June 4 (May Meeting) Final Packet

PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
East Boulder Recreation Center, 660 Sioux Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

6:00 p.m., June 4, 2018
AGENDA Boulder Parks & Recreation

All agenda times are approximate Advisory Board Members 2018
Tom Klenow (Chair)

A TOUR OF THE FOOTHILLS PARKWAY BICYCLE UNDERPASS PROJECT WILL
Tyler Romero (Vice-Chair)
OCCUR AT 5 PM WITH BOARD MEMBERS MEETING AT THE SOUTHERN
Jennifer Kovarik
ENTRANCE TO PARK EAST PARK Mary Scott
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (6:00) Raj Seymour
Valerie Yates
II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:01) Pamela Yugar
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:03)
This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns Mission Statement
to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled BPRD will promote the health and well-
later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on being of the entire Boulder community
the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers by collaboratively providing high-quality
are limited to 3 minutes. Depending on the nature of your matter, you may or may not receive parks, facilities and programs.
a response from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to
and appreciative of community feedback.
Vision Statement
IV. CONSENT AGENDA (6:15) We envision a community where every
A. Approval of minutes from April 23, 2018 member’s health and well-being is
founded on unparalleled parks, facilities
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update and programs.
V. ITEMS FOR ACTION (6:25)
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve the Goals of the Master Plan
Boulder Parks and Recreation 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan 1. Community Health and Wellness
2. Taking Care of What We Have
VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (6:55) 3. Financial Sustainability
4. Building Community
A. 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 5. Youth Engagement
6. Organizational Readiness
VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (7:15)
A. Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project Update
B. Asset Management Program (AMP) Team Overview For more information on BPRD Master
C. Budget Update (verbal) Plan visit the City of Boulder web site
at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/
VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (7:45) parks-recreation-master-plan
A. PRAB Community Engagement Updates (verbal)

IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: June 25, 2018
X. ADJOURN
100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018
January 22 February 26 April 2 (rescheduled March meeting)

• Service Delivery Update (d/i) • Boulder County Farmers Market • Boulder County Farmers Market
License (a) License (a)
• Public Restrooms in Parks (d/i)
• Boulder County Farmers Market • Agreement with BVSD Regarding
• Boulder County Farmers Market
Update (d/i) Collaborative Efforts for Summer
(md)
• Scott Carpenter McCarty Ditch Learning and YSI (d/i)
• PRAB Letter to Council Update (mb)
Easement (d/i) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (d/i)
• Board Recruitment (mb)
• Updates to the Integrated Pest • Xcel Energy Property Rights
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) Management Policy (d/i) Agreement (md)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • Universal Design Project (md)
• PLAY Foundation Update (mb)
• New Member Orientation (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
• Outgoing Member Comments (mb)
April 23 June 4 (rescheduled May meeting) June 25

• Board appointments (p) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (a) • 2019-24 CIP (3rd touch) (a)
• Election of officers (p) • 2019-24 CIP (2nd touch) (d/i) • Operating Budget and Fees (d/i)
• First meeting for new Board • Foothills Parkeway Bicycle and • Alpine/Balsam - East Bookend
members (p) Pedestrian Underpass (md) Planning (md)
• Agreement with BVSD Regarding • Asset Management Program • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
Collaborative Efforts for Summer (AMP) Team Overview (md)
Learning and YSI (a) • Budget Update (md)
• Contract for Concession Services • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
at Flatirons Golf Course (a)
• 2019-2024 CIP (1st touch) (d/i)
• Amendment to the Contract for
Concessions Services at Flatirons
Golf Course (d/i)
• Board Liaison Discussion (mb)
July 23 August 27 September 24
• Boulder Creek Festival Update (c) • CIP 2019-2024 Update (c) • PRAB Retreat Agenda Review
• Recreation Activity Fund (RAF) (mb)
• Commercial Use (c or d/i)
Sustainability and Fees (d/i) • PRAB New Member Application
• Scott Carpenter Follow Up (md)
• PRAB Retreat (mb) Review (mb)
• PLAY Foundation Update (mb) • EAB Board Follow Up (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)

Future Board Items 2018 - continued
October 22 November 26 December 17

• 2018 Operating Budget and • Capital Project Update (md) • Asset Management Plan (md)
Recreation Fee Update (md) • PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb) • Finalize 2019 PRAB Work Plan (mb)
• PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb) • PRAB Goals for City Council Work • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) Session (mb)
LEGEND
Procedural Item: (p): An item requiring procedural attention
Consent Item (c): An item provided in written form for consent, not discussion by the Board; any consent
item may be called up by any Board member for discussion during the matters
from the department
Action Item (a): A public hearing item to be voted on by the Board (public comment period provided)
Disc/Info Item(d/i): An item likely to become a future action item (or council item) and/or that benefits from
an in-depth presentation of background, financial/social/environmental impacts, public
process, staff analysis and next steps (e.g., presentation of major project initiative)
Matters from Dept (md): Items that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring the level
of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item
Matters from the Bd (mb): Items initiated by the Board that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but
not requiring the level of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item

COMMUNITY TOUCHES - The City has recently been working on an update to the calendar of all city events
for community use. Please view the calendar online for all of the latest updates for upcoming events. We are
encouraging staff and the community to be aware of and use the new tool.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/calendar
The event list can be filtered to see only Parks and Recreation events by choosing ‘Recreation’ from the dropdown
menu at the top of the page, and then clicking on the submit button.
If you would like more information about any of the events, just use the link above and select the event you are
interested in. Additional information will appear at the botton of the page with a link directly to the event web page.
Below is a sample of what you will see, once filtered. For live links or the most up to date information, please use the
link above.


TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director
Jeff Haley, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda
DATE: June 4, 2018 (May Business Meeting)
A. Approval of Minutes from April 23, 2018
B. Parks and Recreation Development Update

The following information is intended to provide the PRAB with relevant updates on specific
projects as they reach major milestones. This section is not all inclusive of all current projects
and only illustrates major project updates. For a complete list of all current projects and details,
please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
Planning and Design

The following projects are currently in the planning and design process that involves research,
alternatives analysis, public involvement and development of planning documents and design
plans to guide decision making and future capital improvements.
• Harbeck-Bergheim House: The best resource for information about the process and next
steps is the project website https://bouldercolorado.gov/parks-rec/harbeck-bergheim-
house. This website includes an attachment of the memorandum (in the upper right-hand
corner of the webpage) that was sent to City Council last month as well as a full overview
of the process outlined. Also, the website provides an opportunity to sign up to be on the
email list and receive all the correspondence that is sent out related to the project. Most
recently, on April 30 city staff provided information and answered questions about the
project and process at a community-wide open house called “What’s Up Boulder.”
The key next steps include:

o Online Outreach and Feedback (Starting in June and continuing through mid-
July)’
o Stakeholder Outreach Meeting (Mid-June); and
o Community Open House (Mid to late June).
• North Boulder Pump Track Schematic: At the May business meeting, the board
requested schematic of the proposed North Boulder Pump Track. This information will
be provided at the June 25th meeting.
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Asset Management Program (AMP): The department’s Asset Management Matrix
Team has issued its Phase 1 AMP Document. This document outlines asset management
policies and procedures across five chapters including an Introduction to Asset
Management, Asset Inventory, Condition Assessments, Asset Criticality and Asset Cost
discussions with the goal of presenting a user-friendly, linear process for department
asset management and decision making. Additional detail is provided in the Matters from
the Department section of this month’s PRAB packet and staff will be presenting a short
overview of the AMP document at the June 4, 2018 PRAB meeting.
• Beehive Asset Management Software Implementation: The department has finalized a

contract with Beehive Industries to configure and implement Beehive asset management
software. Beehive software will help the department organize its vast inventory of assets,
provide critical work tracking and reporting functions and inform decision making
including capital investment decisions. Staff will initiate work on this project in June
2018 beginning a 12 to18 month implementation period across all work groups.
• Boulder Reservoir South Shore Site Management Plan: After a brief pause to
prioritize work on the Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center, staff will continue to
work on the South Shore Site Management Plan (SSMP) including the development of
SSMP concept alternatives, public open houses, outreach sessions and stakeholder
engagement work aimed at the delivery of a final SSMP document in fall 2018.
• Design Standards Manual: Staff will be issuing an RFP for consultant services to
develop the department’s first Design Standards Manual in late May 2018. The Design
Standards Manual will document the parks planning and development processes, identify
standard asset types and construction methodologies and develop standard unit costs that
support both Beehive asset management software and the Asset Management Program.
Development of the manual is anticipated to be completed in summer 2019.
• Planning Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following

projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Engagement Coordination Committee;
o Urban Forest Strategic Plan (see Items for Action).

Construction
The following projects are scheduled for construction, under construction or have been recently
completed. For additional details please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
• Park Renovations Celebrations: A large number of community members attended

department park renovation celebrations held in early May.
Tantra Park, May 4 Civic Area, May 6
Howard Heuston Park, May 12 Arapahoe Ridge ‘Rock’ Park, May 16
• Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center: Staff continues to work with Farnsworth
Group to prepare construction documents and bid packages for the Boulder Reservoir
Visitor Services Center (VSC). The VSC is currently in the City approvals process and
construction timeframes will be dependent upon completion of these processes. Staff will
update the PRAB as construction schedules are finalized.
• Construction Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Elks Park Arbor;
o Lighting Ordinance Compliance; and
o Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool.

Natural Lands
The following projects, focused on habitat and wildlife management in an urban environment,
are currently being managed by the Urban Resources staff:
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Restoration: The department is once again
partnering with the Colorado Department of Agriculture to address state mandated
eradication of A-list weed species. These species include Dyer’s Woad, Myrtle Spurge,
and Mediterranean Sage and are found on nearly 600 acres of the department’s natural
lands system.
• Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife Closures: Closures to protect sensitive nesting

species went back into effect on March 15 for the western side of Boulder Reservoir and
the Coot Lake Wetland area. Multiple closure violations have been noted by staff and
volunteers. Staff has responded with new environmental education material at the
trailheads and are planning for the installation of new signage emphasizing closure areas
and regulations.
Staff has seen a decrease in species nesting at the Reservoir. Whether this is a direct
result of the disturbances is difficult to determine, but disturbances are likely a factor.
Burrowing owls returned to the same nesting area as last year but then moved on. One
harrier nesting area is inactive and another is trying out a previously failed area. The loss
of these species of concern is concerning to staff.
• Urban Wildlife Management: Staff continues to participate on the city-wide Prairie

Dog Working Group (PDWG). The final report of group findings and recommendations
is expected to be presented to the City Manager in late second quarter 2018. Meeting
notes, next steps and updated information can be found at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group.
In accordance with the city’s Urban Wildlife Management Plan, lethal control has
resumed in the buffer areas at the Boulder Reservoir including the dam. City staff also
met recently to discuss the city’s collective need for relocation on various properties.
Valmont City Park continues to be the department’s highest priority for relocation and
staff is working to determine receiving site potential.
• Natural Lands Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Natural Lands Volunteer Recruitment and Training.
C. Operations Update
• Earth Day Celebrations: Despite the cold, snowy weather on April 21st, Boulder
Reservoir and tree lovers alike came out to support two Earth Day events hosted by the
department. The third annual Prep the Rez Volunteer Day rallied over 75 volunteers to
help plant trees and beautify the property. Comcast, Target and CU all partnered on the
event, contributing volunteers, financial support, food and tools. Later in the day, over
200 community members received a free tree at the Tree Recovery Program, sponsored
by the Arbor Day Foundation, TruGreen, McGuckins, and the PLAY Boulder
Foundation. The goal of the tree give-away program is to encourage residents to replant
and diversify the urban canopy in the wake of the Emerald Ash Borer epidemic. Both
events provided an opportunity for passionate community members to actively participate
in environmental stewardship in Boulder.
• Cyclocross in Urban Parks: The growing sport of cyclocross is resulting in tension in

some communities across the country. USA cycling has acknowledged these challenges
and provided great tips, including advice and stories, in this guide. Some cities have
chosen to ban cyclocross in their parks to protect assets and minimize conflict.
Recognizing that this sport can align with the department’s mission to promote health and
well-being, cyclocross is currently allowed in certain urban parks as part of the
department’s Commercial Use or Special Event permitting. This use (both permitted and
not) still results in some issues, such as damage in parks and concerns/complaints from
neighbors and other park visitors. As such, staff are developing Guidelines for Cyclocross
in Urban Parks.
Working with user groups and event promoters, the goal is to collaboratively develop a
framework that balances several competing interests:
• Supports cyclocross on a variety of terrain and topography;
• Ensures safety for all park users;
• Minimizes damage to park infrastructure and assets (e.g. turf, trees, and irrigation);
and
• Minimizes concerns and complaints from other park users and park neighbors.
Staff is meeting with user groups and event promoters in May and will gather input from
neighbors and the Board at the June business meeting.
• PRAB Summer Meeting Dates and Locations

o The June 25th PRAB meeting will be held at Council Chambers
o The July 23rd PRAB meeting will be held in the North Boulder Library go
accommodate the Summer Concert Series event that will occur in the Civic Area
the same evening.
o The August 27th PRAB meeting will be held in Council Chambers
• YSI Art Show

The Youth Services Initiative Art Show is an annual celebration that recognizes the
culture, art and collaboration with community partners through youth art. Youth are
provided with opportunities to learn art education, engage their critical thinking skills and
use creative outlets to express their talent. Youth from undeserved communities within
Boulder work with local community partners including Boulder Housing Partners,
Pottery Lab, PoshSplat Art Studio and Boulder Parks and Recreation.

The YSI art exhibit is available for viewing at the North Boulder Recreation Center
through May 31. Community members are free to enjoy the next generation of Boulder
artists expressing their culture, creativity and perspective of through this unique exhibit.

CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link:
www.boulderparks-rec.org
Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

Date of Meeting: April 23, 2018
Contact Information Preparing Summary: Sarah DeSouza, 303-413-7223
Board Members Present: Tom Klenow, Jennifer Kovarik, Valerie Yates, Tyler Romero, Mary Scott,
Pamela Yugar
Board Members Absent: Raj Seymour
Staff Present: Yvette Bowden, Ali Rhodes, Jeff Haley, Sarah DeSouza, Dean Rummel, Brenda Richey,
Alexis Moreno, Matt Kamhi, Bryan Beary
Guests Present: None
Type of Meeting: Advisory/Regular
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. The agenda was modified per motion to address the
Concession Services License discussion item prior to action item. These two items were moved to
immediately follow the consent agenda.
Agenda Item 2: Election of Officers
Tyler Romero was nominated for the position of Vice Chair and was elected (5-0; one abstention and one
absence); Tom Klenow was nominated for the position of Chair and was elected (5-0; one abstention and
one absence).
Agenda Item 3: Future Board Items and Tours
Bowden reviewed upcoming community touch opportunities. These events can be found at
www.BoulderParks-Rec.org
Agenda Item 4: Public Participation
Steve Filmer, City of Boulder resident and league director of the Boulder Paddle League, spoke about their
group’s efforts to raise private funds to support lighting upgrades at the North Boulder Recreation Center.
Jill Isenhart, City of Boulder resident and member of the Boulder Platform League, spoke about their
group's partnership fundraising efforts to have improved lighting installed at the North Boulder Recreation
Center.
Agenda Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes from April 2, 2018 (rescheduled March meeting)
Minutes from April 2, 2018 were approved as written.
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update

PRAB members made the following comments about this item:
• Has the private donation for the mini pump track at the North Boulder Park been approved?
• How was this project able to progress more quickly as compared to other partnership proposals that
have been brought forward to the department?
• Are the neighbors and other park users supportive of this project?
• Could the PRAB be provided with a diagram where this project will be located at the park?
• Appreciate the information about the Universal Access Design project provided in the packet.
Agenda Item 6: Action Item
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve a License Agreement with the
Boulder Valley School District Regarding Collaborative Efforts for Summer Learning
and the Youth Services Initiative Program
Moreno presented this item to the Board.
Public participation was opened.
No one spoke.
The Board made the following comments about this item:

• Are there any opportunities for Summer Learning Program participants to intermingle
with other children?
• Other children would greatly benefit from participating in this program.
• Pleased with how lessons learned from the pilot project have been incorporated into
this license agreement.
• How does the language in the motion that allows the City Manager to, “make minor
amendments…” get applied?
Yugar made the following motion:
To approve the memorandum of understanding for operations and coordination of BVSD’s

Summer Learning Aftercare Programming between the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation
and the Boulder Valley School District and authorize the City Manager to make minor
amendments prior to or during the term of this agreement in order to ensure that programming
is provided in a manner that is consistent with applicable lawas and the policies and
regulations of the City of Boulder.
The motion was seconded by Klenow.
The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Seymour absent.
B. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve an Amendment to the

Contract for Concession Services at Flatirons Golf Course
Bowden and Williams presented this item to the Board.
Public participation was opened.
No one spoke.
The Board had no comments about this item.

Scott made the following motion:
To approve the amendment to the contract for concession services at Flatirons Golf Course
dated March 6th, 2016 and authorize the City Manager to make minor amendments prior to or
during the term of this agreement in order to ensure that the concession is managed in a
manner that is consistent with applicable laws and the policies and regulations of the City of
Boulder.
The motion was seconded by Kovarik.
The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Seymour absent.
Agenda Item 7: Discussion/Information Item
A. 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program
Haley presented this item to the Board
PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
• Where in this process are the needs of new neighborhoods such as Boulder Junction considered?
• How are new residential and commercial properties contributing financially to the development of
future parks’ infrastructure?
• How does the Comprehensive Plan inform the department’s CIP decisions?
• How do all of the other city boards and departments “talk” to each other about capital and
infrastructure needs?
• How will the city’s current budget affect the CIP?
• Are the department’s CIP projects scalable if the city’s revenue collections increase?
• Is there public feedback sessions scheduled for the South Shore Reservoir plan?
• Is there a mechanism for the public to bring new CIP ideas to the table?
• Interested to hear more about EAB and how the city will reach out to private home owners to
inform them about the importance of this issue.
• Is the city considering solar technologies such as solar parking lots in upcoming CIP projects?
B. Amendment to the Contract for Concession Services at Flatirons Golf Course
Bowden presented this item to the Board
PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
• Is $500 a reasonable contribution for the licensee for the payment of utilities?
• Appreciate the early season rates at the Flatirons Golf Course and the partnerships that have been
formed with the golf program.
Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Department

None this month
Agenda Item 9: Matters from the Board
A. Board Liaison Discussion

• Yates is interested in continuing as the board liaison to the Greenways Advisory Board but is
willing to step aside if any other PRAB member is interested in assuming this role.
• Yugar, Klenow and Scott are interested in attending the joint EAB meeting on behalf of the PRAB.
• A monthly PLAY Foundation update will be provided by either Yugar or Romero.
B. PRAB Community Engagement Updates

• Board members attended the following activities/meetings/tours: PLAY Foundation tree giveaway
event; maker space class; dance performance with Kinesis Dance; Lunch and Learn with Boulder
County Public Health and the City of Boulder (Parks and Recreation on the topic of health equity);
regular park visits; attended a public health lecture at Boulder Community Hospital addressing
health care.
Next Board Meeting: June 4, 2018 (rescheduled May meeting)
Adjourn: There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:40 p.m.
Approved by: Attested:
_________________________ ________________________
Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza
Board Chair Board Secretary
Date _____________________ Date ____________________

CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve the

Boulder Parks and Recreation 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan.
PRESENTERS:
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
U
The purpose of this item is for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to conduct a
public hearing on the 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) and consider a motion to approve
the document. The plan will guide the department’s Forestry workgroup over the next 20 years
and shape the management of the city’s urban forest in a manner that is: a) consistent with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), b) the department’s master plan and c) meets the
community’s goals and priorities for a thriving urban forest canopy.
The Parks and Recreation Department manages Boulder’s urban forest through the forestry
workgroup and extensive coordination with the community to ensure the long-term sustainability
of the urban canopy. While Boulder has one of the most successful forestry programs along the
Front Range, many threats exist with Boulder’s trees that require careful management strategies
and effective long-term planning including managing for invasive pests such as the Emerald Ash
Borer (EAB), climate change and individual severe weather events and development.
To be prepared and plan for future threats and resource impacts, the plan provides long-term
management goals for increasing community safety and preserving and improving the health,
value, and environmental benefits of this natural resource. The plan includes an overview of
“what do we have” in terms of our forestry program, resources and characteristics of the urban
forest and “what do we want” in terms of the community’s desires, expectations and priorities for
the urban forest. The plan also includes information related to “how do we get there” to achieve
the goals of the plan and “how are we doing” which outlines ongoing monitoring to ensure plan
objectives are met. This structure, referred to as adaptive management, is commonly used for
resource planning and management and provides a good conceptual framework for urban forest
programming.
AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___1____

