases of emergency, a process to notify the Tribes and provide the opportunity to review substantial ground-disturbing City projects and research that have the potential to affect Cultural Resources in Areas of Special Concern (“Projects”). Projects include, but are not limited to, constructed trails; parking lots; plowing or cultivating; intentional burning; and mineral extraction. Generally, this process will include, but not be limited to the following elements (as will be set forth in the CRMP): A.Written notification of a proposed Project to the Tribes will be provided once sufficient Project details are known. B.45-day response period for Tribes to express concerns or intention to comment on the Project. The City will attempt additional notification, including phone calls and e-mails, during this period for those Tribes that have not responded and will follow up with those who expressed intent to comment. C.If one or more Tribes raise concerns about a proposed Project, the City and the Tribes who have expressed concerns agree to consult to resolve those concerns prior to the commencement of such Project. The City shall not authorize the Project unless the consulting Tribes achieve consensus as defined in consultation. D.If a Tribe has not responded with concerns or intention to comment in 45 days, the City will presume that the Tribe has no concern. E.“Emergency” shall be defined as a situation that poses a serious and imminent threat to the health, safety, or welfare of persons, property, flora and fauna, or the community including but not limited to wildfire or flood. In the event of such Emergency, the City shall notify the Tribes as soon as reasonably practicable. Restoration Projects shall follow the process outlined in this section following the Emergency. F.The City does not own all mineral and property rights in and under City Open Space land. If the City becomes aware of a third-party proposed project taking place on or that could affect an Area of Special Concern, the City will notify the Tribes of the project and provide available contact information for the third-party and will notify the third-party of this Agreement. In the event of mineral extraction projects on any Open Space land the City will notify the Tribes of the project. d. In the event of the inadvertent exposure or disturbance of human remains, objects of cultural significance or patrimony, sacred objects, or associated or unassociated funerary objects, the City shall comply with the requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C.A. § 3001 or the State Unmarked Burial Process, C.R.S. §§ 24-80-1301 et. seq., whichever jurisdictional authority Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 14 5 applies. (6)City agrees that the Tribes need no prior permission for pedestrian use of Open Space and Mountain Parks land. Ceremonies requiring the building of a temporary structure (for example, a sweat lodge or tipi) or that involve the use of fire, however, do require permission from the City. The permit procedure for ceremonies requiring a temporary structure or that involve the use of fire is as follows: a.The following persons may apply for permission to use Open Space and Mountain Parks land for traditional use ceremonies requiring structures or a fire: i.Enrolled members of the Tribes. ii.Tribal-authorized applicant through written acknowledgment by one of the Tribes on tribal letterhead, including, but not limited to, descendants of members of federally-recognized tribes. iii.Individuals or groups supported by a regional Chapter of the Native American Church as long as a membership card is provided. b.All ceremonial access must follow all applicable federal laws and Supreme Court decisions, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. c.In most circumstances, at least 15 days prior to the ceremony, a letter of request from an individual listed in subsection (a) above must be submitted to the Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks, 2520 55th Street, Boulder, CO, 80301, outlining the location, activity, the number of people expected to attend; the duration of the activity; and how issues of safety, environmental hazards, restoration of the use area and parking will be addressed. However, in some circumstances, an expedited request may be submitted. d. The City shall notify the requesting individual from subsection (a) above of permit approval or denial in writing within 7 business days of the request, with any restrictions or conditions included in the permit, except that the City provide an expedited response when an expedited request is submitted. In the event the City denies the request, the City will provide the reasoning for the denial and work cooperatively to resolve the issues. The City will approve only requests from a person or group identified in subparagraph (a) above, providing it involves no monetary gain whatsoever, does not interfere with previously scheduled activities, and does not conflict with the City Charter. e.There will be no cutting of trees or any other destruction of vegetation allowed. Individuals must provide their own wood in accordance with any requirements of the permit. Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 15 6 f.The City agrees to provide reasonable fire protection services for any authorized Tribal ceremonial use on City land. g. Such fire protection may include fire extinguishers, wildfire suppression apparatus or other preventative measures. h. To the extent possible, the City will work together with the requestor to support any necessary logistical needs. For example, arranging for drinking water or portable toilets, or addressing parking needs. i.With respect to Open Space and Mountain Parks, no permanent structures will be permitted. Temporary structures must be removed within seven days after the ceremony is concluded or other time period as may be required by the permit. Those using the site will be responsible for leaving the area in the same condition as they found it. (7)The City agrees to explore the possibility of a dedicated, permanent site on any City lands for use in sacred ceremonies. (8)The City is committed to considering limited collection requests for personal use, for example for limited harvesting plants or materials for medicinal use, and will develop a process to consider such requests. The City also agrees to identifying City land that can be used for limited collection for personal use utilizing a process that will be the subject of a future Consultation and will be implemented after agreement by the Tribes and the City. (9)The City and the Tribes agree to work together to provide accurate educational information about the history of each respective Tribe and other Indigenous Peoples in Boulder and Jefferson Counties. This continuous, ongoing work will include accurate, truthful Indigenous Peoples stories, both past and present, through educational and interpretative materials, such as signage and education curriculum. (10)The parties agree to review this Agreement from time to time as necessary, but no less than at any consultation held between the City and the Tribes. At any time, a signatory may request review of this agreement by all parties for the purposes of amending the Agreement. Except for adding Tribes as set forth in section 2, proposed amendments to this Agreement must be unanimously supported by all signatories and evidenced in a written, signed Agreement. (11)This Agreement supplants and replaces pre-existing memorandums and amendments by the Parties concerning matters of a similar nature, including prior Memorandums of Understanding and associated amendments dated March 1, 1999; August 14, 2002; and January 3, 2004. (12)This Agreement shall be for a term of five years from the date this Agreement is fully executed. Upon unanimous consent of the parties, this Agreement will automatically renew for an additional five years. The City will provide written notice of the expiration of this Agreement 60 days prior to the expiration, at which time the parties will provide written consent to renewal or not. Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 16 7 AGREED, as of the date first above written. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 17 8 CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado home rule City Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney’s Office Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 18 9 THE APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA Date By: Print Name THE CHEYENNE AND ARAPAHO TRIBES – SOUTHERN CHEYENNE Date By: Print Name THE CHEYENNE AND ARAPAHO TRIBES – SOUTHERN ARAPAHO Date By: Print Name Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 19 10 THE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE Date By: Print Name THE COMANCHE NATION Date By: Print Name THE EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE Date By: Print Name Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 20 11 THE JICARILLA APACHE NATION Date By: Print Name THE KIOWA TRIBE Date By: Print Name THE NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE Date By: Print Name Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 21 12 THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE Date By: Print Name THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE Date By: Print Name THE PAWNEE NATION Date By: Print Name Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 22 13 THE ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE Date By: Print Name THE SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE Date By: Print Name THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE Date By: Print Name Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 23 14 THE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE Date By: Print Name THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH & OURAY RESERVATION Date By: Print Name Attachment A - Proposed MOUATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 24 1 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) City of Boulder-Tribal Nation Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic MemoATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 25 2 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding City Manager Letter Thank You for Participating in 2023 Consultation Focus of Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Summary of Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Overview of Existing City-Tribal Nation Agreements Past Consultations to Develop Proposed MOU Current City Projects with Tribal Nation Guidance Contact Information Regarding MOU 03 04 05 06 08 09 10 11 Content Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic MemoATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 26 3 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding City of Boulder staff extend our gratitude to federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations for the opportunity to listen and learn from Tribal Representatives and to work on several ongoing projects with Tribal Representatives. Since 2019, Tribal Representatives and City of Boulder staff have been working together on a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Their work has resulted in a proposed MOU that consolidates past City-Tribal Nation agreements and seeks to ensure ongoing Consultation and collaborative decision-making regarding City-managed Open Space and Mountain Parks public lands. The proposed MOU also provides a framework