The plan is intended to be a living document and staff must identify timeframes for reviewing
accomplishments and updating target dates for implementation items. Based upon the outcomes
of the plan, the department will need to focus on the following priorities and begin to shift
resources to focus on the highest action items.
1. Urban forestry is an important part of Boulder’s resilience strategy. Increasing the

resilience and sustainability of the urban forest directly supports the resilience of the
community. The priorities include; establishing a no-net-loss canopy goal, developing a
planting initiative that increases trees on public and private property, increasing species
diversity, development of specific resiliency plans (climate, emergency, drought, pests
etc.), and integrating urban forestry goals with other city guiding documents.
2. Boulder has an exceptional Forestry program and already implements many industry
BMPs. Management priorities for the UFSP explore; the consolidation of urban forestry
responsibilities, increasing staff resources and funding, providing a more consistent
contracting operating procedure, improvements to the tree inventory database, further
development and integration of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, and
periodic review and alignment of UFSP priorities.
3. The urban forest represents an asset, one which must be nurtured and protected. This is
accomplished through municipal code, policies, and design and construction standards
that support tree planting and longevity. The priorities include; revision of tree protection
codes and policies, improved standards for tree maintenance, expanding options for tree
mitigation payback, streamlining pesticide permitting, and improvements to the Tree
Safety Inspection Program (TSIP).
4. The Boulder community places a high value on environmental stewardship. Engaging

with and educating the community with the most current information on the urban forest
will mobilize activists and facilitate policy implementation. In the development of the
UFSP, many stakeholders expressed a desire for a community-based urban forest
advocacy group to promote, protect, and enhance Boulder’s urban forest. Priorities to
engage the community are; communicating plan goals, diversifying funding sources and
partners, facilitating private property tree plantings and maintenance, and the
establishment of a partner non-profit urban forest foundation.
BACKGROUND:
U
Since 2016, a staff team has been working with two consultants, Davey Resource Group
(technical) and Two Forks Collective (outreach) on the comprehensive plan that will outline a
long-term approach to ensuring the sustainability of Boulder’s urban tree canopy.
Steps to develop the Urban Forest Strategic Plan include:

1. Community Engagement: The complete list of engagement activities to date includes:
a) Stakeholder Long Form Survey;
b) Interviews with stakeholders, forestry experts and city officials;
c) Tree story stations;

d) Community Short Form Survey;
e) Public Open House (2);
f) Technical Working Group Meetings (3)
g) Feedback from the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB); and
h) Young children tree preferences from Growing up Boulder, Boulder County Head
Start and Boulder Journey School.
2. Public Tree Inventory
3. Emerald Ash Borer long term strategy (implementation on-going)
4. Urban Forest Resource Analysis
5. Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
6. Consultant On-Boarding and Background Review
7. Plan Development (See Attachment B for Draft Final Plan)
Developing the Plan

Upon review of the current forestry program and input from the community and other
stakeholders, the UFSP team established an overarching goal to maintain a sixteen percent urban
tree canopy within Boulder. Four themes of sustainable urban forestry including Plan, Manage,
Protect and Engage were developed to communicate this goal to the public. Detailed goals and
objectives were developed within this structure to guide the future management of Boulder’s
urban forest. The public open house in March 2018 provided a chronology of the research,
community outreach and milestones that occurred throughout the process. Additionally, this
meeting presented a comprehensive summary of the strategic goals and actions to meet the needs
of Boulder’s urban forest as well as community stated desires for the future of their urban forest.
Details about the four identified sustainable urban forestry themes are as follows:
Plan
U
Urban forestry is an important part of Boulder’s resilience strategy. Increasing the resilience and
sustainability of the urban forest directly supports the resilience of the community.
1. Develop and implement a 20-year Planting Plan for public trees to support the 16 percent
urban tree canopy cover by 2037.
2. Participate in inter-departmental Urban Ecosystems Management Strategic planning process
to integrate ecosystem protection and monitoring across urban, agricultural and wildland
systems
3. Create an Urban Forest Emergency Response Plan for city-wide coordination to ensure
appropriate coverage and minimize risk to the public.
Manage
U
Boulder has an exceptional Forestry program and already implements many industry best
management practices. Further refinements and increased funding is needed however to match
community expectations.
1. Establish a dedicated, sustained funding source beyond the departmental budget for Boulder
Forestry operations to increase the level of service to meet the community’s high standards.
2. Shift management responsibility for all trees in public street rights-of-way and around public
buildings under Boulder Forestry to maximize advantages in expertise and scale.

3. Expand the Public Tree Planting program to support efforts toward the goal of sixteen
percent canopy by 2037.
4. Increase investment in proactive, preventative maintenance by exploring options to increase
the frequency of pruning events for public street trees.
5. Refine the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program to improve tree health while
minimizing cost and negative impacts to ecosystems and the public.
6. Explore the expansion of the Commercial Tree Program beyond the immediate downtown
area to maintain urban tree canopy, protect property and better manage public safety issues.
7. Continue to explore all wood utilization options to improve resiliency to increased cost or
disappearance of any single waste stream.
8. Transition to a new Asset Management System to allow efficient forestry business processes
across city workgroups and provide essential baseline data for strategic forest management.
9. Streamline the Tree Safety Inspection Program to manage risk and minimize City exposure
to claims but reduce the financial and logistical costs on forestry operations.
10. Continue implementation of the Emerald Ash Borer response strategy to maintain public
safety, ecosystem services and forest function in the face of unprecedented canopy loss.
11. Develop a staff succession plan within Forestry to encourage continual professional
development and facilitate transitions in leadership to minimize disruption to operations,
forrest stakeholders and the public.
Protect
U
The urban forest represents an asset, one which must be nurtured and protected. This is
accomplished through municipal code, policies, and design and construction standards that support
tree planting and longevity.
1. Strengthen Boulder Forestry’s role in all city CIP projects to minimize damage to tree assets
and canopy loss.
2. Strengthen existing city requirements for trees on Public Property to increase tree protection,
U U
improve site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity requirements to maintain the
urban tree canopy and increase forest resiliency.
3. Strengthen existing and develop new city requirements for Private Property to increase tree
U U
protection, improve site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity requirements to
maintain the urban tree canopy and increase forest resiliency.
4. Revise licensing requirements for all tree care companies performing tree work in Boulder to
improve public safety and tree health.
Engage
U
The Boulder community places a high value on environmental stewardship. Connecting with and
educating the community with the most current information on the urban forest will mobilize
activists and facilitate policy implementation. In the development of the UFSP, many stakeholders
also expressed a desire for a community-based urban forest advocacy group to promote, protect,
and enhance Boulder’s urban forest.
1. Provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in
understanding the problems, alternatives and options to achieve the Boulder urban tree
canopy goal.
2. Partner with the community on projects to broaden knowledge, support and funding for the
Boulder urban tree canopy goal.

3. Develop and expand opportunities for community involvement in the commitment to achieve
the UTC goal.
4. Involve the public on the analysis, alternatives and recommendations for further urban
forestry related planning processes and potential code changes.
ANALYSIS:
U
Staffing and Operations

Boulder is aware of the importance of trees to the health and sustainability of the community.
Forestry staff exhibit a high level of expertise and dedication to managing the community’s
urban forest assets and they are supported in their education and professional development. Staff
have assembled a strong foundation for managing urban forest resources and operations using a
robust asset management system to track the condition and history of every public tree, plan
work, conduct threat analysis, and develop informed management strategies. A GIS-based land
cover map provides information about the location and extent of existing canopy and a platform
for development of a comprehensive planting plan. A current resource analysis details the
structure, condition, value and environmental and socio-economic services provided by the
public tree resource. This information provides a basis for long-term planning and establishes
benchmarks for measuring the success of management strategies.
Boulder Forestry is also recognized nationally for demonstrating leadership and best
management practices. The existing forestry program is very progressive, with a diverse range
and depth of services, including annual tree inspections, tree risk evaluations, maintenance and
safety pruning, integrated pest management and community outreach.
The planning process for the UFSP revealed few inefficiencies in Boulder’s urban forestry
program and those that were identified are generally beyond the control of staff, including
budget shortfalls and external threats from severe weather and invasive pests. EAB, severe
weather, and climate change are important considerations when planning for a healthy and
resilient urban forest. Mortality estimates for the combined assumptions of standard tree
mortality and mortality from pests is a 25% reduction in canopy within the next decade if
proactive measures are not taken.
• A comprehensive tree planting initiative to meet the community’s goal of no-net-loss
of tree canopy is a high priority for the UFSP.
• Ongoing adaptive management and monitoring success are cornerstones to building
an even more resilient urban forest for future generations.
• Increasing species diversity and protecting existing healthy trees are crucial to
preserving Boulder’s urban forest and the contribution of trees and canopy to quality
of life and sustainability of the community.
Industry BMPs recommend routine tree pruning be conducted every five to seven years. Since
2012, due to safety pruning and removals necessitated by unusual weather events, pest invasions,
and increasing costs for contact services, the routine pruning cycle has increased to 11 years for
park trees and fifteen years for public street trees. This has created a backlog of deferred
maintenance and an increased number of annual service requests from the public. Deferred
maintenance is far more critical than simply responding to more service requests. More than 67%

(13,034) of young trees (<6” DBH) are medium and large-maturing trees that still have a lot of
growing to do before they reach maturity. Structural pruning is critical at this stage to prevent
costly issues and branch failures as these young trees mature into their final size in the landscape.
Deferring maintenance affects the health and safety of trees, results in additional failures during
severe weather events, reduces the lifespan of trees, and increases risk to people and property.
In the past, staff were conducting safety inspections on approximately 100 trees per year. Due to
the advanced age and size of trees in older neighborhoods, that number is now 200 to 250 trees
per year. This presents another challenge concerning evaluation and monitoring, especially for
the TSIP and newly established trees. The scope of the program represents a significant logistical
burden on Forestry operations and may need to be scaled back to keep up with demand.
Collaboration
Staff have a proven track record of interagency collaboration, as demonstrated by the
interdepartmental EAB response. Two key challenges exist for coordination and collaboration
efforts among Boulder departments.
• The first challenge is clarifying the expectations of workgroup roles and department
jurisdictions when facing an emergency response event. There are multiple workgroups
within and between departments who play a key role in emergency response protocols
and decision making. Furthermore, the characteristics of an emergency event will differ
dramatically and will sometimes change which group takes on the role between these
varying emergency scenarios. While there are a few emergency plans in place,
disaggregating which workgroup does what throughout all potential emergency scenarios
that Boulder might face will continue to be an ongoing challenge. It is important to
continue collaborating with departments to define and plan for varying emergency events
that will impact the urban canopy. This is especially true with Public Works, as this has
been identified as a critical department to work with in the face of emergency response
planning.
• The second challenge is synchronizing software and database management tools to be
congruent. Currently, there are several different tools employed among different teams
which increase technological miscommunication.
Outreach and Education

Community outreach and public perception are high priorities for Boulder Forestry. Nationally-
lauded workshops and presentations, combined with an informative and easy to navigate website,
provide the community with ample opportunity for education. Possible communication
improvements with private property owners are through increased transparency and information
exchange. There needs to be further communication with those who have ash which are not
being treated. It is vital to communicate to these property owners that their ash is not being
treated and will be removed as it declines due to EAB. Boulder has created an online resource for
these homeowners to log this information electronically.
Service Delivery and Resources
In recent years, cost of living increases, mounting public expectation for service delivery, and
stagnant organizational budgets have created some gaps between public expectations and service

capacity. Emerging urban forest threats, changes in climate, and community growth are obstacles
to maintaining the high level of service expected by Boulder residents. In many cases, challenges
can be viewed as opportunities for development and increased efficiency. To provide the
recommended level of care for the community's urban forest resources, Boulder Forestry will
require additional funding. Specifically, current funding levels are inadequate to support:
• Pruning and maintenance cycles: The industry recommendation is a seven-year rotation.
• EAB management: The costs for treatment and removal will continue to rise over the
next several years.
• Traffic control and towing costs are increasing: for some trees, the traffic control costs
exceed the removal cost.
• A tree planting initiative to preserve Boulder’s current level of tree canopy cover (16%):
The initiative requires increasing public tree planting to 600 trees per year and facilitating
2,025 new trees on private property. Planting initiatives should include an increased level
of young tree care because proper watering and structural pruning are required to ensure
young trees live to their fullest.
• Public engagement, education and programming.
Implementation and Monitoring

The plan is an active tool that will guide management and planning decisions over the next 20
years. The goals, priorities, and actions will be reviewed annually for progress and integration
into annual work plans and presents a long-range vision with timeframes that are intended to be
flexible. This will allow management to adapt in response to emerging opportunities, available
resources, and changes in community expectations. Each year, specific areas of focus should be
identified, which will inform budget and time requirements for urban forest managers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
U
Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests PRAB’s consideration of this matter and action in
U U
the form of the following motion:
Motion to approve the Boulder Parks and Recreation 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan.
NEXT STEPS:
U
Upon the PRAB’s approval of the plan, staff will provide a comprehensive information
packet (IP) to City Council outlining the full process and outcomes of the UFSP and include
the final plan pending any recommendations or revisions from PRAB. Staff will begin
implementing key aspects of the plan starting with public involvement and education. Staff
are already working closely with the Boulder Play Foundation and the Tree Trust related to
the EAB initiative and staff will continue this relationship while expanding outreach
significantly to private property owners within the community. Staff have developed an
engagement plan that will serve as the guide to the department’s internal and external
communication and marketing goals, strategies and tactics.

The success of this plan requires extensive and coordinated communication to ensure public
education and inspire individual activism in support of Boulder's trees and the UFSP. The
UFSP Communications strategy consists of four primary objectives:
• Public education and awareness of UFSP activities, progress, milestones and
accomplishments;
• Instill a sense of urgency and social responsibility (how can I help?) that will lead to
sustained public participation and support for Boulder’s urban forest;
• Inspire public stewardship, positive public action to protect current urban canopy, plant
and nurture Boulder’s future urban canopy;
• Collaborate with and support our community partners such as the PLAY Boulder
Foundation Tree Trust to engage and inspire the community to support the UFSP’s
sixteen percent canopy cover goal, including development of a broad palette of “brand”
strategies, action ideas, key messages and tools to achieve this goal.
Throughout the implementation of this community engagement plan, our efforts will be
guided by the following principles:
• Goal and results oriented: We are motivated by a commitment to be great advocates
and stewards of Boulder’s urban canopy; therefore, our work will be driven by the
attainment of the goals established in this plan in support of the UFSP.
• Respectful and Collaborative: We will be transparent, respectful and inclusive of our
USFP partners to build trust and foster effective collaboration in support of this plan.
• Communicate the Vision: Messages should be consistent and tailored to the targeted
audiences as well as sent multiple times through a variety of channels.
• Timely, Flexible and Appropriate: Information must be available when it is needed, the
right information must be given, using the right methods and to the right people, avoiding
duplication and overload.
• Clear, Direct and Two-Way: We will be clear on what we need input from partners and
the community on and what is not negotiable. Feedback will be listened to and carefully
considered.
ATTACHMENTS:
U
Attachment A: 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan

CIT Y OF BOULDER
URBAN FOREST STRATEGIC PL AN
Our Trees. Our Legacy.

Boulder Parks & Recreation
“The planting of a tree, especially one of the
long-living hardwood trees, is a gift which
you can make to posterity at almost no cost
and with almost no trouble, and if the tree
takes root it will far outlive the visible effect
of any of your other actions, good or evil. ”
- George Orwell
City of Boulder
Urban Forest Strategic Plan
Our Trees. Our Legacy.
2018
Prepared For:
City of Boulder
3198 N. Broadway
Boulder, CO 80304
Phone: 303-413-7200
BoulderForestry.org
Prepared By:
Davey Resource Group, Inc.
6005 Capistrano Ave. Suite A
Atascadero, California 93422
Phone: 805-461-7500
www.davey.com/drg
Acknowledgments
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) Members Other Department Staff City Council Members
Tom Klenow Rella Abernathy Suzanne Jones, Mayor
Jennifer Kovarik Jessica Andersen Jill Adler Grano
Tyler Romero Ward Bauscher Aaron Brockett, Mayor Pro Tem
Mary Scott Joanna Crean Cindy Carlisle
Raj Seymour Greg Guibert Mirabai Kuk Nagle
Valerie Yates Elizabeth Judd Lisa Morzel
Pamela Yugar Brett KenCairn Sam Weaver
Past PRAB Members Valerie Matheson Bob Yates
Marty Gorce MaryAnn Nason Mary Young
Kelly Wyatt Candice Owen Past City Council Members
Carey Sager Matthew Appelbaum
Parks and Recreation Department Staff Gerrit Slatter Jan Burton
Yvette Bowden, Director Chris Wanner Andrew Shoemaker
Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director
Jeff Haley, Planning Manager Community Working Group PLAY Boulder Foundation
Paul Bousquet Kai Abelkis Mike Conroy
Tina Briggs Elizabeth Black Kelly Wyatt
Margo Josephs Roland Boller Tyler Romero
Christy Spielman Mikl Brawner Margo Josephs
Denise White David Davia Yvette Bowden
M Essa Caitlin Berube-Smith
Forestry Staff Dave Kalyan
Kathleen Alexander Paul Lander City Manager’s Office
Pat Bohin Josh Morin Jane Brautigam, City Manager
Ken Fisher Brian Muir Mary Ann Weideman , Deputy City Manager
John Marlin Keith Wood Tanya Ange , Deputy City Manager
Tom Read
Consultants
Davey Resource Group
Two Forks Collective
Accepted by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Month 00, 2018
Presented to City Council as an Information Packet on Month 00, 2018
Table of Contents
1 7 19 97
Executive Summary Introduction What Do We Have? What Do We Want?
What Do We Have? 3 Services of Urban Trees & Canopy Cover 8 Community 19 Community Input 97
What Do We Want? 4 Health & Wellness 9 What is the Urban Forest? 21 Case Studies 116
How Do We Get There? 5 Reducing Atmospheric Carbon 10 History of Urban Forestry in Boulder 23 Conclusion 116
How Are We Doing? 5 Improving Air Quality 11 Guiding Principles & Regulatory Framework 25
Capturing Stormwater Runoff Boulder’s Urban Forest Resource 44
& Improving Water Quality 13 City Forestry Programs & Operations 55
Benefits to Wildlife 15 Threats to the Urban Forest 85
Aesthetic & Socio-economic Services 16 Conclusion 95
Lessening Energy Demand 17
117 137 139

How Do We Get There? How Are We Doing? Appendix
Goals, Priorities, Actions 117 Monitoring & Measuring Results 137 References 139
Plan 119 Methodology 143
Manage 121 Funding 145
Protect 127 Calculating Individual Tree Services 147
Engage 131 Public Survey 147
Survey Graphs 149
Table of Figures 163
Dictionary 164
Soil Volume & Tree Stature 165
Alternative Planter Design 166
Standard Tree Planting Detail 169
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE
Boulder residents strongly support environmental
protections. In 2013, Boulder became one of the first
32 cities chosen to participate in 100 Resilient Cities
(100RC). Resilience is the ability to prepare for and
respond effectively to stress. Resilient communities
pledge to preserve the quality of life today and
SUMMARY
improve their legacy for future generations. By any
metric, Boulder is a premier city with beautiful natural
amenities, strong environmental values, and a quirky
yet highly-skilled workforce. In sum, the people of
Boulder are healthy, motivated, and educated. Urban
trees support the active, outdoor lifestyle of residents.
Boulder is a thriving community which consistently ranks An urban forest is the collection of trees that grow within
among the best places to live in America. Resources “The city will support, promote and, in some a city or town. A resilient urban forest supports the
from Forbes to Gallup sing Boulder’s praises; beautiful cases, regulate the protection of healthy existing resilience of the community. Stewardship of Boulder’s
natural scenery, a robust economy, and the healthy trees and the long term health and vitality of urban forest is an important part of the resilience strategy.
lifestyle of Boulder residents. Boulder is home to many the urban forest in the planning and design of Boulder’s urban forest currently provides an overall
PhDs as well as numerous startups and corporate giants public improvements and private development. average canopy cover of 16% (2,773 acres) (Urban Tree
including Google, Microsoft, and Threadless. It’s also a The city will encourage overall species diversity, Canopy Assessment, 2015) and includes approximately
major government research hub, home to the National native and low water demand tree species 650,000 trees on public and private land. Along with
Center for Atmospheric Research and the National where appropriate.” their aesthetic and socio-economic contribution, trees
Institute of Standards and Technology. serve as a buffer to many environmental stressors by
– Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan providing cooling shade, energy savings, cleaner air,
Pristine natural surroundings offer easy access to wildlife habitat, and vital protection for creeks and
mountain streams and lush forests. With more than 43,000 streams by reducing stormwater runoff.
acres of open space, 151 miles of trails, 60 parks, and
the Boulder Creek Path, which runs through the middle What Do What Do The Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) provides long-
of town, this outdoor paradise promotes access to year- We Have? We Want? term management goals for increasing community
round recreation, including hiking, fishing, biking, and safety and preserving and improving the health, value,
rock climbing. The community enjoys delicious local and environmental benefits of this natural resource. The
cuisine and farm-to-table eateries. Boulder’s population structure of the UFSP are based on the understanding of
has one of the lowest obesity rates (12.4%) of American what we have, what we want, how we get there, and
cities (Riffkin, 2014), rated 10th in the 2016 overall How Are How Do We how we are doing. This structure, referred to as adaptive
Community Well-Being Rankings (Gallup-Healthways), We Doing? Get There? management, is commonly used for resource planning
and has been the nation’s fittest community since 2009. and management (Miller, R.W.) and provides a good
conceptual framework for urban forest programming.
Map 1: Land Cover
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
Chart 1: Land Cover
Pervious Water
47% 4%
Canopy
16%
Impervious
33%
Table 1: Land Cover Classes

Land Cover Class Acres Percent
Canopy 2,773 16%
Impervious 5,724 33%
Pervious 8,198 47%
Water 755 4%
Total 17,450 100%
3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Analysis, 2015). These city-managed trees are providing challenges to the growth and survival of trees. At an
What Do We Have? approximately 24 percent of all canopy cover (4 percent
of overall Boulder acreage)and nearly $5.2 million
elevation of 5,430 feet, there are few native tree species
in this high desert region. Those trees that have been
The development process for the UFSP involved a each year in environmental services ($700,000) and naturalized and cultivated in Boulder’s urban forest face
comprehensive review and assessment of: increased property values ($4.5 million). To replace this a constant barrage of threats, including temperature
public resource with trees of a similar size and species extremes, late spring freezes, snowstorms, flooding and
• Existing urban forest resources, including would cost nearly $110 million (Urban Forest Resource drought.
composition, value and environmental benefits; Assessment, 2015).
Boulder was the first city in Colorado to identify the
• Community vision, including those expressed by Boulder’s Forestry Division exemplifies professionalism presence of emerald ash borer (EAB). This devastating
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, Boulder in their dedication to high-level standards in the pest is 100 percent deadly to untreated ash trees. EAB
Resiliency Plan and Boulder Climate Action Plan; management of the urban forest. The division employs is responsible for the death of hundreds of millions
• Guiding documents, including ordinance and seven full-time professionals who regularly participate of trees in more than 30 states. Ash trees account for
tree protection policies, development and in training and industry events to stay abreast of current more than 25 percent of Boulder’s urban tree canopy
construction standards, and preservation advancements. They are dedicated to increasing the and provide a significant contribution o environmental
requirements; and sustainability and resilience of the urban forest. and socio-economic services to the community. It is
estimated that there are more than 70,000 ash trees in
• Forestry operations, including funding and Forestry operations are robust and focused on best
Boulder, valued at approximately $18 million (including
current service levels for both in-house and management practices (BMPs), emerging industry
public, private and naturalized sites).
contracted forestry staff. solutions, and the prudent application of available
resources. In addition to standard services, like Since the identification of EAB in 2013, Boulder Forestry
The review process established that Boulder has built rotational pruning, tree removal and replacement, has been at the forefront of the state’s EAB management
a strong foundation for an exceptional urban forestry storm response, development review, and responding to program. Over the next two to five years, EAB will have
program. The community has made an outstanding customer service requests, Boulder’s forestry operations a significant direct budgetary impact on Boulder and
commitment to planting, preserving and promoting include several exemplary programs that meet or exceed private residents. Although Boulder Forestry is providing
the care of trees and other natural resources. Much industry recommendations These programs include a pesticide treatments for many larger established ash
of Boulder’s urban forest, including approximately Tree Safety Inspection Program (TSIP), Integrated Pest trees, all untreated ash are expected to die from EAB over
650,000 trees and 2,773 acres of canopy, is located on Management (IPM), wood debris management and an the next five years. As a result, Boulder is anticipating
private property. The overall urban forest tree canopy arborist licensing program. a 25 percent loss in existing tree canopy (with as much
is providing more than $876,000 in annual benefits to air as 32 percent loss in some neighborhoods).
quality, carbon sequestration, and avoided stormwater Since 2013, the personnel, training, equipment and
runoff (Urban Forest Resource Analysis, 2015). budget to support these activities have not kept pace,
leading to longer pruning cycles, delayed responses and
In addition to 600,000 privately owned trees, nearly deferred maintenance.
50,800 community trees are located on streets, parks,
and public Right-of-Way (ROW) (Urban Forest Resource The unique climate of the Front Range poses many
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
Table 2: Benchmark ValuesUrban Forest

Boulder's Realizing this goal will require a consolidated effort
Urban Forest Tree Population What Do We Want? from the community, actions include:
Number of All Trees 650,000
Average Trees Per Acre 37.2 In addition to forestry staff, there are multiple • Engaging and preparing the community for
canopy loss;
stakeholders, internal and external, who play a role
Tree Canopy Cover (Public and Private Trees) in the planning, design, care and advocacy of the • Developing citywide and neighborhood planting
Overall Canopy Cover 15.9% urban forest. The development of the UFSP included plans;
considerable outreach to engage and collaborate with
Impervious Surfaces 32.8%
forestry professionals, city leadership and the community. • Setting minimum requirements for species
Maximum Urban Tree Canopy 40.7% diversity and large-stature trees;
Outreach included surveys, pop-up Tree Story Stations,
Annual Services (Public and Private Trees) a public open house, interviews with managing • Planting 600 public trees each year;
Avoided Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Dioxide Reduced
$177,016
$676,508
stakeholders, and technical working group meetings. • Facilitating the planting of 2,025 trees on private
Everyone who participated played a role and provided property each year; and
Air Quality Improvement $22,631 input for the development of the UFSP.
Total Annual Services $876,155 • Monitoring canopy cover for gains and losses.
Overwhelmingly, stakeholders expressed the desire to
While unquestionably devastating, managing the losses
preserve and grow tree canopy. While the reasons were
Long-Term Benefits (Public and Private Trees) from EAB is a relatively short-term problem within the
varied, most participants recognize and appreciate the
Stored Carbon $17,056,868 long-term, perpetual stewardship of Boulder’s trees. An
environmental services and contribution to the quality
urban forest is a dynamic resource, constantly growing
of life that the urban forest provides.
Boulder's Public Tree Resource and responding to the environment and the care it
Many participants were aware of EAB and that trees are receives.
Public Tree Resource Tree Population
being removed as a result. Yet most respondents were
Number of Public Trees (2015) 50,800 The preservation and care of existing and new trees
not aware of the extent and gravity of the issue that is
Replacement Value of Public Trees $109,955,170 requires planning and sustainable resources to promote
expected to result in the loss of 25 percent (~775 acres)
forest health, longevity, and greater resilience over
of existing tree canopy.
Species Diversity (Public Trees) time.
Number of Unique Species 235 Recognizing that the transformed canopy will have
Prevalance of Top Ten Species 50.7% a considerable economic, social and environmental
Species Exceeding Recommended 10% 1 impact for decades to come, the UFSP suggests a goal
of no-net-loss in overall tree canopy by 2037.
Aesthetic Benefits (Public Trees)
Property Value Increase $4,493,582
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recognizing this, stakeholders also identified areas of • Plan, including a priority to establish a no-netloss • Engage, including priorities and actions to
focus for the long-term stewardship of Boulder’s urban canopy goal of 16 percent by 2037. Additional communicate measurable and objective
forest, including: priorities and actions include monitoring canopy information, facilitate understanding of urban
cover for gains and losses, developing citywide forest challenges and canopy goals, expand the
• Maintenance and preservation of existing trees on and neighborhood planting plans, creating design opportunities for community involvement in
both public and private property;
strategies for maintaining irrigation to young activities and plan-making processes, and to
• Increased outreach and engagement with the trees during drought, and establishing minimum partner with the community on projects to broaden
Boulder community; requirements for species diversity and large support and funding for the urban forest.
stature trees.
• Opportunities for volunteers and neighborhood The UFSP provides long and short-term strategies for
leaders; • Manage, including priorities and actions to the next 20 years to ensure that Boulder’s urban forest
consolidate all public tree care under Boulder successfully aligns with the community’s vision for a
• Greater collaboration with local, regional, and
Forestry, excluding trees managed by Boulder's safe, sustainable, and resilient resource. Since Boulder
state partners; and
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP). Additional can only directly affect public trees, (24 percent of all
• Sustainable funding. priorities and actions include, temporarily canopy cover), the plan recognizes that community
increasing annual planting budgets, facilitating engagement is integral to success.
Finally, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and incentivizing tree planting on private property,
is the unifying document that communicates the
community’s vision for the future, identifies core values,
and provides departmental master plans with clear plan
continuing to implement the EAB response strategy,
securing dedicated and sustainable funding to How Are We Doing?
ensure that forestry operations meet community
components. The BVCP identifies specific values that safety expectations, requiring protections for The long-term success of the UFSP will be measured
are particularly relevant to the urban forest including wildlife and critical habitat, and collaborating through the realization of plan goals and demonstrated
great neighborhoods and open spaces, environmental with regional partners for cost-sharing and bulk through the increased value and services provided by the
stewardship and climate action, physical health, pricing. urban forest. The plan identifies measurable actions,
safety, and well-being, with sustainability as a unifying potential partners, relative cost and desirable time
framework to meet environmental, economic and social • Protect, including an emphasis on trees as frames for priorities and actions. However, the UFSP
goals. The principle of sustainability drives the overall essential infrastructure. Additional priorities is intended to be a dynamic tool that can and should
framework of the BVCP and the UFSP. and actions include best management practices, be adjusted in response to available resources and
industry standards for tree care, strengthen emerging opportunities. One of the greatest measures
public tree protection, add protections for private
How Do We Get There? trees, revise professional standards for tree care
of success for the UFSP will be its level of success in
meeting community expectations for the care and
companies, water-efficient irrigation systems, and preservation of Boulder’s urban forest.
The UFSP identifies four goals for preserving the safety, an enhanced role for forestry in development and
health, value, services, and resiliency of Boulder’s construction projects.
urban forest. The goals are supported through priorities
and actions:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
GOALS
Plan Manage Protect Engage
PRIORITIES PRIORITIES
• Develop and implement a 20-year Planting Plan for
public trees to support the 16% urban tree canopy cover
• Establish a dedicated, sustained funding source beyond
the departmental budget for Boulder Forestry operations
• Strengthen Boulder Forestry’s role in all city CIP projects • Provide the community with balanced and objective
to minimize damage to tree assets and canopy loss. information to assist them in understanding the problems,
by 2037. to increase the level of service to meet the community’s alternatives and options to achieve the Boulder urban tree
• Participate in an inter-departmental Urban Ecosystems

high standards. • Public Property to increase tree protection, improve
Strengthen existing city requirements for trees on canopy goal.
Management Strategic planning process to integrate
ecosystem protection and monitoring across urban,
• Expand the Public Tree Planting program to support
efforts toward the goal of 16% canopy by 2037.
site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity
requirements to maintain the urban tree canopy and
• Partner with the community on projects to broaden
knowledge, support and funding for the Boulder urban
agricultural and wildland systems. increase forest resiliency. tree canopy goal.
• Create an Urban Forest Emergency Response Plan for

• Shift management responsibility for all trees in public
street ROW and around public buildings under Boulder • Strengthen existing and develop new city requirements • Develop and expand opportunities for community
citywide coordination to ensure appropriate coverage and Forestry to maximize advantages in expertise and scale. for Private Property to increase tree protection, improve involvement in the commitment to achieve the Urban
minimize risk to the public. site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity Tree Canopy goal.
• Increase investment in proactive, preventative
maintenance by exploring options to increase the
increase forest resiliency. • Involve the public on the analysis, alternatives and
frequency of pruning events for public street trees. recommendations for further urban forestry related
• Refine the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program • performing tree work in Boulder to improve public safety
Revise licensing requirements for all tree care companies planning processes and potential code changes.
to improve tree health while minimizing cost and negative and tree health.
impacts to ecosystems and the public.
• Streamline the Tree Safety Inspection Program (TSIP)

to manage risk and minimize City exposure to claims as
well as reduce the financial and logistical costs on forestry
operations.
• Continue implementation of the EAB response strategy

to maintain public safety, ecosystem services, and forest
function in the face of unprecedented canopy loss.
• Transition to a common software Asset Management

System to allow efficient forestry business processes
across city work groups and provide essential baseline data
for strategic forest management.
• Continue to explore all wood utilization options to

improve resiliency to increased cost or disappearance of
any single waste stream.
• Explore the expansion of the Commercial Tree Program

(CTP) beyond the immediate downtown area to maintain
urban tree canopy, protect property and better manage
public safety issues.
• Develop a staff succession plan within Forestry to

encourage continual professional development and
facilitate transitions in leadership to minimize disruption
to operations.
• Deliver a State of the Urban Forest Report biennially for

elected officials, key urban forest stakeholders, and the
public.
7 INTRODUCTION
Introduction Boulder also contracted with Two Forks Collective to

coordinate community engagement during the planning
process. Davey Resource Group is comprised of experts
in arboriculture and urban forestry, and Two Forks
Collective are experts in community engagement. Both
In 2016, Boulder contracted with the Davey Resource managed by Boulder, primarily through the Boulder firms are essential to the realization of Boulder’s goal
Group to develop an Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) Forestry Division. In Boulder, public trees have an to preserve the existing citywide 16 percent urban tree
to specifically address the unique challenges and appraised replacement value of over $110 million. That canopy cover because Boulder can only directly affect
opportunities Boulder’s urban forest will face over the figure represents the cost to replace all the public trees public trees (24 percent of overall tree canopy cover).
next 20 years. with trees of comparable species, health and size. Therefore, community buy-in must occur to impact
The urban forest also includes hundreds of thousands the remaining private trees (76 percent of overall tree
Boulder's urban tree canopy cover was measured as 16 canopy cover).
of trees on commercial, private and naturalized areas
percent in 2013. Urban tree canopy cover is the layer of
throughout Boulder.
leaves, branches, and stems of all trees that cover the
ground when viewed from above. A significant goal of Challenges and opportunities have emerged that require
this Plan is to maintain Boulder’s 16 percent urban tree a proactive management approach and a long-term Who owns the 650,000 trees
canopy cover. This goal was established because the
urban forest faces many new threats, and will diminish
planning strategy to preserve the health, sustainability,
and services of trees and canopy cover. The UFSP
in Boulder's Urban Forest?
quickly without proactive measures. is important because it explains the many different
policies, plans and actors that are involved in the
To achieve this 16% canopy goal, the time to management of the urban forest. The UFSP strengthens
50,800 are public.
act is now. Boulder is losing tree canopy at an Boulder's ability to effectively provide the core forestry
alarming rate due to pests uch as EAB, severe management services focused on safety, emergency ~600,000 are private.
weather events, and urban development. response and sustainability. Cohesion between city staff
and the public is vital because successful urban forest
There are approximately 650,000 trees in Boulder’s management demands a wide-reaching community ALL trees contribute to the
urban forest. Of those trees, 50,800 are publicly owned effort.
street trees and park trees. These public trees are urban tree canopy.
INTRODUCTION 8
Services of Urban
Trees & Canopy Cover
Trees in the urban forest work continuously to mitigate
the effects of urbanization and development and protect
and enhance lives within the community in many ways.
Healthy trees are vigorous, producing more leaf surface
and canopy cover area each year.
The amount and distribution of leaf surface area are
the driving forces behind the urban forest’s ability to
produce services for the community (Clark et al, 1997).
Services include:
• Health and Wellness;

• Reducing Atmospheric Carbon;
• Improving Air Quality;
• Capturing Stormwater Runoff and Improving
Water Quality;
• Benefits to Wildlife;
• Aesthetic and Socio-economic Services; and
• Lessening Energy Demand.
9 INTRODUCTION
Health and Wellness the role they play in reducing crime and aggressive
behavior has been recognized by sociologists.
managed problems more effectively than those living
away from green space (Kuo, 2001).
Exposure to nature, including trees, has a healthy Research shows that the greener a building’s
Besides offering children a place to play, natural settings
impact on humans, such as reduced symptoms of surroundings are, the fewer total crimes. This is
contribute to child development in at least four critical
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), and faster recovery true for both property crimes and violent crimes.
areas. Children who spend time in green settings have
from surgery (Ulrich, 1984). Additional benefits include: Landscape vegetation around buildings can mitigate
improved:
irritability, inattentiveness, and decreased control
• Fortification of human health; over impulses, all of which are well-established • Creativity;
• Reduced illness, decreased reliance on psychological precursors to violence. Residents in
• Imagination and cognitive function; and
medication, and quicker recovery from injury or public housing reported 25 percent fewer domestic
illness; crimes when landscapes and trees were planted near • Intellect.
their homes (Kuo, 2001).
• Higher test scores; Children with ADD experienced reduced symptoms
A study of individuals living in 28 identical high- when exposed to green environments and spending
• Increased worker productivity; and rise apartment units found residents who live near time in nature (Faber, 2009).
• Reduced symptoms of ADD. green spaces had a stronger sense of community,
better mental health, coped better with stress
The importance of green spaces in urban areas and
and hardship, were less aggressive and violent and
A Potential Natural Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder:

Evidence From a National Study (Frances E. Kuo, and Andrea Faber Taylor)
Objectives. We examined the impact of relatively “green” or natural settings on attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) symptoms across diverse subpopulations of children.
Methods. Parents nationwide rated the aftereffects of 49 common after-school and weekend activities on
children’s symptoms. Aftereffects were compared for activities conducted in green outdoor settings versus those
conducted in both built outdoor and indoor settings.
Results. In this national, non-probability sample, green outdoor activities reduced symptoms significantly more
than did activities conducted in other settings, even when activities were matched across settings. Findings were
consistent across age, gender and income groups; community types; geographic regions; and diagnoses.
Conclusions. Green outdoor settings appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children across a wide range of
individual, residential, and case characteristics.
INTRODUCTION 10
Reducing Atmospheric Carbon tree planting projects within municipalities, campuses,

and utility service areas anywhere in the United States.
Governments are paying particular attention to climate
change and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) Trees and forests reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide
emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes (CO2) in two ways:
the earth’s surface, it is reflected back into space as
infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb
• Directly, through growth and carbon
sequestration; and
some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in the
atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the earth’s • Indirectly, by lowering the demand for energy.
surface. Trees and forests directly reduce CO2 in the atmosphere
Many chemical compounds in the earth’s atmosphere through growth and sequestration of CO2 in woody and
act as GHGs, including methane (CH4), nitrous oxide foliar biomass. Indirectly, trees and forests reduce CO2
(N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, and human- by lowering the demand for energy and reducing the CO2
made gases and aerosols. As GHGs increase, the amount emissions from the consumption of natural gas and the
of energy radiated back into space is reduced, and generation of electric power. In fact, the shade from a
more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. An increase single tree can save the same amount of energy as what
in the average temperature of the earth and results in ten room-size air conditioners need to run for 20 hours
changes in weather, sea levels, and land-use patterns a day (Forest Service Pamphlet no. FS-363, as cited in
commonly referred to as “climate change.” In the last Sherer, 2006).
150 years, since large-scale industrialization began,
the levels of some GHGs, including CO2, have increased
• One mature tree can absorb as much as 48
pounds CO2 annually and provides enough O2 to
by 25 percent (U.S. Energy Information Administration, support two human beings (McAliney, 1993); and
2014).
The USDA Forest Service Urban Ecosystems and Social
• Projections from computer simulations indicate
that 100 million mature trees in U.S. cities (three
Dynamics Program recently led the development trees for every other single-family home) could
of an Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol. reduce annual energy use by 30 billion kWh,
Incorporating methods of the Kyoto Protocol and reducing nine million tons per year in carbon Carbon Storage
Voluntary Carbon Standard, the protocol establishes dioxide emissions from power plants (Dwyer et
methods for calculating reductions, provides guidance al., 1992). Trees are powerful living infrastructure in their ability
for accounting and reporting, and guides urban forest to store large amounts of carbon in their wood, and
managers in developing tree planting and stewardship continue to add carbon as they grow. Although forests
projects that could be registered for GHG reduction do release some carbon dioxide from natural processes
credits (offsets). The protocol can be applied to urban such as respiration and decay, a healthy forest typically
stores carbon at a greater rate than it releases carbon.
11 INTRODUCTION
Improving Air Quality

Trees improve air quality in five fundamental ways:
• Lessening particulate matter (e.g., dust and

smoke);
• Absorbing gaseous pollutants;

• Providing shade and transpiring;
• Reducing power plant emissions by decreasing
energy demand among buildings; and
• Increasing oxygen levels through photosynthesis.