for future collaborative opportunities with Tribal Nations across city departments and with regional partners. City of Boulder staff have developed this memo to assist Tribal Nations in their evaluation of whether to sign the proposed MOU. The latest version of the MOU – which was revised with Tribal Representative guidance at the March 15-March 16, 2023 Consultation in Boulder – has been included in a separate attachment that Jessica Yaquinto with Living Heritage Anthropology sent to your Nations. The city also has included a copies of the MOU with edits from Consultations in 2021, 2022 and 2023, along with past city-Tribal Nation MOUs The city acknowledges city-managed open space lands are on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of Indigenous Peoples who have traversed, lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since time immemorial. We appreciate and understand that Indigenous knowledge, oral histories, and languages – handed down through generations over thousands of years – have shaped profound cultural and spiritual connections with Boulder-area lands and ecosystems and that those connections are sustained and celebrated to this day. We know we have much to learn from Tribal Nations regarding land stewardship, cultural resource preservation, Indigenous ceremonial needs, and Indigenous education and interpretation on city-managed lands. While city staff and Tribal Representatives are taking steps to address several of those topics, we believe the proposed MOU can help lay the groundwork for even more progress in the future. If your Nation is ready to sign the proposed MOU, please have your authorized representative sign the MOU that also has been sent as a separate attachment to this memo. Electronic signatures on the clean MOU PDF (with no edits) can be emailed to Jessica Yaquinto with Living Heritage Anthropology and Phillip Yates with the City of Boulder. Signed paper copies of the MOU can be sent to Phillip Yates. Jessica and Phillip's contact information is on page 11 of this memo. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the MOU, please contact Jessica and Phillip. The City of Boulder again thanks Tribal Nations for participating in City Consultations and looks forward to continuing collaboration with your Nations in the future. Sincerely, Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager, City of Boulder Letter from the City Manager Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic Memo Page 26 ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 27 4 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding Thank You, Tribal Representatives City of Boulder staff extend our gratitude to Tribal Representatives from federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations for participating in the in-person Consultation in Boulder on Wednesday, March 15, and Thursday, March 16, 2023. The 2023 Consultation primarily focused on the proposed MOU and site visits to city-managed open space areas. The words and guidance Tribal Representatives have provided during the March Consultation – and past Consultations and Working Group meetings with Tribal Representatives – have left a deep impression on city staff, and City Council and Board members, and we look forward to continuing opportunities to listen and learn from your Nations in the future. City staff appreciated the insightful guidance Tribal Representatives provided and the time spent discussing and revising the proposed MOU during the 2023 Consultation. Tribal Representatives and Comanche and Lakota children helped remove signs at The Peoples' Crossing. In February, city staff received guidance from Tribal Representatives to remove them. Consultation participants visited The Peoples' Crossing – an area Tribal Representatives renamed in 2021 – as part of ongoing city-Tribal Nation education and interpretation collaboration. During the Consultation, Tribal Representatives, City Council Members, city staff and city consultants visited the Jewell Mountain Open Space area – an area with known Indigenous cultural resources. Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic MemoATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 28 5 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) focuses on City-managed Open Space and Mountain Parks lands and seeks to ensure ongoing Consultation and collaborative City-Tribal Nation decision-making regarding those natural areas. The proposed MOU and future Tribal Nation guidance also will help provide a foundation for how the City can discuss future collaborative opportunities with Tribal Nations – such as community partnerships, educational initiatives and land management collaboration, including co-stewardship and co-management approaches. Open space purposes in the Boulder City Charter – recognized in past MOUs and included in the proposed MOU – direct work the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) does on a daily basis. The department's Master Plan, which the Boulder City Council adopted in 2019, provides additional guidance for how City staff manages city open space. The Master Plan directs the department to support Citywide efforts to work in partnership with federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations and other City departments to help support Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples’ connections to their ancestral homelands. Focus of Proposed MOU 46,600 acres ~ 5.5 million The total amount of land the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department conserves and manages. The estimated number of visits the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) receives each year. City-managed lands receive more visits than many National Parks. City-managed open space helps protect 61 species of mammals. OSMP helps provide habitat for 741 plant species. OSMP also helps protect 303 native bird and 138 native butterfly species. The Great Plains and Southern Rocky Mountains merge dramatically in Boulder, creating natural areas with high biodiversity and remarkable scenic views. OSMP has a $36.2 million budget and 128 full-time employees. OSMP manages about 15,000 acres of agricultural land. Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic Memo ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 29 6 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) seeks to set a foundation for future City-Tribal Nation collaboration and help ensure ongoing Consultation and support Tribal Nation input into Open Space and Mountain Parks public lands decision-making. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will consolidate four MOUs the City of Boulder shares with federally recognized American Indian Tribes. Those MOUs resulted from Consultations in the 1990s and the early 2000s. City Consultations initially began because of issues related to the construction of a National Institute of Standards and Technology building in south Boulder in the late 1990s. (See Whereas Text and Section 11) Consolidates and Updates Past City-Tribal MOUs The proposed MOU recognizes Tribal Representatives have a unique capacity to provide guidance concerning land management, cultural resources management, ceremonial needs, and Indigenous education and interpretation. The proposed MOU commits the City to supporting Tribal Nation input on decision-making relating to City-managed Open Space and Mountain Parks lands. (See Whereas Text and Section 3) Summary of the Proposed MOU Helps Support City-Tribal Nation Decision-Making Like all other MOUs the City shares with Tribal Nations, the proposed MOU recognizes that City-managed open space land shall “be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained, and used only for specific purposes in the City Charter.” The proposed MOU states: “Tribal Nations and the City shall work together to uphold and support the open space purposes,” such as natural land preservation and passive recreation. (See Whereas Text and Section 1) Recognizes Open Space Purposes in City Charter The proposed MOU continues to invite Tribal Nations to ongoing Consultations to identify and protect areas of traditional, cultural and spiritual significance and help interpret cultural resources. The City also agrees to provide Tribes with the opportunity to review known or suspected Indigenous cultural materials and objects currently held by the city. The City also will seek Tribal Nation input on a planned Cultural Resources Management Plan (See Section 5). Invites Ongoing Cultural Resource Consultations If your Nation is ready to sign the proposed MOU, please have your authorized representative sign the MOU that also has been sent as a separate attachment to this memo. Electronic signatures on the clean MOU PDF can be emailed to Jessica Yaquinto with Living Heritage Anthropology and Phillip Yates with the City of Boulder. Signed paper copies of the MOU can be mailed to Phillip Yates. Their contact information on page 11 of this memo. Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic Memo ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 30 7 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding In the event of the inadvertent exposure or disturbance of human remains, objects of cultural significance or patrimony, sacred objects, or associated or unassociated fu- nerary objects, the City shall comply with the requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C.A. § 3001 or the State Unmarked Burial Process C.R.S. §§ 24-80-1301, whichever jurisdictional authority applies. (See Section 5(g)) Requires Notification of Inadvertent Discoveries The proposed MOU continues a permit process for ceremonies that require the building of a temporary structure – for example, a sweat lodge or tipi – or that involve the use of fire. The MOU details specific Tribal groups that can seek a permit for a ceremony involving fire and a temporary structure, and outlines requirements that have been discussed as part of 2004, 2021 and 2022 Consultations. (See Section 6) Continues Tribal Nation Ceremonial Access The City agrees to explore the possibility of a dedicated, permanent site on any City lands for use in sacred ceremonies and to consider the limited harvesting of plants or materials for medicinal use. The City also agrees to identify City land that can be used for limited collection for personal use, utilizing a process that will be the subject of a future Consultation and will be implemented after agreement by the Tribes and the City. (See Sections 7 and 8) Commits City to Exploring Other Ceremonial Needs The proposed MOU seeks continuing City- Tribal Nation collaboration to provide accurate educational information about the history and culture of each respective Tribe. This ongoing work will develop accurate, truthful Indigenous Peoples’ stories – both past and present – through educational materials, such as educational curriculum and signage. The City is developing a report with Tribal Nations to help fulfill this section. (See Section 9) Supports City-Tribal Nation Education Collaboration Allows Future Changes: The proposed MOU provides a structure for the City and Tribal Nations to propose new amendments, which can lay the groundwork for future collaborative opportunities and partnerships. Welcomes other Tribal Nations to join the MOU: The proposed MOU welcomes other federally recognized Tribal Nations not party to the MOU to join it and participate in ongoing Consultations and conversations with the City of Boulder. Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic MemoATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 31 8 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding Existing City-Tribal Nation MOUs 1999 Memorandum of Understanding - A The City of Boulder and American Indian Tribal Nations agreed to create a spiritual, moral and policy partnership to protect land south of Boulder. Read the MOU online. Tribal Representatives and the City would participate in an ongoing Consultation about cultural resources for the purpose of identifying and protecting areas of religious and cultural significance and recognizing cultural resources in the area. Ceremonies requiring the building of a temporary structure – for example, a sweat lodge or tipi – require permission from the City. The proposed MOU outlined a permit requirements procedure, which also is in the proposed MOU with Tribal Nations. Trails, parking lots, plowing or cultivating, intentional burning, and mineral extraction, to the extent of City mineral ownership, on the Jewel Mountain Open Space Area shall be reviewed by the Tribes prior to authorization by the City. 1999 Memorandum of Understanding - B 2004 Memorandum of Understanding Amendment The City of Boulder and Tribal Nations agreed to obtain approval for a City-administered utility easement for an area in south Boulder and to provide for a tribal monitor during then-proposed, ground-disturbing work. The City also agreed to provide reasonable fire pro- tection services for permitted tribal cultural use of a protected area during fire bans. Read the MOU online. The City and Tribal Nations agreed to update the procedures related to ceremonies involving fire and temporary structures – such as tipis and sweat lodges – on Valmont Butte east of Boulder. Read the MOU online. 2002 Memorandum of Understanding The 2002 MOU provides the critical foundation for the proposed MOU, which has been discussed at City Consultations in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023. Read the MOU online. The 2002 MOU outlined several City-Tribal Nation agreements, including: Inadvertent discovery of American Indian cultural resources on City-managed open space, including funerary objects and human remains, shall be reported to the Tribes and protected by the City until they can be reviewed by Tribal Nations. Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic Memo Page 31 ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 32 9 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding City-Tribal Consultation The Consultation ended with an agreement that existing MOUs – initially adopted in the late 1990s and early 2000s – needed to be updated. There was also agreement that a working group should be established to draft agreement updates that would be discussed at a future Consultation. March 2019 Steps to Develop Proposed MOU 2019 City-Tribal Working Group Meetings The City hosted several meetings with Tribal Representatives between May and August 2019. Discussions during those working meetings helped shape the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). City-Tribal Consultation Tribal Representatives and City staff reviewed one-half of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). During the Consultation, Tribal Representatives and City staff also renamed Settler’s Park in west Boulder to The Peoples’ Crossing, formed a working group to develop education and interpretation materials, and discussed a draft land acknowledgment. City-Tribal Consultation Tribal Representatives and City staff reviewed the other half of the proposed MOU. Changes made during ongoing Consultations are documented in the marked-up MOU. City-Tribal Consultations During Consultations on Sept. 12 and Sept. 27, there were conversations that led to several edits were incorporated into the proposed MOU. City-Tribal Consultation Conversations during the Consultation primarily focused on the section of the MOU (Section 5) that describes city efforts to identify and protect areas of traditional, cultural and religious significance to Tribal Nations through the development of a planned Cultural Resource Management Plan. May-Aug 2019 April 7, 2021 March 16, 2022 September 2022 March 15-16, 2023 Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic MemoATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 33 10 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding Beyond conducting ongoing Consultations with Tribal Nations, City of Boulder staff are conducting several other projects with guidance from Tribal Representatives. More information on related projects is available on the City of Boulder website. Current City Projects with Tribal Nation Guidance The report seeks to provide accurate Indigenous Peoples’ stories – both past and present – and will be informed by in-person interviews with Tribal Representatives in Boulder. Development of the report, which will help develop future education and interpretative materials, has begun and is expected to be released to the public in early 2026. For more information, contact Phillip Yates at 303-349-2438 or yatesp@bouldercolorado.gov. The City of Boulder extends its gratitude to the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, the Northern Arapaho Tribe and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe for providing guidance regarding the future of a city-managed property that has a direct, local connection to the Sand Creek Massacre. City staff appreciate Tribal Representatives who shared guidance on the project at the 2023 consultation and for the personal perspectives Representatives shared at recent Boulder Indigenous Peoples Day events in Boulder. City Open Space and Mountain Parks and Communication and Engagement staff are receiving guidance on how to address