Trees protect and improve air quality by intercepting
particulate matter (PM10), including dust, pollen, and
smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in the
tree canopy until precipitation rinses the particulates
harmlessly to the ground. Trees absorb harmful gaseous
pollutants like ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). Shade and transpiration reduce the
formation of O3, which is created at higher temperatures.
Scientists are now finding that some trees may absorb
more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) than previously
thought (Karl, T. 2010; Science Now, 2010). VOCs are
carbon-based particles emitted from automobile
exhaust, lawnmowers and other human activities. The
Hidden Values of Landscaping demonstrates that the
Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) provides air quality services
valued at more than $500,000 in Denver and $1.7 million
to the entire Denver metro area (Johnson et al., 2017).
The Urban Tree Canopy Assessment conducted for
Boulder revealed that the Urban Tree Canopy annually
removes 278,780 pounds of particulate matter and
harmful gaseous pollutants (valued at $22,631).
INTRODUCTION 12
Removal of Air Pollutants Trees remove gaseous air pollution primarily by uptake During normal opening of stomate pores (above), smog
via leaf stomata, though some gases are removed by pollutants such as chlorine, sulfur dioxide and fluorides
Cities and some natural processes produce air pollution the plant surface. may enter. The tree uses some of these materials as
including smoke, dust, carbon monoxide and smog. food, and releases others into the air or soil.
Poor air quality harms human and natural health. Once inside the leaf, gases diffuse into inter cellular
Leaves are the primary tool trees use to remove air spaces and may be absorbed to form acids or react In this way, trees receive vital nutrition and also help
pollutants. with inner-leaf surfaces. Trees also remove pollution purify the air.
by intercepting airborne particles.
13 INTRODUCTION
Capturing Stormwater Runoff Trees in urban areas protect water quality by reducing
the amount of runoff from the more frequent but
Improving Water Quality
Stormwater is water that occurs from precipitation less extreme storm events that are responsible for Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of pollution
events and snow melt. Stormwater can soak into most annual pollutant runoff. Infiltrating and treating for surface waters and riparian areas, threatening
vegetation and soil (infiltration), collect on the surface stormwater runoff on site can reduce runoff and pollutant aquatic and other wildlife as well as human populations.
and evaporate, or runoff and end up in nearby rivers, loads by 20 to 60 percent (Johnson et al., 2017). The Requirements for stormwater management are
streams, or other bodies of water. extensive fibrous root systems of trees also hold soil in becoming more stringent and costly. Reducing runoff and
place, reducing further impacts on water quality due to incorporating urban trees in stormwater management
Trees and forests augment traditional stormwater
erosion. planning has the added benefit of reducing the cost
management infrastructure and reduce the risk of
of stormwater management, including the expense
flooding. This protects water quality in creeks, rivers, Planting trees in and adjacent to ROW provides a
of constructing new facilities necessary to detain and
ponds, and lakes by reducing the impact from nonpoint unique opportunity to increase the effectiveness of grey
control stormwater as well as the cost of treatment to
source pollutants (Matteo et. al., 2006). Specifically: and green stormwater systems. Existing stormwater
remove sediment and other pollutants.
management systems are not always adequate to
• Interception of rainfall in tree canopy reduces the accommodate runoff. When a system is overtaxed, peak While Colorado has numerous river systems, more water
risk of flooding by slowing rainfall and providing a
flows can blow manhole covers from the ground and back leaves the state than remains within it. More than 60
greater opportunity for infiltration;
up stormwater. Where existing systems are challenged percent of naturally flowing water leaves the state
• Tree root zones, which often extend well beyond by common stormwater events, planting additional trees and is consumed by downstream users (Johnson et al.
canopy, promote infiltration of stormwater and is a cost-effective way to improve functional capacity. 2017). Of the approximately 40 percent that remains,
increase the water holding capacity of the soil; and To reduce pressure on existing systems and increase local landscapes only use approximately 3 percent of
capacity, cities must consider every available option, all water consumed in Colorado (Johnson et al. 2017).
• Slowing rainfall and increasing infiltration especially using trees, to help manage stormwater.
preserves soil quality by reducing erosion, Extensive research conducted worldwide provides
especially on slopes and bare soils. evidence that stream degradation occurs with as
little as 10 percent impervious cover. During storms,
Trees intercept rainfall in their canopy, which acts as a
accumulated pollutants are quickly washed off and
mini-reservoir (Xiao et al, 1998). During storm events,
rapidly delivered to aquatic systems as stormwater
this interception reduces and slows runoff. In addition
runoff. In a typical small-scale storm event (0.5 inch),
to catching stormwater, canopy interception lessens
highly concentrated and polluted stormwater would,
the impact of raindrops on barren soils. Root growth and
without interference, flow directly into Boulder‘s
decomposition increase the water holding capacity and
waterways (Johnson et al., 2017). These small storms
infiltration rate of soils allowing for greater absorption
are responsible for most of the pollutant washout, also
of rain and snowmelt (McPherson et al, 2002). Each of
known as the first flush effect. Urban stormwater runoff
these processes greatly reduces the flow and volume
is the second most common source of water pollution
of stormwater runoff, avoiding erosion and preventing
for lakes and estuaries and the third most common
sediments and pollutants from entering the water.
source for rivers nationwide.
INTRODUCTION 14
Stormwater Management
Trees and forests are a natural, cost-efficient, and
highly effective part of a stormwater management
program. Many communities are turning to trees to
help solve their stormwater issues in a more holistic
manner. Engineered and natural stormwater systems
that incorporate and take advantage of the natural
benefits provided by trees and forests are proving to
be a cost-effective and sustainable treatment method.
15 INTRODUCTION
Benefits to Wildlife
Trees provide important habitats for numerous birds,
insects (including honeybees) and other animal species.
Their greatest contributions include:
• Preservation and optimization of wildlife

habitat; and
• Increase in movement corridors for wildlife.

Furthermore, trees and forest lands provide critical
habitat (for foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for
mammals, birds, fish and other aquatic species.
Trees can offer pollinators a valuable source of flowering Forest Fragmentation
plants. By including an array of flowering trees that Wildlife corridors (left) link habitats while fragmented
provide pollen and nectar in the urban forest, honeybees forests (right) lead to a decline habitat quality.
are provided with additional food sources.
Fragmentation not only causes loss of the amount of
habitat, but by creating small, isolated patches it also To enhance wildlife habitat, numerous communities
changes the properties of the remaining habitat. At have developed programs to preserve valuable existing
some point when the larger forest is highly fragmented, natural areas and to restore the habitat on degraded
there are no longer adequate corridors for native forest lands. Restoration of urban riparian corridors and their
plants and wildlife. In fact, habitat fragmentation can linkages to surrounding natural areas have facilitated
reduce biodiversity by 75 percent and impairs key the movement of wildlife and dispersal of flora (Dwyer
ecosystem functions by decreasing biomass and altering et al., 1992). Usually habitat creation and enhancement
nutrient cycles (Haddad et al., 2015). increase biodiversity and complement many other
beneficial functions of the urban forest. These findings
Some urban adaptable species benefit from the mosaic indicate an urgent need for conservation and restoration
of green spaces even when “forest” wildlife species measures to improve landscape connectivity, which will
are negatively impacted by fragmentation, such as reduce extinction rates and help maintain ecosystem
squirrels. services (Haddad et al., 2015).
INTRODUCTION 16
Aesthetic and quantify (e.g., the impacts on physical and psychological

health, crime, and violence), studies provide empirical
Socio-economic Services evidence that these services do exist (Kaplan, 1989;
Ulrich, 1986). There is limited knowledge about the
While perhaps the most difficult to quantify, aesthetic physical processes at work, and their interactions make
and socio-economic services from trees may be among quantification imprecise. In addition, trees and forests
their greatest contributions, including: have positive economic services for retailers. There
• Beautification, comfort and aesthetics; is documented evidence that trees promote better
business by stimulating more frequent and extended
• Increase in shade and privacy; shopping and a willingness to pay more for goods and
• Opportunities for recreation; parking (Wolf, 2007).
• Increased community walkability; Trees also increase public and private property values.
Every dollar invested in a residential landscape yields a
• Reduction in violence; $1.35 (135%) return for property values (Johnson et al.
• Creation of a sense of place and history; and 2017). A high to excellent quality landscape is estimated
to increase property values as much as 10 percent.
• Increased property values. Research has shown a 7 percent higher rental rate for
Some of these services are captured as a percentage commercial offices having high quality landscaping.
of property values, through higher sales prices where Especially well-kept large street trees add a 3-15
individual trees and forests are located. While some of percent value to a home and continue to appreciate in
the services of forests are intangible and/or difficult to value over time (Johnson et al. 2017).
17 INTRODUCTION
Lessening Energy Demand through evapotranspirational cooling (McPherson, 1994).

Studies on the heat island effect show that temperature
Urban trees and forests modify climate and conserve differences of more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees
energy in three principal ways: Celsius) have been observed between city centers
without adequate canopy cover and more vegetated
• Producing shade for dwellings and hardscape suburban areas (Akbari et al, 1997).
reduces the energy needed to cool the building
with air conditioning (Akbari et al., 1997); Trees also reduce energy use in winter by mitigating
heat loss. Trees reduce wind speeds by up to 50 percent
• Tree canopies engage in evapotranspiration, and influence the movement of warm air and pollutants
which leads to the release of water vapor from
along streets and out of urban canyons. By reducing air
tree canopies and cools the air (Lyle, 1996); and
movement into buildings and against conductive surfaces
• Trees in dense arrangements may reduce mean (e.g., glass and metal siding), trees reduce conductive
wind speed and solar radiation below the top of heat loss from buildings, translating into potential annual
the tree canopy by up to ~90 percent compared heating savings of 25 percent (Heisler, 1986).
to open areas (Heisler and DeWalle 1988).
Three trees properly placed around the home can save
An urban heat island (UHI) is an urban area or $100-$250 annually in energy costs. Shade from trees
metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its significantly mitigates the urban heat island effect –
surrounding rural areas due to human activities. tree canopies provide surface temperature reductions
on wall and roof surfaces of buildings ranging from 20-
Trees reduce energy use in summer by cooling the
45 degrees and temperatures inside parked cars can be
surrounding areas and shading-built environments.
reduced by 45 degrees. Reducing energy use has the
Shade from trees reduces the amount of radiant
added bonus of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
energy absorbed and stored by hardscapes and other
impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the heat island
effect, a term that describes the increase in urban Trees reduce energy use in
temperatures in relation to surrounding locations. buildings by creating shade
Transpiration releases water vapor from tree canopies,
which cools the surrounding area. Evapotranspiration, and evapotranspiring in the hot
alone or in combination with shading, can help reduce summer months.
peak summer temperatures by 2–9 degrees Fahrenheit
(1–5 degrees Celsius) (Huang et al., 1990). The Trees also reduce energy use
energy-saving potential of trees and other landscape
vegetation can mitigate urban heat islands directly in buildings by blocking cold
by shading heat-absorbing surfaces, and indirectly winter winds.
INTRODUCTION 18
Figure 1: Cooling Effect of Tree Shade (Balogun et al., 2014) Figure 2: Impact of Trees and Vegetation (Akbari, 2002)
Block Hot Summer Sun Block Cold Winter Winds Evapotranspiration

Trees lower energy demand in summer by providing Winds make winter cold significantly worse. Trees Trees cool the air through a process called
shade to the built environment (Figure 1). Because can block the chilling effects of winter winds to keep evapotranspiration.
there are many different tree species, trees with a house warmer in winter. The most effective way
Evapotranspiration is the combination of two
appropriate sizes, densities, and shapes are available is to plant a windbreak, a band of evergreen and
processes which occur simultaneously: evaporation and
for almost any shading situation. Trees also provide deciduous trees and shrubs located perpendicular to
transpiration. Both of these processes release moisture
shade for windows that would otherwise receive the prevailing winds. The best windbreaks block the
into the air and lower surrounding temperatures.
direct sunlight. This lower energy demand means that wind close to the ground as well as higher up.
This means that buildings near trees experience
less energy is consumed from the power plant and less
cooler temperatures and require less energy for air
pollution is created (Figure 2).
conditioning.
19 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
What Do We
Space and Mountain Parks Department, and more than
60 city parks, including sports fields, playgrounds,
neighborhood parks and community gardens.
The people of Boulder value nature and personal health.
Outdoor camps and organized recreation activities are
Have?
popular with community members. Since 2009 Boulder
has been the nation’s fittest community, with only 12.4
percent of residents reported to be obese (Gallup-
Healthways Wellbeing Index, 2016).
Boulder has earned a reputation for working proactively
to reduce the city’s environmental impacts with
annual average rainfall of 21 inches and snowfall of established city programs to:
Community 89 inches. Precipitation patterns are influenced by the
Flatirons' rain shadow effect, which dries the air as it • Combat climate change;
Boulder is located 25 miles northwest of Denver,
passes over the Front Range.
• Reduce energy waste;
Colorado, in Boulder Valley where the Rocky Mountains
meet the Great Plains. To the west, iconic sandstone
Historically, Boulder had very few trees. Originally the
area was a largely treeless plain. In 1871, a tree-planting
• Promote the health of urban farming and natural
ecosystems;
slabs of the Flatirons provide a scenic backdrop and program as initiated which established the beginning of
multiple recreational opportunities. Boulder's urban forest (University of Colorado, 2018). • Support the production of local foods;
The environment plays a significant role in urban As of 2017, Boulder had approximately 46,094 housing • Reduce, recycle and compost waste, with an aim
forestry. The elevation, precipitation rates, temperature units, 108,707 residents, and 100,148 jobs. About 30,000 of zero waste;
extremes and soil condition all affect what tree species
grow, how they grow and levels of stress. At an altitude
students attend the University of Colorado (CU). Over
the next 25 years, the area is projected to add about
• Conserve water and maintain water quality; and
of 5,430 feet above sea level, Boulder is considered the 6,500 housing units, 19,000 residents and 19,000 jobs. • Reduce the use of pesticides on public property.
high desert. CU student enrollment could increase by a range of The community’s outdoor lifestyle, environmental
5,000 to 15,000 additional students by 2030. Boulder's stewardship and high quality of life make Boulder
The climate is dry to semi-arid, typical for much of the population is expected to continue the trend of growth
Front Range. The high elevation fosters a mild climate an attractive location for established and emerging
(Table 3). businesses.
with very little humidity in the summer and winter
months. The warmest month is July with an average Outdoor recreation activities abound in and near The city has a culture of innovation and entrepreneurial
daytime temperature of 87 degrees Fahrenheit. January Boulder, including biking, hiking, rock climbing, and support that helps businesses thrive, and the University
is the coldest month in Boulder, with an average daytime snow sports. Boulder manages over 45,000 acres of of Colorado Boulder (CU) hosts more than a dozen
high of 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Boulder receives an land, including 151 miles of trails within the Open federal research labs and growing companies in a variety
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 20
of industries. Boulder has an identity as a welcoming Where Do People in Boulder Live?

and inclusive community with a culture of creativity
and innovation. The city actively supports businesses Per the 2017 community profile, 52 percent of Boulder
through the Economic Vitality Program, which provides residents live in rental units while 48 percent live in
information and assistance to Boulder companies. housing they own. This has significant implications
Boulder is frequently recognized for its quality of life as for the urban forest regarding notifications. If a
well as its business climate. Recent accolades include street tree located adjacent to a rented property
no. 1 Best Community for Physical Well-Being, no. 1 Most will receive care from the city, who does the city
Active City in the U.S., and no. 4 Best City to Launch a contact? The renter or the property owner? Both? Who
Startup in 2016 (Bouldercolorado.gov). Through these is responsible for private tree care and maintenance?
traits and actions, it is clear that Boulder is a community To meet this challenge, the City of Boulder tracks
dedicated to resilience. this information in GIS.
Chart 2: Rent vs Own
Table 3: Boulder's Population Own (48%)

Year Population
1870 343
1880 3,069
1890 3,330
1900 6,150
1910 9,539
1920 11,006
1930 11,223 Rent (52%)
1940 12,958
1950 19,999
1960 37,718 I have a beautiful cottonwood tree in
1970 66,870
my backyard that is very old. The tree
1980 76,685
1990 86,098 Was the original homestead tree. My
2000 94,213 family has done all we can to keep
2010 97,385 the tree healthy and alive. I feel very
2014 105,112
spiritually attached to this tree.
~Submission to Boulder Tree Stories
Map 2: Canopy in Boulder and
21 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Open Spaces and Mountain Parks
What is the Urban

Forest?
Urban forests come in a variety of different shapes,
types and sizes. Urban forests include trees found in
urban parks, street trees, landscaped plazas, gardens,
creek and ditch corridors, greenways, wetlands, private
property and commercial and industrial campuses.
Urban forests, through the many ecosystem services
they provide, form a network of green infrastructure
that strengthens a community.
Boulder is nestled in a beautiful, natural setting,
surrounded by wildlife and stunning landscape. Much
of the area outside of Boulder is managed by Boulder's
Open Space and Mountain Parks. These open space
trees, located as a buffer between Boulder and nearby
development, provide many ecosystem services to the
region. These trees are part of natural forest areas,
largely outside of Boulder's city limits. As such, for the
purpose of this UFSP, the Open Space and Mountain
Parks trees are not considered part of the urban forest.
The map to the right shows tree canopy (green) across
the City of Boulder. Canopy on Open Space and Mountain
Parks properties (gray) are not managed by Boulder
Forestry.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 22
The park trees and public plaza trees

found on city-owned property, such
Parks and Public as those around Evert Pierson Kids'
fishing pond, are the responsibility
Plaza Trees? of the Boulder Foresty. These trees
are included in the urban forest.
Included in the
UFSP.
The urban forest includes street

trees found on tree lined avenues.
The trees in the public streets
Street Trees? rights-of-way are the responsibility
of Boulder Forestry.
Included in the
UFSP.
For the purpose of the UFSP, the

Open Spaces and many beautiful trees in the open
space and mountain parks that
Mountain Parks surround Boulder are considered
their own separate entity. As
Trees? such, they are not included in the
calculations of ecosystem services
Not included in or urban forest metrics.
the UFSP.
23 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
History of Urban the care of adjacent property owners and city staff.
Because 92 percent of all trees are on private property,
Wood was used in city projects as well as being sold as
lumber, firewood, and other wood products.
it is critical that the community is educated and
Forestry in Boulder motivated to provide for their trees.
By 1982, the management of DED was mostly under
control through removals, sanitation, and enforcement.
As Boulder’s population grew from its incorporation In the 1970s, Dutch Elm Disease (DED), an invasive With a decrease in removals and an increasing
in 1871, city leaders developed strategies to manage pathogen, spread rapidly through the urban forest, availability of private arboriculture services, Boulder
growth and preserve historic and natural resources. In resulting in the removal of over 1,000 public elm trees. Forestry production staff was dismantled and replaced
1959, Boulder voters approved the “Blue Line” city- The sudden decline of elms necessitated the first by contractual labor.
charter amendment, which restricted city water service systematic tree removal program beginning in 1972.
By the late 1980s, Boulder had employed a city Forester
to altitudes below 5,750 feet to protect the scenic
Following the hiring of the first city forester in 1973, and two full-time Forestry Assistants to manage the
flatirons from development.
an outbreak of Mountain Pine Beetle hit in Boulder’s growing needs of the urban forest. As a result, the first
In 1961, residents overwhelmingly voted in favor to open space and mountain park areas. Several in-house inventory of public trees was collected in 1987.
establish the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department crews were mobilized to address the outbreak. Once
In the early 1990s, gypsy moth, another invasive tree
(BPRD). Today, BPRD manages more than 1,800 acres of the threat dissipated, crews transitioned to providing
pest, was found and promptly controlled with a biological
urban parkland. care for all public street and park trees.
control agent sprayed from helicopters in collaboration
Boulder’s dynamic climate, which includes high-speed By 1975, Boulder Forestry had a crew of three full-time with the Colorado State Forest Service. Around the same
wind events, drought, drastic temperature drops, and staff as well as two field crews tasked with removing elms time, the first tree safety inspection list was created
high summer temperatures, limits the palette of tree and other dying street trees. A tree planting program by a contractor due to an increasing number of tree
species that can be grown in the community. In addition, was established and focused on increasing the diversity failures. The program continues to monitor trees.
recent large-scale snow storms and unseasonable freeze of species in the public urban forest. Staff used a city-
An urban forestry modeling strategy was developed by
events have caused tree damage to species thought to owned sawmill to mill logs from elm and pine removals.
Boulder Forestry to quantify maintenance requirements
be adapted to the area.
and costs based on species and relative age distribution.
Due to the unique climate of the Front Range, there are Trees and forests go through several developmental
few naturally occurring native trees, and most heritage stages: Planting, Establishment, Growth, Structure,
trees in the community are the legacy of ranches and Mature, Overmature, and Replacement (PEGSMOR).
early settlements. Riparian areas have some native
Urban foresters use the concept of PEGSMOR to
vegetation such as cottonwoods and boxelder, but also
understand the needs of a tree over its lifespan. Based
include substantial populations of naturalized species,
on the model’s projections, additional budget and
such as green ash.
forestry staff resources were allocated to help manage
Over time, community tree planting has significantly damages from storms and emerging pests and to further
added to the tree resource, where it is important to enhance Boulder’s urban forest.
acknowledge that these trees would not thrive without
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 24
Damage caused by Dutch elm disease.

In 2015, the City of Boulder was identified as one of
the Rockefeller Foundation's 100 Resilient Cities. This Historical Timeline
designation provided extra funding and resources for
the city to work with multiple community planning
• 1961 - Residents voted in favor to
establish the Boulder Parks and Recreation
organizations. Through a partnership with Trimble and
Department.
DigitalGlobe, the city developed an initial geographic
information system (GIS) land cover data layer that • 1973 – First city forester hired in response
identified tree canopy, water, and impervious and to Dutch elm disease removals.
pervious surfaces. Boulder has achieved Tree City USA
status from the Arbor Day Foundation for 33 years.
• 1975 - A tree planting program was
established and focused on increasing the
Today, Boulder Forestry includes seven full-time diversity of species in the public urban
employees; a city Forester, a Forestry Field Operations forest. Staff used a city-owned sawmill to
Supervisor, three Assistant Foresters and two Forestry mill logs from elm and pine removals. The tree safety inspection program (TSIP) at work.
Field Technicians. The division annually hires two to
three seasonal employees and is responsible for the
• 1987 – The first inventory of city and park
trees was collected.
direct management of approximately 50,800 city park
and public street ROW trees. The division also manages • 1990 – Gypsy moth, another invasive tree
many external contractual services. pest, was found and promptly controlled
with a biological control agent (Bt) sprayed
from helicopters in collaboration with the
Colorado State Forest Service.
• 1991 - The tree safety inspection program
was created due to the number of silver
maple failures.
An adult emerald ash borer.
• 2002 – Drought conditions led to severe
stress in the urban tree population.
• 2013 – EAB Detected
• Today - Boulder Forestry includes
7 full-time employees and manages
approximately 50,800 public trees.
25 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Guiding Principles and The following plans also had extensive outreach and
public engagement as part of their development,
Core Values
ensuring they reflect community vision and preferences. Core values represent long-standing community values
Regulatory Framework The following provides a summary of the review process and a clear vision of Boulder’s commitment to quality
of life issues, including those supported by the Urban
and key findings.
City policies and regulations provide the foundation Forest Strategic Plan:
for the Boulder urban forestry program. They outline
requirements and specifications for the planting, Boulder Valley • Sustainability as a unifying framework to meet
environmental, economic and social goals;
installation, and care of Boulder's public trees and Comprehensive Plan
provide the regulatory framework for the protection
and preservation of the urban forest assets. In addition, The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) provides
• A welcoming, inclusive and diverse community;
city policies and regulations provide the enforcement a general statement of the community’s desires for future • Culture of creativity and innovation;
development and preservation of the Boulder Valley. The
framework of activities and issues that impact the
community's trees. principle of sustainability drives the overall framework
• Strong city and county cooperation;
The development of Boulder's Urban Forest Strategic Plan
of the BVCP. Core components provide guidance for • Our unique community identity and sense of
growth and development. This guidance includes place;
included a comprehensive review of guiding documents, preservation, economic development, environmental
local policies, development and construction standards, protection, transportation, neighborhood character, • Compact, contiguous development and infill that
ordinances, and other regulations that apply to the supports evolution to a more sustainable urban
and urban design and land use.
urban forest. form;
Vision • Open space preservation;
It is important to note that although all the following
plans set goals, guidelines and priorities for forestry,
"The Boulder Valley community honors • Great neighborhoods and public spaces;
they do not provide additional funding, staff or
its history and legacy of planning for a • Environmental stewardship and climate action;
partnerships to accomplish them. They also do not
livable community surrounded by open • A vibrant economy based on Boulder’s quality of
address what may be perceived as trade-offs, such as space and rural lands while striving life and economic strengths;
more canopy could result in less opportunity for solar. together to create and preserve a • A diversity of housing types and price ranges;
Or higher development costs for public and private truly special place that is sustainable, • An all-mode transportation system to make
development if there are more tree requirements and resilient, equitable and inclusive – now pedestrian mobility more accessible; and
restrictions. A solid review of plan integrations with and for future generations." • Physical health, safety and well-being.
consideration to funding and priorities is explored in
the recommendations of the UFSP but will require
departmental and community buy-in to be successful.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 26
Departmental Master Plans are developed to be

consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They establish
detailed policies, priorities, service standards, facility
and system needs and capital budgeting for the delivery
of specific services provided. Integrated Pest Management Policy (2002)
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies guide
decisions about growth, development, preservation,
environmental protection, economic development,
affordable housing, culture and arts, urban design,
Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan (2004)
neighborhood character and transportation. The policies
also inform decisions about the manner in which urban
services are provided, such as police, fire, emergency
medical services, water utilities and flood control. Urban Wildlife Plan (2006)
Urban Forest Strategic Plan Implications

The BVCP is the unifying document that creates a
cohesive whole from many other plans. Because of this, Boulder Valley
Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2014)
all urban forest strategies and management practices Comprehensive Plan
should be designed to be congruent with other plan goals.
Often, there is opportunity for synergy. For example,
the urban forest can serve as a tool to Boulder's climate
commitment through lessening energy demand. Boulder’s Climate Commitment (2017)
The BVCP is built on the framework of sustainability and
resilience. A sustainable urban forest is well-managed,
designed for the long-term, and healthy. A resilient
urban forest has a diverse species composition and Resilience Strategy (2017)
proactive maintenance. To attain these sustainable and
resilient traits, Boulder must commit adequate funding
to conduct the core programs and responsibilities
necessary for optimal tree care. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
27 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Boulder Parks and Recreation BPRD Mission Key themes, which emerged from research and
community engagement, shaped the six strategies that
Master Plan "Boulder Parks and Recreation Department will
promote the health and well-being of the entire
are the focus for the future action and decision-making
outlined in the BPRD Master Plan.
The 2014 Boulder Parks and Recreation Department Boulder community by collaboratively providing
(BPRD) Master Plan established a five-year plan to high-quality parks, facilities and programs." • Taking Care of What We Have
identify short-term strategies to build success over the
Vision The trees of the urban forest serve as living
long-term. The BPRD Master Plan is guided by principles
infrastructure for Boulder. This infrastructure
that include sustainable practices, health, partnerships, "A community where everyone’s health and well- provides numerous benefits, and so the
and service excellence. A clear mission and vision being is founded on unparalleled parks, facilities maintenance and growth of the urban forest is
statement clarify the intent of the plan: and programs." vital and embodies the BPRD theme of Taking Care
of What We Have.
maintenance, proper planting techniques, ecosystem urban forestry workshops, serving on the Heritage Tree
services, pests and pathogens of the urban forest, and Committee, teaching kids about trees at a Learning
urban forest management and policy. As of 2017, the Landscapes event, organizing a community tree
course includes an environmental justice component planting, or representing Neighborhood Tree Teams at
to address urban forest equity. The cost to attend Neighborhood Association Meetings.
is $26, which includes the NTS hoodie participants
Key Concepts:
receive on completion of the course. Participation in
all 7 courses is required, but related substitute events • Provide opportunities for volunteers to take on
can qualify as credit. leadership roles.
No previous experience is needed to become a • Build a team of engaged advocates.
Neighborhood Tree Steward, but participants usually
have a passion for trees, a desire to learn, and • Understand the community’s unique urban
forestry challenges and opportunities.
a commitment to help. The NTS curriculum has
Case Study: Neighborhood Tree Stewards developed over time based on feedback from student • Participants use their knowledge to provide
Since 1997, the Neighborhood Tree Steward (NTS) surveys, and availability of guest speakers. Curriculum community service and urban forest outreach.
is reviewed and updated annually. Staff from the non-
program has worked with Portland, Oregon community
members to provide nearly 300 people with the tools profit along with professional volunteers, teach these • Develop strategies to remove barriers to
courses. Once the course is completed, NTS graduates participation for all community members.
and resources to be active leaders and urban forest
promoters in their neighborhoods. Participants enroll in are asked to contribute 40 hours of tree-related • Trainees become advocates for the urban forest
a seven-session course (21-22 hours) that covers topics volunteer service over the next year. Participants armed with knowledge of area trees, policies,
including tree biology, identification, pruning and fulfill this service requirement by participating in and threats.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 28
• Community Health and Wellness • Building Community and Relationships

The urban forest cleans the air, moderates A successful urban forest and urban forestry program
extreme temperature, and provides mental and builds communities and relationships in two major
physical health benefits. A thriving urban forest ways. The first is by providing safe and desirable
supports the BPRD theme of community health spaces where the community feels relaxed to
and wellness. In addition, effective management interact with each other. The second is through
of the urban forest creates a safe environment for the direct involvement of community members
residents and visitors. by bringing together numerous organizations and
• Financial Sustainability individual volunteers together for planting parties,
tree nature walks, fundraising, and other urban
Optimized maintenance programming and species forestry activities.
selection for trees in the urban forest will help
balance costs with returns and minimizing volatility • Youth Engagement and Activity
in budget demands. Thus, forward thinking and The urban forest provides a rich opportunity for
proactive maintenance supports the BPRD theme collaboration with school systems to educate and
of financial sustainability. engage the youth with outdoor activities. Further,
activities such as trail maintenance and tree
plantings serve as potential volunteer projects. In
addition, the urban forest provides fun, safe, and
comfortable places to play and study.
• Organizational Readiness
A key component of urban forest management is
emergency response. Improved processes, staff
training, communication, and coordination will
foster efficient organizational readiness.
29 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Plan policies that are especially relevant to the • The proposed development of any new park and structure, and culture are designed and prepared
development of the Urban Forest Strategic Plan include: facility shall be evaluated through a feasibility study to respond to community needs.
that includes a Needs Assessment, user profile,
• BPRD shall ensure adequate resources are available projected participation analysis, development • BPRD shall develop a highly effective workforce
to maintain and operate assets within community that will positively impact the community’s health
funding method, life cycle cost pro forma and
sustainability goals. and quality of life.
alternative development trade-off analysis.
• An asset management system that tracks; asset • BPRD shall seek and develop partnerships and
As part of the background research for the 2014 BPRD
condition, critical systems maintenance and Master Plan, a Needs Assessment was conducted in 2014
opportunities to leverage maintenance and capital
repair and rehabilitation requirements, will be to analyze the existing services provided by the BPRD
building funds.
implemented and used in making park and facility to Boulder in the following areas: parkland, recreation
investment decisions. • BPRD shall ensure that the department workforce, facilities and recreation programs and services. Agencies
online video library, and through a Yard Tree Planting Each event requires about 20 volunteers. Volunteer
and Care guide which is available for download. recruitment and training is provided by the Pennsylvania
Horticultural Society Tree Tenders program. Initially,
Over the past six years, the program has been improved
the program was publicized through flyers, attending
to increase inclusion, and streamline tree procurement.
community meetings and press releases. Today, most
For example, Tree Philly offers free delivery and
participants find out by word of mouth. Neighbors
planting for residents with limited mobility through a
have begun to see tree distribution days as recurring
simple application process which is requested wo to five
community events which are now an expected city
times per year. Those trees are delivered and planted
service. A brief email survey is sent to all participants
by the nursery which grows the tree stock from liners.
Case Study: TreePhilly to check on the tree at the time of establishment.
Since the program is within the Philadelphia Parks and
Since 2012, TreePhilly, a program of the Philadelphia Recreation Department, tree purchasing originally Key Concepts:
Parks and Recreation Department, has provided over went through the city procurement office, which added
17,500 trees to more than 8,000 residents. The yard layers of complexity. Over time, staff developed a good • Grow canopy on private property by providing
tree program was the result of a partnership with training, mulch and free trees;
working relationship with a local nursery, and today,
the Fairmount Park Conservancy to provide trees for they provide all the trees, as well as delivery to each • Address concerns about city assets on private
private property plantings. The trees are distributed neighborhood event. Tree Philly Staff provides a tree property by securing program funding from an
to registered participants with mulch bags. The trees list one year in advance, and the nursery produces the outside source; and
stock are 5-gallon grow-bags with handles to facilitate stock. The tree price is approximately $25 per tree to
ease of transport and planting, and participants have the city (free to program participants). • Requests for trees are made online and
a demonstration of proper tree planting from city distributed en masse at neighborhood events to
The yard tree program is managed by one full time facilitate easy transport.
arborist staff and trained volunteers at the time of
employee and two seasonal (nine-month) staff.
pick up. Additional information is provided through an
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 30
track services as a way to meet the needs and desires municipality, or solar developer. The maintenance
of citizens. This tracking also helps maintain a desired and operation of the solar garden is provided by the
state while taking land use goals, as well as limited operator, and credits are distributed as reductions
financial and human resources, into consideration. in monthly Xcel Energy bills. In Colorado, at least
5 percent of solar garden subscribers must be low
The Needs Assessment analyzed parks by the four
income.
categories defined by BPRD:
Recognizing that solar gardens provide a solution
• Neighborhood parks; to urban forest versus solar conflicts, the city can
• Community parks; Case Study: Colorado Solar Gardens facilitate outreach for the participation in solar
gardens. Boulder has attained the Solar Friendly
• City and regional parks; and Colorado Solar Gardens allow customers to buy shares
Communities recognition, which demonstrates the
in a solar array, and receive annual savings. Over 20
• Other land types. solar gardens were built in Colorado through an Xcel
city’s commitment to solar energy. Neighborhood
services provides information to residents about
Parks in Boulder have 122 acres of tree canopy. BPRD Energy Pilot program, including two in Boulder: the
opportunities to join solar gardens.
has nearly 717 acres currently developed for public use. Clean Energy Collective and Community Energy Solar.
Key Concepts:
Urban Forest Strategic Plan Implications In Xcel Energy’s Colorado territory, solar gardens can
Because many urban forest trees are located in

be anywhere from 10 kilowatts, which would fit on a • Provide opportunities to participate in solar
large roof, to 2 megawatts, requiring up to 16 acres. An energy for all, including renters and those with
Boulder parks, the components of this plan have many average single-family home would offset 100 percent homes and businesses shaded by trees;
implications for urban forest management. The key of its electricity usage with about 2-5 kilowatts of
themes addressed in the BPRD Master Plan highlight solar power. There are different ways to participate • Maintain urban forest canopy, and place solar
the opportunity for community outreach and volunteer in a solar garden, in one case, community members arrays in appropriate facilities that are easily
events. Effectively sharing city resources such as invest up front and save on their energy bill. maintained; and
equipment and staff can help maximize departmental
goals while reducing overall city expenses. The parks One-kilowatt shares cost $3,700 and save $270 per year. • Reduce barriers to entry with relatively low-
In other cases, subscribers purchase or lease shares cost share options.
plan also facilitates the definition of departmental roles
in the management of the urban forest. in a solar garden operation offered by a nonprofit,
31 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Flood and Stormwater Utility Urban Forest Strategic Plan Implications

Master Plan The urban forest is a key component in flood and
stormwater management. Trees and vegetation
Stormwater and Flood Management Utility is responsible minimize the severity of flooding from storm events
for the administration of the city's flood management, by intercepting rainfall in the canopy. This reduces soil
stormwater quality, and stormwater drainage programs. erosion and improves stormwater quality.
Because trees and canopy play a role in stormwater
management, the development of the UFSP included Green infrastructure principles can be applied to tree
consideration that outline: planter designs to minimize stormwater runoff. The
Flood and Stormwater Plan also relates to urban forest
• System master planning and design; management by defining clear departmental roles in
• System maintenance and restoration; emergency events.
• Flood prediction;
• Stormwater quality management;
• Emergency preparedness; and
• Capital improvements and land management.
Boulder Resilience Strategy
Guiding Principles
The Resiliency Strategy provides approaches for Boulder
Using national and regional trends and philosophies, as to strengthen preparedness for future challenges.
well as current and past local policies, staff recommends These challenges include relevant shocks like flash
five guiding principles: flooding, sudden freezes, or wildfires. The Resiliency
• Preserve floodplains; Plan is built on three core strategies: connecting and
preparing, partnering and innovating, and transforming
• Be prepared for floods; and integrating. The vision of the Resiliency Plan is:
• Help people protect themselves from flood "Building on a legacy of innovation, Boulder will
hazards;
cultivate a creative spirit to adapt to and thrive in
• Prevent adverse impacts and unwise uses in the a changing climate, economy and society."
floodplain;
Urban forests supply multiple cultural and ecological
• Seek to accommodate floods, not control them; services and are therefore often cited as a tool for
and building urban resilience to the effects of climate
• Implications for the Urban Forest Strategic Plan. change. Urban forests reduce negative climate change
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 32
impacts, enabling cities to absorb greater disturbance

while maintaining their essential structure and function
and supporting the wellbeing of residents (Hartman,
2016).
Citizen Science Project

Boulder is one of the first 32 cities chosen to participate
in 100 Resilient Cities (100RC). The program, pioneered
by the Rockefeller Foundation, is funding 100 chief
resilience officers in selected cities worldwide. 100RC
is a global network pioneered by the Rockefeller
Foundation to help cities around the world become
more resilient to the physical, social, and economic
challenges of the 21st century. Boulder joined the
network as part of the initiative’s first wave in 2013, and
through its participation, is committed to demonstrating
leadership in resilience as well as leveraging resources
and opportunities.