dated Indigenous-related education and interpretative signs on the city’s Open Space and Mountain Parks system. Tribal Representatives and Lakota and Comanche children helped remove signs at The Peoples' Crossing during a March 2023 consultation based on guidance Tribal Repre- sentatives provided during a Working Group meeting earlier in the year. Planned Ethnographic and Education Report Fort Chambers - Poor Farm Management Plan Education/Interpretative Signs on Open Space Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic Memo Page 33 ATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 34 11 Proposed City of Boulder - Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding Contact Information If your Nation is ready to sign the proposed MOU, please have your authorized representative sign the MOU that also has been sent as a separate attachment to this memo. Electronic signatures on the clean MOU PDF can be emailed to Jessica Yaquinto with Living Heritage Anthropology and Phillip Yates with the City of Boulder. Signed paper copies of the MOU can be mailed to Phillip Yates with the City of Boulder. Jessica Yaquinto Living Heritage Anthropology P.O. Box 153 Cortez, CO 81321 (970) 570-9005 jessica@livingheritageanthropology.org Phillip Yates City of Boulder 2520 55th St. Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 349-2438 yatesp@bouldercolorado.gov Attachment B - Tribal MOU Graphic MemoATTACHMENT A - OSBT Update 2.14.24 Written Information - Item B - Page 35 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director, Central Services Kacey French, Planning Senior Manager Marni Ratzel, Principal Planner DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Written Information: US 36 / North Foothills Highway Bikeway Feasibility Study ________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this memo is to share information on a feasibility study being led by the Boulder County’s Transportation Planning Division in the Community Planning & Permitting Department (CP&P) to assess the practicality, considerations and impacts of a bikeway adjacent to US36 (North Foothills Highway) connecting Boulder to Lyons. If the study determines that a bikeway is feasible, a future planning phase would then look more in-depth at the conceptual alignment and create a more detailed plan. City of Boulder/Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) owns or has conservation easements on lands adjacent to the US 36 Right of Way (ROW). An objective is to avoid encroachment into OSMP lands as much as possible and minimize as well as mitigate any impacts to open space values and lands. A Boulder to Lyons regional trail connection has been identified in several OSMP plans and as such is an important collaborative effort for the City of Boulder and OSMP. Regional trail initiatives 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), defining a strategy that encourages multimodal access to trailheads and leverages regional trail partnerships (strategy RRSE.4 and RRSE.7), and addressing the global climate crisis here and now (EHR. 3). Background Transportation Purpose and Need There are already many cyclists riding on the shoulder of US 36 and the corridor has among the highest bicycle volumes of any state highway in Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) Region 4, and maybe the entire state. CDOT’s data shows the bike count for 2020 at a total of 91,961. Cyclists ride the route for recreation, including commuting to and from work. On a typical weekday, there are about 50 – 80 cyclists during rush hours on the North Foothills Highway. CDOT’s data also indicates there are many more cyclists who are “interested but concerned” who do not feel safe riding the shoulder but would ride the route if there was a separated path. US 36 between Boulder and Lyons also has had more crashes into cyclists by motorists than any other road in the county. According to the Boulder County Vision Zero Plan 30% of all severe bicycle and pedestrian crashes (20 of 67) from 2009 to 2018 were along this section of the US 36 corridor. Due to Written Information - Item C - Page 1 unsafe conditions and the high number of cyclists, this bikeway is a high priority for Boulder County Transportation. OSMP Interests OSMP has expressed support for this feasibility study because in addition to the transportation and safety related benefits that align with goals and missions of other project partners, the bikeway could provide the following benefits to OSMP. • It would provide a safe alternative to vehicular access for those travelling to OSMP’s northwest Boulder trailheads including the Joder Ranch, Left Hand, Foothills, Boulder Valley Ranch, and the future Coyote trailheads. Encouraging multimodal access to trailheads is a current OMSP strategy to reduce parking congestion from increasing visitation, increase equitable access by reducing access/transportation related issues for the 9% of residents who reported difficulty reaching OSMP by bus, bike, or foot (2019 OSMP Master Plan Survey), and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from visitor travel to the system. The potential bikeway could 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. • It could serve as the Lyons to Boulder regional trail connection identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), VMP, and North Trail Study Area (TSA) plan. It also could be considered for designation as part of the Rocky Mountain Greenway which aims to create an interconnected multiuse regional trail system connecting Jefferson and Boulder Counties, to Rocky Mountain National Park. • It would provide an alternative experience and connection to complement the planned trail system on OSMP lands to the west of US36 as identified in the OSMP