Resiliency is a fundamental component of effective
urban forest management. This is accomplished through
two primary categories: preparation and response.
In preparation, tree species should be selected from
a diverse range to mitigate the potential impact of
severe weather events, pests, and other threats. For
response, clearly defining departmental roles and lines
of communication during and post emergency events
will increase service effectiveness and lower overall
response time.
33 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan increasing Urban Tree Canopy in commercial areas by 2

percent and in residential areas by 4 percent.
The purpose of the hazard mitigation plan is to reduce
A valuable component of the plan is to make the City of
or eliminate long-term risk to people and property
Boulder eligible for certain federal disaster assistance,
from natural hazards and their effects in Boulder. The
specifically, the Federal Emergency Management
city is vulnerable to several natural hazards that are
Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Hazard
identified, profiled, and analyzed in the plan. Floods,
Mitigation Assistance grant program and Pre-Disaster
wildfires, and severe weather are some of the hazards
Mitigation program. These federal assistance programs
that can have a significant impact on the city. The plan
can be valuable resources for unexpected urban forest
categorizes the urban forest as major capital assets in
challenges.
Boulder.
The full plan includes descriptions of actions,
The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has three goals:
identification of alternatives, responsible offices,
• Raise awareness of Boulder’s natural hazards; priority, cost estimates, estimated benefits, potential
funding sources, and schedules.
• Reduce vulnerability to natural hazards; and
• Increase interagency coordination to reduce the Urban Forest Strategic Plan Implications
impact of natural hazards Much like the Resiliency Plan, the Multi-Hazard Mitigation
The plan notes several areas and examples of events Plan facilitates the defining of departmental roles and
that have harmed trees, including the 2002 drought lines of communication during and post emergency
that damaged trees and resulted in unexpected pruning events. This will increase service effectiveness and
and removal costs estimated at over $120,000. The lower overall response time.
plan recommends an eight-year pruning rotation, which
would make trees stronger and more resistant to storm,
freeze, and snow damage, thus reducing post-storm "The trees that make up
cleanup costs and liability exposure.
the urban forest are also
In addition to recognizing the environmental services
created by the urban forest, the plan also details the considered major capital assets
valuable role the urban forest plays in flood control.
Boulder‘s urban forest reduces stormwater runoff by in the city."
approximately 12.2 million feet per two-inch storm
event (enough water to fill Folsom Field, the university‘s
football field, several times). The plan also recommends ~Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 34
Forest Ecosystem Climate Action Plan The Ecosystems Action Area is relevant to the urban
forest and relates to the ability of urban, wildland,
Management Plan Boulder’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a set of proactive, and agricultural ecosystems to capture and stabilize
city-funded programs that target the reduction of local atmospheric carbon and provide critical buffering
In June of 1999, Boulder City Council approved Boulder's greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, Boulder City Council against climatic extremes. Urban forestry priorities
Forest Ecosystem Management Plan (FEMP) to manage passed a resolution encouraging the community to include increasing the number of local trees and green
lands under the jurisdiction of Boulder’s OSMP. The reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to levels identified infrastructure to increase urban tree canopy for the
plan established a framework, policy guidelines, and by the Kyoto Protocol. In 2009, the city’s voters became long-term. Key aspects of the strategy are community
management direction for forest ecosystem management the first in the country to pass a tax to reduce greenhouse education, tree plantings, supporting local green
on city lands. The FEMP focuses on two primary goals: gas emissions and address the impact of human activity nonprofits, and tree maintenance.
• Maintain or enhance native plant and animal on climate change (the CAP tax).
species, their communities and the ecological The four Action Areas for the 2017 city’s Climate
processes that sustain them; and Commitment are: Trees are a key component to mitigating climate change.
• Reduce the wildfire risk to forest and human • Energy;
Trees in the urban forest are living infrastructure that
directly strengthen the city’s climate action plan. By
communities.
• Resources; providing shade and blocking cold winds, trees normalize
Urban Forest Strategic Plan Implications building temperatures and reduce energy use. Trees
• Ecosystems; and also absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and
It is important to note that the OSMP trees are not
included as part of the urban forest within the context • Community climate action. filter the air we breathe.
of the UFSP. The open spaces and mountain parks form
a buffer around the city, helping to establish their own,
separate identity from neighboring communities and "Research indicates that healthy trees can
provide their own set of ecosystem services. These trees mitigate a range of environmental impacts,
are not included when conducting Boulder’s urban forest including stormwater runoff, poor air quality
inventory or calculating ecosystem benefits from the and temperature extremes. Trees also
urban forest. There are still many valuable opportunities
provide significant energy use reductions
for education and collaboration with OSMP to collect
data, conduct staff training, share information, evaluate
associated with both cooling and heating...
ecosystem services, and collaborate for education and ...The City of Boulder’s urban forest and
outreach. ecosystems are an integral part of its living
infrastructure."
~Climate Action Plan
35 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Boulder’s Climate Commitment • Explore the establishment of a partner, non-

profit urban forest foundation to provide
The 2017 Climate Commitment articulates the following additional financial and community support;
vision for the urban forest:
• The city and county will strive to preserve and
"By 2050, Boulder’s urban landscape will be planted protect the natural resource base by:
with trees and plants that can moderate climate
extremes, reduce energy, and water use, improve • Maintaining and enhancing the biodiversity
and productivity of ecological systems;
water quality, and enhance the beauty and livability
of Boulder’s urban environment... More than 20 • Ensuring the efficient use of natural resources
percent of the land area in the developed portions that does not deplete them over time
of Boulder will be shaded by trees … By increasing
the number, diversity and placement of trees in • Reducing and minimizing the use of non-
Boulder’s urban centers, we will improve air and renewable resources; and
water quality, reduce building heating and cooling • Review and revise enforcement of canopy goals
needs, and mitigate the visible loss of hundreds of and parking lot shading guidelines.
thousands of ash trees in our community."

The Commitment contains the following priorities:
• Maintain the existing urban tree canopy;

• Monitor the urban forest using both on-the-
ground and remote sensing technologies to
document how it is responding to climate
change. Establish ongoing monitoring protocol;
• Increase the diversity of urban tree species to

improve overall urban forest resilience;
• Review and improve strategies for pest and

disease invasions, including EAB;
• Review and refine park and natural space

plans to minimize damage from the impacts of
increased use and warmer conditions;
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 36
Urban Wildlife Management Plan

The Urban Wildlife Management Plan (2006, 2011)
(UWMP) establishes a set of policies and procedures for
managing wildlife, including species of special concern,
within Boulder on both public and private lands. The
purpose of the UWMP is to develop effective strategies
to minimize human/wildlife conflicts and increase
public awareness of how to better coexist with these
animals.
The UWMP includes the Black Bear Component and
Mountain Lion Component, both were approved in 2011,
In addition, the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Component, was
approved in 2006. The city’s goals and the plan support
and recommend the protection of animal species, not
individual animals, and emphasize humane, non-lethal
control of wildlife whenever possible.

By minimizing forest fragmentation, wildlife corridors
are preserved, resulting in a healthier ecosystem. It is
also important for tree care professionals to identify
when trees are currently being used as habitats. The
city limits planting of true "fruit" bearing trees, such as
pears and apples west of Broadway Avenue, since they
are a Black Bear attractant.
37 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
State Law
Pesticides
The Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA)
regulates the distribution and use of pesticides in the
state to prevent adverse impacts to the public and
the environment. Regulation includes licensing and
inspection of all commercial and private pesticide
applicators to make sure pesticide use, storage, and
disposal comply with state and federal law. CDA also
monitors pesticide sales and provides regulations for
pesticide use near waterways, which requires a state
permit (available online).
Emerald Ash Borer Quarantine

Photo courtesy of Museum of Natural History, University of Colorado, Boulder EAB is a federally quarantined pest. With the Boulder
discovery of EAB in 2013, the CDA and USDA Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Services imposed a quarantine
on Boulder County and parts of Weld, Jefferson, and
Larimer counties to slow the spread of EAB. The
quarantine prohibits the movement of hardwood,
firewood, and other ash tree stock and wood materials
outside quarantined areas.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 38
Municipal Ordinance and Policy

TITLE 6. CHAPTER 6 PROTECTION OF TREES & PLANTS
establishes rules and regulations for the licensing of tree
care professionals, provides tree removal mitigation
requirements, and defines penalties for damage to
trees in parks and unpermitted damage to street
trees. In Boulder, all maintenance for public street
trees, including planting, rotational pruning, pesticide
applications, and removal, is the responsibility of
Boulder Forestry. Adjacent property owners have the
following opportunities and obligations:
• May contract with a licensed certified arborist

to perform tree work such as pruning or the
application of pesticides to a public street tree
with authorization from the city forester; and
• Adjacent property owners must also water public

street trees and provide a sod free base to avoid
damage.
If a property is going to be developed or redeveloped,
trees undergo a site review process including inventory,
anticipated impacts, and plans for mitigation. Street
trees are required to be planted in the public ROW at
the time of development. On most sites, the designated
spacing is one tree per forty linear feet, within ten feet
of the pavement edge. The trees must be from the TITLE 6 protects trees in the ROW and on city-owned Code requires that when trees and plants in the ROW
approved street tree list, or approved by staff on a case- property, but the adjacent property owner can remove are removed or destroyed they shall be replaced with
by-case basis if unique circumstances are identified. trees in the ROW if they obtain approval. Construction equivalent value as determined by city manager. If the
The Planning Department regularly provides expert on city-owned property and public ROW and easements location cannot support a new, equivalent tree, then
advice to ensure species planted are compatible with must provide tree protection in conformance with Boulder will be reimbursed the appraised value of the
site attributes. Additional requirements for parking lots the Boulder Design and Construction Standards. To tree.
and open spaces are defined. commercially prune trees for profit, an individual would
need the proper licensing.
39 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
TITLE 9. CHAPTER 9 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING

STANDARDS (Development Standards) requires a
“sight triangle” where a driveway intersects a public
ROW or where property abuts the intersection of two
public ROW (unobstructed sight). Trees may be planted
and maintained within the “sight triangle” area if all
branches are trimmed to maintain a clear vision for a
vertical height of ninety-six inches above the roadway
surface and the location of the trees planted, based on
the tree species expected mature height and size, does
not obstruct sight visibility by more than twenty-five
percent of the “sight triangle".
Landscape and screening standards in TITLE 9.
CHAPTER 9 also require a minimum of one tree per
1,000 square feet for public, outdoor, and landscaped
open spaces. The trees must be planted in the ground
or accommodated in tree vaults over parking garages.
Parking lot screenings require at least one tree per 25
linear feet at property lines. There is a separate interior
planting requirement of one tree for every 200 square
feet of landscape area.
Streetscape improvements must meet several Alley Trees: Except for existing single-family lots, trees
standards: shall be planted at an overall average of one tree per
forty linear feet within ten feet of the pavement or
Street Trees: A planting strip consisting of deciduous edge of alley.
trees shall be planted along the full length of all public
and private streets in all zoning districts. When possible, Streetscape Requirements: Street trees must be
trees shall be planted in the public ROW. Large deciduous selected from the approved street tree list set forth in
trees and detached sidewalks are the preferred design the Boulder Design and Construction Standards, unless
elements. an equivalent tree selection is approved by the city
manager.
Boulder has developed an excellent, flexible matrix that
communicates the required planting by the sidewalk
site conditions and traits.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 40
having clear and unambiguous language. The ordinance and two hours after local solar noon on a clear winter
includes definitions, grants specific authority and solstice day. SA Area I is protected from shading 12 feet
clearly describes penalties, and the appeals process. high, SA Area II is protected from twenty-five feet high,
To measure the effectiveness of the ordinance, key and SA Area III receives no protection.
metrics are tracked periodically.
TITLE 9.CHAPTER 2 SITE REVIEW establishes siting and
These metrics include how many trees are preserved, construction requirements to ensure maximum potential
fees paid, number of violations, and levels of public for utilization of solar energy. In the city, applicants for
awareness. In Atlanta, these are measured annually residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open
the Arborist Division. Fees paid for violations fund a spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential
City Tree Trust which provides for future urban forest for the use of solar energy in accordance with criteria,
enhancement. including landscaping. The shading effects of proposed
Case Study: City of Atlanta Regulation landscaping on adjacent buildings must be minimized.
of Trees on Private Property Key Concepts:
Boulder has a vision committed to establishing trees and
The City of Atlanta maintains clear regulations about • Convene a group of stakeholders to develop increasing solar energy generation. The code is flexible
tree removal on private property. Atlanta’s tree regulations; to achieve harmony between solar panels and trees.
ordinance was developed by a core group of urban forest
stakeholders who began the process by considering
• Clearly establish applicability; TITLE 6. CHAPTER 1 BIRD PROTECTION SANCTUARY
CREATED establishes that the area within the city is
tree protection options in Georgia and nationwide. • Provide for public input, compromise, and declared to be a sanctuary for the refuge of protected
consensus; and
The process for ordinance development provided for birds. Urban wildlife in Boulder is protected, including
public input, compromise and consensus. The strength • Grant specific authority for enforcement to a birds, prairie dogs, bears, and bees. The city requires
of the regulation lies in it being equitably enforced, and specific city agent. permits for any injury or killing of protected urban
wildlife and works diligently with property owners to
identify non-lethal solutions to wildlife conflicts.
TITLE 9. CHAPTER 12 SUBDIVISION indicates that access. The section applies solar access codes to all city
each subdivision plant lot must contain at least one property and all private property and developments. TITLE 8. CHAPTER 3 WILDLIFE PROTECTION states
deciduous street tree of two-inch caliper in residential Government organizations not under the jurisdiction of that no person shall hunt, trap, net, impede, harass,
subdivisions, and each corner lot contains at least one the city may opt in unless provided an exemption by the molest, chase, kill, or remove any wildlife or livestock
tree for each street upon which the lot fronts, located city manager. Three solar access zones are established or damage, destroy, or remove any nest, burrow, or
so as not to interfere with sight distance at driveways and organized into groups based on density, topography, animal dwelling from any park, recreation area, or open
and chosen from the list of acceptable trees established and lot orientations. space or other property of the city, including any ROW
by the city manager. controlled or maintained by the city.
These are areas SA Area I, SA Area II, and SA Area III.
TITLE 9. CHAPTER 9 SOLAR ACCESS establishes the Each area has its own protections for solar entry based
principles, applicability, and organization of solar energy on hypothetical shade height between two hours before
41 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
TITLE 6. CHAPTER 10 PESTICIDE USE (Boulder’s

Pesticide Ordinance) requires that Boulder residents
be notified when and where pesticides are applied.
It is the responsibility of the pesticide applicator to
notify all adjacent property owners at least 24 hours
prior to airborne application. Boulder's Integrated
Pest Management Policy extends that notification
requirement for city applications to include all pesticide
applications – airborne, ground, and trunk/soil injected.
Once notified, application must occur within seven days.
TITLE 5. CHAPTER 9. SECTION 7 UNREASONABLE
NOISE PROHIBITED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9 P.M.
AND 7 A.M.-- LAWN MOWERS, LEAF BLOWERS, AND
CONSTRUCTION allows exemptions for equipment used
to remove flood debris, which extends the operating
hours to 5:00am - 12:00am.
TITLE 8. CHAPTER 5 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL
specifies that no person shall perform work (including
tree maintenance) in the ROW without providing
temporary traffic control measures. These requirements
are intended to enable safe passage for Boulder residents
on public ROW and are an important consideration for
any tree care personnel when developing work plans for
all tree care maintenance activities.

Municipal ordinances impact the urban forest by
defining tree-related responsibilities for private
property owners, real estate developers, and tree care
companies. Specific requirements, such as the number
of trees required for a new development, can be altered
by Boulder leadership to increase the tree population
and expand the urban tree canopy.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 42
Design Standards A key component to tree protection is the requirement

that applicants applying for construction projects where
CHAPTER 3 OF BOULDER’S DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION streetscaping improvements will be included must
STANDARDS: Streetscape Design and Tree Protection submit a landscaping plan in compliance with these
is intended to improve public safety by preventing Standards and those set forth in TITLE 6 CHAPTER 6
sight distance and facility obstructions and sidewalk (PROTECTION OF TREES AND PLANTS), TITLE 9 CHAPTER
and street damage, to promote suitable landscape 2 (REVIEW PROCESS), AND CHAPTER TITLE 9 CHAPTER
species selection for streetscapes, to minimize tree 5 (SUBDIVISIONS). This plan must include elements to
and landscape maintenance costs, and to create an protect trees; design details and notes, construction
aesthetic community image through continuity. activity controls and measures, and any necessary
provisions or restrictions to ensure the protection of
The standards identify requirements for the selection,
existing trees.
placement, and removal of trees on construction sites
and provide requirements for tree protection and While the standards state that trees shall only be removed
general landscaping and maintenance. in compliance with a landscaping plan approved by the
city, this is not always the case. Currently, there is a
loophole for tree removal, where the owner/developer
simply removes trees prior to permitting.

Design standards play a crucial role in the development
of an urban forest because they define the geographic
and spatial environment for trees. For example, soil turkeys. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful
volume requirements impact the probability of a tree for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell,
developing into a healthy mature plant. City staff should trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird,
include arborists in the design process when standards including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs.
are updated to maximize the opportunity for trees to The Federal Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to
succeed in urban environments. sell, harm, harass, possess or remove protected animals
from the wild.
Federal Wildlife Regulations
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects all
common wild birds found in the United States except By practicing mindful tree maintenance practices,
for house sparrow, starling, feral pigeon, and resident disturbances or accidental injury to protected wildlife
game birds, such as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild and their habitats are minimized.
43 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Living Wage Regulations wage was $10.62 per hour. Now, the minimum wage was
adjusted each year, where it reached $13.99 in 2017.
service providers, as well as for EMS ambulance service
providers, to a minimum rate of $15.67 per hour.
Colorado state law currently prohibits local government
In February 2016, Resolution 926 expanded to other Urban Forest Strategic Plan Implications
from establishing a citywide minimum wage. The statute
categories of city employees, including part-time and
does not restrict local governments from establishing All Forestry contracted services (planting, pruning,
temporary. In 2017, the approved city budget included
policies that address the wages they pay to employees removals, and pesticide applications) are included
increased funding for an expanding living wage for
or contractors. Without the option of establishing within the definition of landscaping service provider.
city employees, janitorial and landscape contractors,
a minimum wage across the board for all workers in It is still unknown whether the new living wage will
and emergency medical services (EMS) ambulance
the community, City Council opted in 2003 to adopt significantly impact Boulder Forestry contracted tree
providers. The 2017 Budget included funding to increase
Resolution 926, which directed the city manager to pay care operations.
wages rates for contracted janitorial and landscaping
the city’s standard full-time employees no less than
120 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (Chart
3). In 2003, when the Resolution was implemented, the
Chart 3: Municipal Compensation Requirements
$16.00
Minimum City Staff Hourly Compensation
$13.99
$14.00
$12.00
$10.62
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$-
2003 2017
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 44
Chart 4: Public vs Private Trees

Boulder’s Urban Forest
Resource
Understanding the structure, composition, and condition
of an urban forest resource is essential to developing
effective management strategies.
Private Public
The following information provides an overview of 91.5% 8.5%
Boulder’s urban forest and the public tree resource,
including important benchmarks for measuring the
success of the UFSP over time. The public tree resource
is comprised of all public trees, while the urban forest
contains all public and private trees (Chart 4). Boulder's
urban forest has approximately 50,800 public trees and
600,000 private trees.
"We often notice trees as stationary plants that only move with the help
of wind, rain or other natural elements. That helps us know they are alive.
Another option is viewing the energy that trees emit. During the early or
late hours of the day, relax your eyes as if you were caught up in a carefree
daydream; focusing on nothing, but still capable of observing. View the
edges of the tree and at times you can see shades of transparent silver
against the sky background. Every living thing emits energy. Trees give us
innumerable opportunities to be aware and connected."
~Submission to Boulder Tree Stories