North TSA plan. The OSMP lands to the west of US36 are designated as a Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) with sensitive habitat and resources including rare plants and plant communities and highly suitable habitat for species such as globally imperiled grassland-dependent butterflies, lazuli bunting, lark sparrow and prairie rattlesnake. As such, the planned trail system is intended to minimize impacts to these highly valued natural resources and to provide a more remote visitor experience that fosters appreciation and understanding of ecological systems, and with comparably lower levels of visitor use. • The North TSA-envisioned trail system parallels a portion of US36 from Boulder to Lyons to the west and pending future acquisitions, would be seen as a desirable connection to Heil Valley Ranch, a Boulder County Open Space property/trail system outside of Lyons. Given it parallels a portion of US 36 and may make a geographically similar connection to the Lyons vicinity, there is a concern that without a corresponding safe and complementary bikeway/regional trail or path connecting Boulder to Lyons, the OSMP trails envisioned in the North TSA and located within an HCA will experience increased use and pressure resulting from existing demand and the lack of a safe bikeway alternative. Given these interests and potential benefits, OSMP contributed toward the funding of the feasibility study. The bikeway feasibility study is supported by a $430,000 grant-funded project with $331,150 coming from federal funds. The local match contribution is funded by Boulder County’s CP&P ($46,350) and Parks and Open Space ($15,000) departments, with OSMP contributing $7,500. The non-profit, Cyclists4Community contributed $30,000. Boulder County and the City of Boulder OSMP entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to scope and process requirements for the feasibility study. In particular, the MOU establishes that bikeway alignments being considered for feasibility shall avoid city open space Written Information - Item C - Page 2 land or, if such land cannot be avoided, minimize adverse impacts to city open space land to the greatest extent practicable. Alignment alternatives are not to encroach into the HCA and will generally only be considered along the east side of US 36. Additionally, the county shall not continue to plan for or pursue an alignment resulting from the Feasibility Study that proposes to make use of city-owned property without the city’s concurrence. Status and alignment alternatives Boulder County has identified a potential alignment along the east side of US 36 as shown in Attachment A. The feasibility study has identified a bikeway alignment that is generally contained within the highway ROW. However, due to the existing topography and steep slope adjacent to the ROW, there are several site-specific locations where design alternatives are being considered. In these locations, it is likely that the bikeway and associated impacts may be contained within the ROW by installing a retaining wall or barrier. One design option being considered is to regrade the slope and encroach into adjacent land to avoid the need for retaining walls and barriers. A consideration is that structures within the ROW may be more impactful visually, to wildlife, and user experience compared to minor grading outside of the ROW. The feasibility study also is considering potential alternatives to provide a grade separated crossing of US 36 at the south end. For these alternatives, the bikeway would be located on the west side of US 36 and cross to the east side through an underpass within the area detailed in Attachment B. The potential bikeway would be designed as a hard-surface multi-use path facility, open and maintained for bike and pedestrian use year-round. Boulder County is preparing to gather community input on alignment design elements this winter. Information and updates are available on the project webpage at https://bouldercounty.gov/transportation/plans-and-projects/trails/north-foothills-bikeway-study/. Next Steps Boulder County will gather community input this winter. Feedback received and alignment(s) under consideration will be presented to the OSBT, anticipated in May, to gather board input before the feasibility study and final report is finalized. The feasibility study and accompanying final report are anticipated to be complete by June 30, 2024. The final report will include a Right of Way map, an evaluation of the alignments, summary of public engagement, conceptual level cost estimates, and identification of potential bikeway alignments and next steps. Attachments: •Attachment A: Overview map of Bikeway •Attachment B: Detailed map of southern terminus of bikeway Written Information - Item C - Page 3 Attachment A Written Information - Item C - Page 4 US36Attachment BWritten Information - Item C - Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Jeff Haley, Deputy Director Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director Bethany Collins, Sr. Manager, Real Estate Services Ilene Flax, Senior Landscape Architect DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Written Information: Marshall Mine Coal Seam Mitigation and Marshall Mesa Improvement Project ________________________________________________________________________ During 2022 and 2023 the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) conducted subsurface investigations to determine the nature and extent of the underground coal fire near the City of Boulder’s Marshall Mesa Trailhead (Attachment A). The detailed finding of these investigations can be found in the Marshall Mine Underground Coal Fire Report of Investigations Sept. 2023, located on the DRMS website. In summary, the subsurface investigation findings indicate subsurface heat (>80°F) is being generated from the upper coal bed in three subsurface areas of the site. Based on these findings, availability of DRMS funding, and history of mitigation efforts at the site, DRMS is recommending a mitigation effort to remove, to the extent possible, potential hazards that may be associated with the current and previous subsurface coal activity. Additionally, DRMS recommends that, where possible, burned and unburned coal, adjacent to areas with elevated subsurface temperatures, should be mitigated to prevent future subsurface ignition and subsidence. The recommended mitigation to be led by DRMS is total excavation of approximately five acres (>35 feet deep) of the coal seam areas with elevated subsurface temperatures by excavating to the bottom of the coal seam, blending and cooling any material exceeding 80°F, and then replacing the material back into the excavation (Attachment B). No fill or topsoil would be imported or exported to/from the site. While DRMS has no regulatory requirement to perform this work, they are the state authority on this type of mitigation and receive federal infrastructure investment funding from Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to mitigate active coal seams statewide. Permitting DRMS and their contractor access to perform this work would not convey any property interest in the city-owned land or create any additional monitoring or reporting requirements for DRMS or the city. It should be noted, the city is not the owner of the underground minerals that are the focus of this mitigation proposal, but it is the city’s understanding that DRMS has been in contact with the owner of the mineral rights regarding this mitigation proposal. Following excavation, the mitigated areas will either be graded to resemble the natural surrounding topography or graded in preparation for the Marshall Mesa Trailhead improvements project work that was presented to Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) in September 2023. The timing and extent of the mitigation work allows collaborative project planning, design and Written Information - Item D - Page 1 permitting to take place. The initial application for the combined excavation, grading and trailhead improvement project is expected to be made to Boulder County at the end of March 2024. Mitigation activity is expected to begin in the fall of 2024. The trailhead improvement project will commence following the DRMS-led mitigation. As that permitting work advances and more project details are known, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) will update the OSBT on the DRMS mitigation work and trailhead improvement project, likely this spring. Attachments: • Attachment A: Property Map • Attachment B: Draft Mitigation Plan Drawing Written Information - Item D - Page 2 !i Stanger Roseview Richardson I Thomas, Hogan, Parrish (T.H.P.) - East Parker CE Neuhauser City Limits Rudd - East Rudd - West SFoothillsHwyMarshall Rd EldoradoSpringsDrCoalSeamM arsh allValleyMarshallMesaCommunityDitchCommunityD itc h Communit y D it c h ¬«93 ¬«170 ¬«170 S Cherryvale RdEldoradoSpringsDrM a r s h a l l R d MarshallRd Davids o n DitchCommunity D itc hGoodhue DitchSouthB o u ld e r C reekUser: cassidyj Date: 2/7/2024 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\City Limits\Location_MarshallMesa_2024.mxd Attachment A-Property Map I 0 0.045 0.09 0.135 0.18Miles Legend !i OSMP Trailhead with Designated Parking Hiking Trail Multi-Use Trail Subject OSMP Fee Ownership OSMP Easement Marshall MesaTrailhead Written Information - Item D - Page 3 xx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMA R S H A L L D R .S FOOTHILLS HWY 93S FOOTHILLS HWY 93MARSHALL DR.DAVIDSON DITCH ELDORADO SHUTTLE PARKING 1682 MARSHALL DR. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SOUTH AREA EXCAVATION LIMITS NORTH AREA EXCAVATION LIMITS LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE OWNER: CITY OF BOULDER >>>>>>>>>>>>S-FENCE STOCKPILE (TYP) EXISTING CISTERN TO BE REMOVED FIRE WATER TANK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1689 1689 169016901680 17001690 1690 EXISTING HISTORIC PAVILION TO REMAIN. EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR (10' INTERVAL) CHKD: DRWN: PROJ: DESN:www.tetratech.comMARK DATE DESCRIPTIONBY2/1/2024 11:45:34 AM - C:\USERS\LAURA.WEATHERL\DC\ACCDOCS\TETRA TECH INC\117-8295005 MARSHALL\PROJECT FILES\CAD\SHEETFILES\C-02 EXCAVATION PLAN.DWG - WEATHERL, LAURA1 A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bar Measures 1 inch, otherwise drawing not to scale Copyright: Tetra Tech117-8295005MARSHALL FIRE MITIGATION - 50%BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADOSTATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESDIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY1100 South McCaslin BlvdSuperior, CO 80027Phone: +1 (303) 448-7453N 0 SCALE: 50' 100'200' 1'' = 100'C-02EXCAVATION PLANB.BIJOLD L. WEATHERL B.BIJOLD LEGEND ACCESS ROUTE 1. ACCESS TO SITE WILL BE FROM MARSHALL DR. A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WILL BE CREATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY FOR THE ELDORADO SHUTTLE PARKING AREA AT 1682 MARSHALL DR. 2. DISTURBANCE TO THE AREA SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. 3. EQUIPMENT OPERATION, MATERIAL STORAGE STAGING, OFFROAD TRAVEL, AND/OR OTHER PROJECT IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF CLEARED AREAS IS PROHIBITED. GENERAL NOTES: EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (10' INTERVAL) PROPERTY BOUNDARY LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE EXCAVATION LIMITS 2017 MITIGATION AREA EXCAVATION LIMITS STOCKPILE LOCATION ATTACHMENT B Written Information - Item D - Page 4