45 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Chart 1: Land Cover

Urban Tree Canopy Land Cover
The amount and distribution of leaf surface area are the Boulder encompasses 17,473 acres. Tree canopy covers Pervious Water
approximately 2,773 acres for an average canopy cover 47% 4%
driving forces behind the ability of the urban forest to
produce benefits for the community (Clark et al, 1997). of 16 percent (Chart 1, Table 1). Impervious surfaces
As canopy cover increases, so do the environmental such as pavement (roads, sidewalks, driveways and Canopy
16%
services and socio-economic benefits. parking lots) and developed area, cover 5,724 acres
(33%). The most prevalent land cover is pervious
Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems surfaces like turf, low-lying vegetation, and bare soils,
of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground covering 8,198 acres (47%) (Map 1). Although all grass,
when viewed from above. Understanding the location low-lying vegetation, and bare soil cover types are
and extent of tree canopy is critical to developing and potential planting locations, realistically, not all areas
implementing sound management strategies that will are suitable planting sites due to intended site uses.
promote the smart growth and resiliency of Boulder’s Examples of sites with limited canopy potential include
urban forest and the invaluable services it provides. Golf courses, cemeteries, and sports fields. With these Impervious
33%
In 2015, through a partnership with Trimble and Digital considerations in mind, Boulder has a potential canopy
Globe, Boulder used remote sensing and high-resolution cover of 41 percent.
aerial imagery (NAIP, 2013) to develop an initial GIS land
Tree Canopy by Maintenance District
cover data layer that identifies tree canopy, impervious
surface, pervious surface, and water. In 2016, Davey Land cover was further stratified across 14 tree
Resource Group completed mapping in some areas not maintenance districts (Map 3). Boulder’s land cover
covered in the initial study and provided an accuracy by maintenance district varies, from 30 percent in Table 1: Land Cover Classes
assessment and quality assurance for the overall dataset. University Hill to 3 percent in Gunbarrel. Boulder’s Land
Land Cover
CoverClass
Class Acres Percent
Percent
parks and trail areas include 122 acres of tree canopy,
The result is a GIS map layer detailing the location Canopy
Canopy 2,773
2,773 16%
16%
an average of 7.7 percent. Parts of Boulder Creek Path
and extent of existing tree canopy and other land Impervious 5,724 33%
have 70 percent tree canopy cover while natural areas Impervious 5,724 33%
cover across Boulder. The analysis does not distinguish
between trees on public and private property since the
near Boulder Reservoir, Bill Bower Park, and North Palo Pervious
Pervious 8,198
8,198 47%
47%
Park have less than 2 percent. Water 755 4%
benefits of trees extend beyond property lines. The Water 755 4%
information can be used by urban forest managers to Total
Total 17,453 100%
17,450 100%
explore tree canopy in conjunction with other available
metrics, including geography, land use, and community
demographics. This information also establishes a
baseline for assessing future change.
Map 1: Land Cover Map 3: Canopy Cover by Maintenance District
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 46
47 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Environmental Services Cumulative Stored Carbon Forest Fragmentation

i-Tree Canopy (v6.1) was used to calculate the As trees grow, they remove atmospheric carbon to fuel Forest fragmentation is the result of roads and other
environmental services provided by the entire Boulder the growth of woody and foliar biomass. Over their urban development creating separations, holes, or
tree canopy. This includes annual services to air entire life to date (lifetime value), the trees in Boulder’s pockets that reduce large contiguous forested areas
quality, human health, stormwater runoff, and carbon urban forest are storing 471,714 tons of carbon, valued into smaller stands. Fragmentation results in tree
sequestration. It does not include other tree services at over $17 million (Table 4). In the coming years, as canopies that are isolated from each other, reducing
such as energy savings or increased property values. trees are lost to EAB, carbon storage may fluctuate or habitat value and isolating wildlife populations.
decrease, depending upon the final disposal or reuse of Mapping fragmentation can help identify areas where
Each year, Boulder’s urban forest provides a total of woody biomass. tree planting and new canopy can increase linkages and
$876,155 in environmental services. The majority of
habitat corridors. The fragmentation study identified
this value comes from reduced greenhouse gases;
Table 4: Ecosystem Services From Tree Canopy 2,289 acres of patch canopy (small isolated patches),
annually trees sequester 18,709 tons of carbon valued
370 acres of perforated canopy (edges and linear
at $676,508. The i-Tree Canopy v6.1 model was used Annual Services sections), and 110 acres of core canopy (Map 4, Figure
to quantify the value of ecosystem services for carbon Air Quality Pounds Value ($) 3). Fragmentation was a consideration of the priority
storage and sequestration. O3 183,760 $12,861 planting analysis for Boulder.
The i-Tree Canopy v6.1 model was also used to estimate PM10 61,560 $9,337 The effects of fragmentation are well documented in
air pollutant removal rates and monetary values for
NO2 18,460 $247 all forested regions on earth. In general, by reducing
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone
CO 3,380 $143 forest health and degrading habitat, fragmentation
(O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM)
leads to loss of biodiversity, increases in invasive plants,
(Hirabayashi, 2014). Annually, trees in Boulder trap or SO2 11,620 $43
pests, and pathogens, and reduces water quality. These
absorb 139 tons of air pollutants valued at $22,631.
wide-ranging effects all stem from two basic problems:
Improvements to air quality are also linked to human Carbon Tons (1) fragmentation increases isolation between forest
health services. Sequestration 18,709 $676,508 communities and (2) it increases so-called edge effects
The i-Tree Hydro v5.0 model was used to quantify the (Bennett, 2003).
value of ecosystem services for stormwater runoff. Stormwater Gallons When a forest becomes isolated, the movement of
Through model simulation, it was determined that tree Avoided Runoff 15,001,357 $177,016 plants and animals is inhibited. This restricts breeding
canopy reduces stormwater runoff volume in Boulder by
and genetic diversity, which results in long-term
more than 15 million gallons per year using precipitation
Annual Total $876,155 population decline. Fragmentation is a threat to natural
data from 2005-2012. This is approximately 5,408
resilience, and connectivity of forest habitats may be
gallons per acre of tree canopy. Based on an estimated
a key component of forest adaptation and response to
stormwater treatment cost of $0.0118 per gallon, tree Lifetime Carbon Storage
climate change.
canopy contributes $177,016 annually to stormwater Carbon Tons Value ($)
services. Storage 471,714 $17,056,868
Map 4: Forest Fragmentation
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 48
Table 5: Forest Fragmentation

Fragmentation Class Acres Percent
Patch 2,289 83%
Perforated 371 13%
Core 111 4%
Total 2,770 100%
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Detail

49 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
How does Boulder’s tree canopy measure up? Management Applications Planting Priorities
To provide a better regional context for Boulder's urban Understanding the location and extent of tree canopy is It could be assumed that all pervious areas, including
forest tree canopy, the UFSP provides the Urban Tree key to developing and implementing sound management grass, shrubs, low vegetation, and bare soil (8,198 acres)
Canopy for several comparison communities (Chart strategies that promote the sustainability of Boulder’s are potential tree planting locations. Realistically, not
5). Boulder has a 16 percent canopy cover which is urban forest resource and the services it provides all of these areas are suitable planting sites due to
approximately equal to Denver and Boise. (Figure 4). The data set, combined with existing and intended site uses (e.g., golf courses, cemeteries, sports
It is important to note that different communities may emerging urban forestry research, enables managers fields) and because some of these areas are natural
have different canopy cover percents for many reasons, to strike a balance between urban growth and tree areas (without irrigation) that are not appropriate for
including land use patterns, climate, soil conditions, preservation and aids in identifying and assessing urban tree planting.
natural precipitation, and budgets. Every city needs to forestry opportunities. Spatial understanding of the
Potential realistic plantable areas can be determined by
develop canopy goals that are appropriate for their own past, present, and future potential for tree canopy is
excluding those pervious areas unsuitable for planting
community. a valuable tool to help managers align urban forestry
and including impervious areas where trees could
management with the community’s vision for Boulder’s
feasibly be added, such as in parking lot islands, along
urban forest.
sidewalks, and near road edges.
Chart 5: Comparison Community Canopy Cover
The Urban Tree Canopy analysis considered site design
35% and environmental factors, including proximity to
31%
30%
hardscape, canopy fragmentation, soil permeability,
30% slope, and soil erosion factors to prioritize planting sites
on both public and private property for the greatest
25% potential return on investment (Map 5, Figure 4). As
22%
young trees mature, they provide more substantial
Tree Canopy Cover
20% stormwater and environmental services. The analysis

17%
16% 16% 16% identified 4,335 acres of potential planting site in
15% Boulder, where 905 of these acres are high or very high
11% priority planting areas. It is important to note that some
10%
10% 9%
8% of the areas in the planting priority map are not under
the jurisdiction of the City of Boulder (Table 6).
5%
0%
Map 5: Priority Planting Sites
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 50
Table 6: Priority Planting Sites

Priority Ranking Number of Locations Acres Percent
Very Low 14,682 1,393 32%
Low 16,906 1,141 26%
Moderate 16,484 889 21%
High 18,449 590 14%
Very High 13,881 314 7%
Total 80,402 4,327 100%
Figure 4: Priority Planting Detail

51 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Public Tree Resource

In 2015, certified arborists collected an inventory of
the public trees in Boulder, including details about Street Trees Park Trees All Public Trees
each tree’s species, size, and condition. The inventory Species % of Street Trees Species % Of Park Trees Species % of Public Trees
recorded the species, size, condition, and geographic Siberian elm 11.3 Green ash 9.1 Green ash 10.4
location of each tree in an electronic, GIS format. Green ash 10.9 Cottonwood 8.1 Siberian elm 9.3
Honeylocust 8.4 Austrian pine 6.2 Honeylocust 7.2
The tree inventory data was analyzed with i-Tree’s Crabapple 6.1 Plains cottonwood 5.2 Crabapple 5.5
Streets, a STRATUM Analysis Tool (Streets v5.1.5; i-Tree Silver maple 4.3 Blue spruce 4.6 Blue spruce 3.8
v6.0.9), to develop a resource analysis and report of Blue spruce 3.5 Ponderosa pine 4.4 Austrian pine 3.6
the existing condition of this urban forest. Austrian pine 2.7 Crabapple 3.8 Silver maple 3.4
Northern hackberry 2.4 Honeylocust 3.8 Cottonwood 3.1
Boulder’s public tree resource includes approximately Norway maple 2.4 Siberian elm 3.7 Northern hackberry 2.3
50,800 inventoried street and park trees. To replace American basswood 2.3 Willow 3.3 Ponderosa pine 2.1
these trees with trees of similar size, species, and Russian olive 2.1 Pinyon pine 2.2 American linden 2.1
condition would cost nearly $110 million. (Table 7). Pinyon pine 2.0 Crack willow 2.1 Pinyon pine 2.1
Swamp white oak 1.9 Northern hackberry 2.1 Norway maple 2.0
Species Diversity Callery pear 1.9 Boxelder 2.0 Swamp white oak 1.7
White ash 1.8 Rocky mountain juniper 1.9 Russian olive 1.7
The public tree inventory includes more than 235
Quaking aspen 1.7 Western catalpa 1.8 Plains cottonwood 1.6
unique tree species. This greatly exceeds the mean of Littleleaf linden 1.6 Bur oak 1.6 Western catalpa 1.6
53 species reported by McPherson and Rowntree (1989) Western catalpa 1.6 American basswood 1.6 Callery pear 1.6
in their nationwide survey of street tree populations in Juniper 1.5 Swamp white oak 1.3 Boxelder 1.5
22 U.S. cities. This level of diversity is not typical of a Boxelder 1.4 Kentucky coffeetree 1.3 White ash 1.5
temperate, semi-arid climate. One contributing factor Cottonwood 1.4 White fir 1.2 Littleleaf linden 1.4
Ponderosa pine 1.3 English oak 1.0 Juniper 1.3
Sugar maple 1.3 All Other Park Trees 27.7 Quaking aspen 1.3
Table 7: Replacement Value of Top 5 Species Cherry 1.2 Total 100% Willow 1.2
Species Total % of Total Red maple 1.2 Bur oak 1.2
Green ash $12,979,158 11.8% Northern red oak 1.2 Northern red oak 1.1
Siberian elm $11,505,266 10.5% Bur oak 1.0 Rocky mountain juniper 1.0
Honeylocust $9,143,368 8.3% All Other Street Trees 19.6 Sugar maple 1.0
Total 100% All Other Trees 22.4
Silver maple $8,927,310 8.1%
Total 100%
Cottonwood $6,539,223 5.9%
All Other Trees $60,860,845 55.4%
Total $109,955,170 100%
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 52
is the acidity of Boulder’s soils, which makes them Colorado, the Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora Chart 6: Age Distribution of Public Trees
more productive than soils in other Front Range cities, glabripennis) feeds on maples and other species, 40%
allowing a wider diversity of species to be planted. The including poplars, elms, and willows. A catastrophic loss
35% Ideal
most predominant tree species are green ash, Siberian of one or more of these dominant species would leave
elm, honeylocust, crabapple, and blue spruce. large structural gaps in Boulder’s neighborhoods. 30% All Trees
% of All Trees
The prevalence of green ash exceeds the general rule Future planting should focus on increasing diversity and 25%
that no single species should represent more than 10 reducing reliance on overused species. As at-risk tree 20%
percent of the population (Clark et al. 1997). In light species are removed and replaced, new species should 15%
of EAB and other significant pests and diseases, many be introduced when possible. New species should be
10%
cities are now opting to increase diversity to improve resistant to the pest issues that currently pose a threat
resilience. The 10-20-30 is a widely used standard for to the region. For example, it would not be beneficial 5%
urban forestry, which states that urban tree populations to replace the green ash trees in Northeast Boulder with 0%
should consist of no more than 10 percent of any one autumn purple ash, because they would still be at risk
species, 20 percent of any one genus, and 30 percent from EAB. Ideally, replacement of at-risk species should
of any one family. The rule encourages greater genetic include a diversity of tree species. DBH Class
diversity, and thus, greater resilience. Only 25 of the
more than 235 species in Boulder's public tree population Age Distribution
trees with a DBH between seven and twelve inches.
represent more than 1 percent of the overall population. The age distribution of the urban forest is a key indicator Of these, 11,817 are medium and large-maturing trees
Boulder is experimenting with a lot of tree species to and driver, of maintenance needs. The age distribution that will also benefit from pruning to influence their
increase diversity and overall forest resiliency. of Boulder’s public tree population is mainly small- developing structure. 11,817 of the overall population
Additionally, at the neighborhood level, some areas are diameter trees, with over two-thirds of the trees under is comprised of small-maturing trees that generally
heavily dominated by only a few species. In Northeast 12" Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). Almost 30 percent don't exceed 25 to 30 feet in height.
Boulder, nearly three in ten trees are green ash. In of the trees are between 6"-12" (Chart 6).
A high proportion of young, large, and medium-maturing
Mapleton Hill, one-quarter of the trees are silver 13,034 of young trees (<6” DBH) are medium and large- trees is a positive indication for the benefits provided by
maples and in Northeast Broadway, one-quarter are stature trees that still have a lot of growing to do before the urban forest, since large shade trees typically provide
Siberian elms. One in five trees among Boulder’s parks they reach maturity. Training, defined as the selective more shade, pollutant uptake, carbon sequestration, and
are cottonwoods. pruning of small branches to influence the future shape rainfall interception than small trees. 3,661 of the tree
The lack of species diversity at this level is of concern and structure of a young tree, is critical at this stage inventory is comprised of mature and over-mature trees
due to the impact that drought, disease, pests, or other to prevent costly structural issues and branch failures with a DBH exceeding 24 inches. When trees approach
stressors can have on an ecosystem; the urban forest as these young trees mature into their final size in the or reach the end of their natural lifespan, they often
is no different in this respect. Green ash, for example, landscape. have higher maintenance needs and eventually need to
is already particularly vulnerable to EAB. Silver maples be removed to reduce risk and liability.
14,911 of the population consists of intermediate age
may be at risk as well. While not yet detected in
53 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Services Provided by the Urban Forest Chart 7: Annual Services From Prevalent Public Tree Species
Boulder’s public trees provide an estimated 651 acres
of tree canopy, approximately 23.5 percent of the Summary of Total Annual Per-Tree Services
overall tree canopy cover. To date, public trees have Silver maple $360.87
sequestered 36,892 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), valued Cottonwood $291.14
at $243,490. Plains cottonwood $282.52
Northern red oak $195.64
Annually, Boulder’s public trees provide cumulative Norway maple $160.71
services to the public at an average benefit of $102 per Sugar maple $158.43
tree, for a total value of nearly $5.2 million each year White ash $150.44
(Chart 7). These annual services include: Ponderosa pine $145.88
Boxelder $143.37
• $442,432 in energy use reduction (electricity and Siberian elm $131.65
natural gas) through shading and climate effects;
Littleleaf linden $126.74
an average of $8.72 per tree; Russian olive $121.72
• 2,254 tons of CO2 sequestered for an overall Green ash
Honeylocust
$103.46
$93.97
value of $43,084; an average of $0.85 per tree.
Blue spruce $84.39
• $66,282 in air quality improvements; an average Western catalpa $79.78
of $1.31 per tree; Austrian pine $72.87
Bur oak
• 30.6 million gallons of stormwater intercepted American linden
$67.33
$66.96
for a total value of $153,038; an average of $3.02
Northern hackberry $66.36
per tree; and
Swamp white oak $43.58
• $4.5 million in increased property values and Willow
Juniper
$40.45
$28.80
other socio-economic benefits; an average of
$88.59 per tree. Quaking aspen $28.14
European crabapple $17.27
It is important to note that three of these top fifteen Callery pear $15.19
performing tree species are vulnerable to either the EAB Pinyon pine $6.98
(white ash and green ash) or drippy blight (red oak). Rocky mountain juniper $5.45
All Other Trees $46.28
$0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 $350.00 $400.00
Energy Stormwater CO₂ Air Quality Aesthetic/Other
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 54
Return on Investment Condition Chart 9: Overall Condition of Public Trees
When the annual investment of nearly $1.17 million for The majority of trees (91%) in Boulder’s public urban N/A
the management of the public urban forest is considered, forest are in fair or better condition. Less than 7 percent 6%
the annual net benefit (services minus investment) for of trees are in poor condition and 1.9 percent are dead Very
the community is over $4 million, an average of $39 per or in very poor condition (Chart 9). Poor
tree (Chart 8). In other words, for every $1 invested Good 1%
While there are some older, mature trees that require 56%
in public trees, the community receives $4.46 in Poor
structural maintenance or removal, Boulder is fortunate Dead or
services. Boulder’s benefit-investment ratio of $4.46 7%
to have a relatively young and healthy public tree Dying
exceeds those reported in 2005 for Bismarck, ND ($3 .09), 1%
population. Proactive management, especially timely
Glendale, AZ ($2.41), Fort Collins ($2.18), Cheyenne,
training and structural pruning, remains critical to Fair
WY ($2.09), and Berkeley, CA ($1.37) (McPherson et al.
maintain the condition of this valuable forest resource. 29%
2005).
Chart 8: Return on Investment for Public Trees
Trees in Open Space and

Mountain Parks
The urban forest as discussed in this Plan does not include
trees in open spaces and mountain parks. Boulder's Open
Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) include over 45,000
acres of land that have been preserved and protected.
Wildlife habitat, unique geologic features, greenways,
and 151 miles of trails are all part of OSMP. The open
space lands teem with native plants and wildlife and
are home to threatened and endangered species.
In addition, these lands serve as a buffer between
Boulder and nearby development, and contain a tree
population that also provides environmental services. A
full explanation of how OSMP trees are managed can be
found in the OSMPs Forest Ecosystem Management Plan.
55 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
City Forestry Programs Boulder is an industry leader in urban forestry and

several programs have been nationally recognized for
Rotational and Safety Pruning
excellence. The following programs illustrate Boulder’s Pruning serves to maintain the health, safety, structure,
and Operations commitment to high-quality tree management. and aesthetic value of individual trees and is needed on
a periodic basis as trees grow and increase in diameter
"Boulder Forestry is committed to maintaining a Core Programs:
and canopy. Maintenance pruning for public trees falls
healthy and safe urban forest and to preserving
an extensive and diverse tree resource for future • Rotational and safety pruning; into two main categories: rotational (routine) pruning
and safety (risk management), although risk reduction is
generations." • Tree safety inspection program (TSIP); also a goal of routine pruning. In instances where trees
Boulder Forestry staff and programs are nationally • Tree removal; are near busy streets, playgrounds, multi-use paths, and
recognized within the industry for their expertise and
proactive approach to urban forest management. The
• Tree planting and replacement; pedestrian areas, pruning can significantly reduce the
risk of tree failure. Pruning is also required to ensure
Boulder Forestry Division currently has seven full-time • Integrated pest management: visibility in the “sight triangle” at street intersections
positions, including: the city forester, a forestry field • Protecting pollinators as well as for traffic signals and signs.
operations supervisor, three assistant foresters, and Tree longevity and stability are enhanced with structural
two forestry field technicians. • Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) mitigation
pruning from a young age. Structural pruning can also
Two to three seasonal staff positions are available to • EAB control methods in Boulder; reduce the cost of maintenance over time by reducing
provide support on an as-needed basis. Forestry staff • Commercial tree program; the number and size of branches that require removal
on mature trees and the amount and size of tree debris.
has many years of experience managing Boulder's public
trees. The forestry staff also includes International
• Tree inventory and asset management; Industry best practices recommend rotational pruning
Society of Arboriculture certified arborists and Certified • Development review, tree protection, and every five to seven years for all public park and street
Tree Risk Assessors. These certified professionals mitigation; ROW trees.
participate in training and industry events to keep • Enforcement of tree regulations; Until 2012, public street trees greater than ten inches
their skillset and knowledge informed by contemporary
industry BMPs. • Arborist licensing and staff training; in diameter received maintenance pruning on a ten-
year cycle and park trees on an eight-year cycle. In
All individuals from tree care companies performing • Emergency storm response; recent years, due to budget constraints, reallocations
work to public trees must be city licensed certified • Communication, public outreach and notification; to manage EAB and storm damage, and increased
contractor pricing, the pruning rotation has fallen
arborists and adhere to all applicable industry standards,
including ANSI, A300, and Z133. ISA certified arborist
• Public service requests; and behind schedule. The current rotation is closer to 14-15
contractors follow industry standards, including ANSI, • Wood utilization. years for street trees > 10” diameter and nine to ten
A300, and Z133, and maintain a license to perform tree years for all park trees.
Boulder's Forestry is committed to maintaining a healthy
care to public trees. and safe urban forest and to preserving an extensive Safety pruning outside the rotation is performed on
and diverse tree resource for future generations. an as-needed basis. Trees are identified for safety
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 56
mitigation through routine inspections and maintenance, webinars which feature a webinar from a nationally
risk assessment surveys for the Tree Safety Inspection recognized tree expert and a quiz. These help provide
Program, and resident service requests. Urgent hazards detail and depth to compliment the tree tenders
are addressed as quickly as possible. basic program as well as connect tree tenders with
other organizations that can support their projects.
When funding is available, it is generally dedicated Participants who complete all eight 1.5-2 hour webinars
to resolve issues in the largest, most mature trees, receive an Advanced Tree Tenders Certificate.
while younger trees that would benefit greatly from
structural pruning and correction become neglected. Case Study: Pennsylvania Horticultural The program is interconnected to multiple PHS
This deferred maintenance will eventually result in Society Tree Tenders programs, so it is not possible to determine exact
higher, long-term costs that will negatively affect program costs. The funding comes from the nonprofit’s
PHS Tree Tenders, established in 1993, is one of the annual flower show, a state Department of Conservation
the health and longevity of the overall urban forest,
oldest, most respected volunteer urban tree planting and natural resources grant, individual donors, and
as well as increase future risk of partial or full tree
and stewardship programs in the nation. Tree Tenders members.
failure.
was developed as a decentralized program to “train
Adjacent property owners may contract the pruning of the trainers” about trees, community organizing, Some of the speakers, including professors from
public street ROW trees outside of the pruning cycle communicating with elected officials, working with the local university, volunteer their time, reducing
(B.R.C. 6-6-5 Spraying and Pruning). Property owners the media, and neighborhood involvement. The potential program costs.
must receive prior authorization from Boulder Forestry program offers hands-on tree care training, covering
Key Concepts:
and hire a City of Boulder licensed certified arborist. biology, identification, planting and proper care. Since
inception, the training program has graduated more • Provide opportunities for volunteers to take on
than 4,000 Tree Tenders in the Greater Philadelphia leadership roles;
area. Working in neighborhood groups, the program’s
volunteers are responsible for planting more than • Build a team of engaged advocates that
understand the community’s unique urban
2,000 trees annually.
forestry challenges and opportunities;
Tree Tenders basic training is a one-day or three-evening
comprehensive introduction to tree care concepts, • Scholarships are available; and
offered for a $25 fee with scholarships available • Advanced classes are provided by webinar.
based on economic need. The program initially was
free, but there were a large number of no-shows, and
the participant investment of $25 greatly improved
attendance. The scholarship is a way to make sure no
one is turned away due to economic circumstance.
Advanced tree tender trainings are available as online
57 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Tree Safety Inspection Program data is collected in the field and stored in a database. significant logistical and resource burden on Boulder
Forestry operations. The UFSP recommends a review
Over time, as high-risk trees have been removed,
The Tree Safety Inspection Program (TSIP) is an of the program along with an overall risk management
the overall risk in the public tree resource has been
ongoing inspection and monitoring program for public policy.
reduced. The scope of the TSIP, however, represents a
trees with known structural defects. TSIP aids in the
prioritization of maintenance activities to reduce risk,
including mitigation pruning and tree removal. Surveys Cavity and decay in public silver maple tree.
are conducted for public trees on streets, in parks, and
along Boulder Creek Path and other greenways. Each
tree is inspected once every three to seven years and
surveys should be repeated on a maximum seven-year
cycle. When a tree’s condition exceeds the threshold of
safety, the tree is then pruned to mitigate the hazard
or removed if risk mitigation is not appropriate. Trees
in naturalized areas are only assessed if they have the
potential to impact public paths.
A significant focus for TSIP is Boulder's large population
of aging silver maples. Many of these trees were planted
in the late 1800s and are now over 100 years old. Silver
maples are poor at compartmentalizing decay and are
weak wooded and prone to limb failure. They represent
52 percent of the trees in TSIP and their future
maintenance will strain pruning and removal budgets
already taxed by tree removals due to EAB and severe
weather events.
TSIP exceeds national standards for tree risk
management. As a result, reported claims due to tree
failures have been kept to a minimum. Prior to 2006,
staff inspected approximately 150 trees per year. Since
2006, that number has increased to an average of 225
trees per year due to the advancing age and size of
trees in older neighborhoods. Historical trends suggest
the number of removals is expected to increase. All
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 58
Tree Removal Council. The project must satisfy and balance criteria
for removal and is agreed on by Forestry staff prior to
is ultimately made by the project manager, advisory
board, or City Council. Thus, Forestry does not make
Boulder Forestry is responsible for the removal of public advancing to Planning Board. removal decisions for projects in other departments.
trees that are dead, dying, structurally unsound, or
Forestry staff serves in an advisory role and as an When a private resident wants to remove a public tree,
threatening to people or property. Trees that pose a
information resource for determinations on tree removal the Forestry and the Planning Department work together
danger of spreading insect or disease pathogens may
in development and city construction projects. The to explore alternatives to removal and to determine if
also be removed to protect the overall urban forest.
decision to remove a public tree through development the tree is worthy of preservation.
Trees that are ten inches in diameter or smaller are
typically removed by forestry staff, while large tree
removals are contracted through local arborists. Chart 10: History of Tree Planting & Removal - Boulder Forestry
Recently, several large contracts have been awarded to
out-of-state arborists due to the increasingly prohibitive
costs of local arborists. Sourcing only to local companies
requires a deliberate call to action from Boulder voters,
including a commitment to additional funds.
Prior to 2013, Boulder Forestry removed an average
of 250 trees per year (Chart 10). Since 2013, removals
have increased significantly to over 900 trees in 2016
and 1,300 trees in 2017. Boulder Forestry estimates
that these numbers will continue to increase even
further as a result of EAB, severe weather events (e.g.,
the 2014 freeze and 2016 spring snowstorms), and the
continued decline of historic silver maples in Mapleton
Hill, University Hill, and Whittier maintenance districts.
Trees are also removed by other city work groups or
private entities because of city construction projects,
flood mitigation projects or private development.
Despite an increase in removals, tree removal decisions
(whether within the city or private) development
process are not taken lightly and trees are preserved
whenever possible. For private development projects,
tree removal decisions are made based on specific
criteria, which can involve the Planning Board or City
59 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Forestry staff strives to plant a minimum of 35 different

Tree Planting and Replacement tree species annually. To maximize tree services, 90
Living Legacy Program
To maintain the public tree resource and urban tree percent of new trees planted by Boulder Forestry are The Living Legacy Program provides individuals and
canopy cover along with the environmental, social, large-maturing species. organizations with the opportunity to honor and
and economic services that the urban forest provides, commemorate the memory of individuals and special
Tree establishment requires regular irrigation and events by planting a tree in Boulder’s city parks. While
Boulder Forestry replaces public trees that have been
special attention to soil quality. Sites with a functional prices vary due to species, size, and time of purchase,
removed and plants additional trees where existing
irrigation system receive priority status for replacement the average cost per tree is approximately $275.
space and infrastructure allow. Tree planting activities
trees. Due to existing limitations, Boulder Forestry
are divided between an in-house crew and outside
cannot replace all trees. This is especially true for
contractors. The amount contracted varies from year
trees along arterials or adjacent to rental properties,
to year based on how busy the in-house staff members
due to lack of irrigation or lack of functional irrigation
are with other tree activities, such as storm damage
systems. Irrigation was required at planting but often
response or service requests. In-house planting is less
not maintained for site review projects.
expensive, so the city could plant more trees annually
if in-house was used exclusively for plantings. Trees in Soils in West Boulder are generally fair to good with
commercial locations and for special planting initiatives, acidic pH and higher organic matter content. Some
such as ash replacement, are generally planted by areas in East Boulder and Gunbarrel have low soil organic
outside contractors. content, low soil fertility, poor drainage, as well as
variable soil type and pH. Boulder Forestry collaborates
To help offset the loss of environmental services caused
closely with city Planning and Transportation staff to
by the removal of a mature tree, industry standards
ensure species selection accounts for multiple site and
recommend replacing trees at a minimum of two new
soil variables for city and private development projects.
trees for every one tree removed (2:1). However, due
the high number of recent tree removals along with Currently, the Tree Planting Program has a Request to
budget shortfalls, Boulder Forestry has struggled to Proceed memo signed by the city manager, which allows
maintain a 1:1. The 2017 budget allocated $18,500 to Boulder Forestry to purchase trees outside of normal
planting. To reach the 2:1 goal, future budgets should purchasing requirements. This strengthens the program
receive substantial increases. considerably since it is vital to select only high quality,
neonic-free, diverse tree species. Low-cost is not always
Historically, Boulder Forestry’s Tree Planting Program has
the highest priority when selecting quality tree stock.
planted between 200 to 600 trees each year, depending
on funding. Hundreds more are added to the landscape
through city projects and private development activities.
Maintaining tree diversity is the key to resilience in the
face of invasive tree pests and climate change. Boulder
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 60
for every 2 trees planted, at events that are typically canopy in areas of highest need. It was challenging
held 9-11am on weekend mornings. ReGreen plantings to find planting locations in low income, low canopy
became the catalyst for the development of the Citizen areas because of the higher prevalence of renters, who
Forester program to develop volunteer leadership. lacked the ability to provide maintenance, or simply
lacked the time to care for a newly planted tree. To
Over the course of the ReGreen program, managers
overcome this challenge, UWT plans to work closely
identified several strategies and elements that
with the Working in Neighborhoods Department of the
contributed to program success. First, ReGreen Tulsa
City of Tulsa, and spend more time canvassing and
had a sense of urgency due to the massive citywide
cultivating community support. The tree mortality rate
storm damage and this sparked strong political and
ranged from 3 percent in years of regular precipitation
community support for a tree planting initiative. The
Case Study: ReGreen Tulsa program vision and funding came together relatively
to 9 percent in drought years, which was still below
the industry average of 10 percent. By spreading tree
ReGreen Tulsa was a successful public-private quickly (in about 2 months) based on existing
planting over 9 years, the risk of catastrophic loss - in
partnership to plant 10,000 trees, a prime example partnerships with the Tulsa Community Foundation,
the event of severe drought - was mitigated. Perfecting
of urban forest resiliency in action. A December 2007 City of Tulsa and Up With Trees. Because the program
summer irrigation timing and methods was seen as a
ice storm caused unprecedented damage to Tulsa’s was based on a foundation grant and nonprofit
key to successful tree establishment.
urban forest. Over 20,000 trees were lost throughout donations, the funding was relatively stable, rather
the community, including 7,000 trees in city parks. than subject to city budget fluctuations. Key Concepts:
In response, Tulsa’s mayor at the time, Kathy Taylor
worked with Up with Trees and leveraged city resources
When planting thousands of trees, even small price • Establish a tree planting goal and a timeframe.
reductions in per-tree cost can really add up - in this Allow the first year to be a planning phase;
to kick off the project in 2008. Ultimately, through case, to an estimated $250,000. ReGreen trees had
individual and corporate donations the community a cost of $300 for planting, watering and warranty. • Collaborate with partners early and often;
dedicated $1.5 million in private funding which was
matched by the Tulsa Community Foundation to fund
Today, UWT estimates that cost at $400 per tree due • Create a call to action and clearly articulate
to inflation and stock availability. Ultimately, one “Why now?”;
the $3 million nine-year project. of the main program successes was a shift in public
A diverse species palette, focusing on storm-resilient perception - through education, advocacy, and • Focus tree planting where community need is
dialogue with volunteers and community leaders - that greatest;
trees was selected. Trees were planted at schools,
parks, city properties, and in 16 neighborhoods. The changed from trees being perceived as an aesthetically • Work strategically to source high-quality,
project had 15 collaborative partners to plant trees beautiful amenity to a valuable infrastructure asset. diverse, low cost nursery stock;
at 196 locations throughout Tulsa. Volunteer crews
were trained to help plant the trees, recruiting many
Program organizers acknowledge several lessons • Diversify funding sources and partners; and
learned from this program’s implementation. They
residents from nearby neighborhoods. It is estimated recommend collaborating with partners (school • Celebrate success.
that around 5,000 volunteers participated in tree district, fire department, etc.) earlier, and more
planting events. Up with Trees recruits one volunteer carefully considering the locations of trees to increase
61 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Dr. Whitney Cranshaw and Dr. Ned Tisserat from The walnut twig beetle and Geosmithia fungus.
Integrated Pest Management Colorado State University examining a walnut tree with
Boulder's ecologically based Integrated Pest Management Thousand cankers disease.
(IPM) program is a dynamic, decision-making process
that relies on observation and knowledge of the target
organism and the ecosystem where it lives. IPM selects,
integrates, and implements a combination of strategies
to prevent or manage pest populations, including 1)
mechanical control, such as pruning or removal of
diseased or dead trees, 2) cultural, such as proper
irrigation and optimal site choice for tree planting, 3)
biological control, such as releasing natural enemies of
pests, and 4) chemical or pesticide controls.
Dr. Ned Tisserat leads a Thousand cankers disease
Boulder’s IPM Program has evolved over the past ten training in Boulder.
years and is recognized nationally as an exemplary
program. In 2011, the US Forest Service recognized
Boulder in the National Response Framework for
Thousand Cankers Disease (TCD) of Black Walnut.
Boulder Forestry staff has been invited to speak at
national and regional conferences. Federal agencies
and several national industry groups have convened in
Boulder to tour emerging pest sites and learn firsthand
from the experiences of Boulder’s forestry staff.
Boulder Forestry coordinates closely with Boulder’s IPM
ups are infrequent. The backbone of IPM monitoring is controls to improve the health of public trees and
Coordinator. Monitoring activities, early detection, and
the annual Tree Health Survey, a citywide survey of all therefore reduce the chance of attack from insect and
rapid response efforts of both public and private trees
trees that can provide early detection for potentially disease pests. Methods include better species selection
are key components of the IPM Program. Monitoring
life-threatening insect and disease outbreaks. The during the development review process, increasing
activities include visual surveys, trapping (with or
survey allows staff to detect tree health trends on a tree diversity, proper tree placement, monitoring
without pheromones), and destructive sampling at
block, neighborhood, and citywide scale. contractors for proper planting techniques, and mulch
the time of tree removal. Generally, the earlier a pest
rings to promote a healthy growing environment and
problem is detected, the more options are available Trees under stress are more prone to attack from insects
systematic pruning rotation.
for management. Unfortunately, current staffing levels and disease. Although stress cannot totally be eliminated,
often limit opportunities for field inspections and follow- there are cultural controls. Boulder Forestry uses these
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 62
In Boulder, the primary IPM control is mechanical via • Only the least toxic available pesticides are used Honeybee hives are preserved whenever possible
tree removal, as it is often the only or best management and over time alternatives have been found that during tree care operations. Beekeepers are contacted
option for many insect and disease pests, such as Dutch further reduce toxicity levels. to relocate hives, or, if the timing is right, hives are
elm disease. Forestry staff has removed or had removed relocated to the Forestry woodlot where they can safely
Many alternatives utilized by Boulder Forestry are not
per city ordinance over 1,000 trees since 2005 infected swarm.
the industry norm. To continue to identify the least toxic
with TCD of walnut, DED, or ips beetle in spruce to
chemical controls and to utilize a variety of control The pollinator program provides external resources to
prevent spread to other trees.
options, Forestry staff must continue collaboration become a citizen scientist and help track native bees
Boulder’s IPM Policy directs that pesticides be reduced with outside agencies on projects to evaluate controls. through the Bees’ Needs project at CU. Bumblebee
or eliminated wherever possible. Most pesticides are The existing ordinance allows property owners to sightings are tracked in the Xerces Society’s Project,
banned on city properties, where the majority of treat adjacent public street trees but only with city BumbleBee. The city also launched the Boulder Pollinator
Boulder’s public properties either have no pesticides authorization. Most frequently, the property owners Garden Project to work with public, private, and non-
applied, or pesticides are minimized and strategically who treat the adjacent public street trees do not profit partners and homeowners to encourage the
applied as a last resort. communicate with or get approval from the city. Boulder creation of high-quality pollinator habitat throughout
Forestry and the IPM Program have relied on outreach Boulder, both on public and private properties.
Tree pest management, particularly for exotic pests,
and education to provide information to the public
can be challenging since trees support a wide range The city provides outreach and education about
about the impacts of pest control decisions on public
of biodiversity and other species can be affected by pollinators and other biodiversity issues by hosting
health and the environment. More options, including
pesticide treatments. Management decisions are based Pollinator Appreciation Month each September. Partners,
legal methods, need to be explored and developed to
on the severity of the pest and its threat to tree health such as CU, local NGOs, and volunteers, offer a variety of
assist the public in complying with the ordinance.
and the urban forest. In cases where pesticide use is events, culminating in the Bee Boulder Family Festival.
required to protect the life of trees, and the overall Protecting Pollinators This festival is attended by hundreds of children who
environmental benefits from preserving trees are learn about the importance of pollinators through fun
estimated to outweigh the impacts to non-target species, To protect bees and other pollinators, city staff and creative activities.
pesticide treatment plans are carefully designed to collaborated with Bee Safe Boulder (now merged with
mitigate non-target impacts as much as possible. People and Pollinators Action Network) on Council
resolution No.1159, 2015, which banned neonicotinoid-
Pesticide application guidelines for Forestry include: active ingredients on city-managed parks, playing fields,
• Pesticides are used only as a last resort, when the ROW, along watersheds and ditches, open space lands,
public trees and other areas under city jurisdiction.
health of trees is threatened, alternative controls
are not available, and/or pesticides are the BMPs It allows for their use on trees if tree health is
for an invasive pest; threatened, but, it requires a formal exemption from
• Trunk and soil injections are used whenever the city manager.
possible to reduce pesticide drift and minimize
public contact; and
63 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Emerald Ash Borer Mitigation Emerald Ash Borer (Adult) EAB Control Methods in Boulder
Ash trees provide considerable economic, environmental, After the initial discovery of EAB in Boulder, the USDA
and socio-economic services to community members. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
Unfortunately, EAB was discovered in the City of Boulder the agency responsible for the federal EAB quarantine,
in 2013. Boulder was the first city in Colorado to identify declared EAB in Colorado as an “incident” equivalent
EAB and is at the forefront of the state’s management to a wildfire and instituted an Incident Command
program. Ash is one of the most abundant tree species System (ICS). The ICS allowed all affected agencies to
in urban areas across Colorado, including 12 percent of share communication while developing mitigation and
Boulder city parks and ROW trees by numbers. Boulder’s management strategies and outreach materials for EAB
ash trees contribute approximately 25 percent of the in Colorado. The EAB ICS was in place from September
overall canopy cover. The estimated number of public, 2013 through April 2015, where it transitioned to the
private, and naturalized ash in Boulder is over 70,000 Colorado EAB Response Team. Agencies participating
trees at an estimated value of $18 million. in the EAB ICS and the Colorado EAB Response team
A 2015 study session with the City Council garnered
include: APHIS, Colorado Department of Agriculture
The Forestry Division has six main themes for EAB unanimous support for Forestry’s proposed long-term
(CDA), City of Boulder, Boulder County, University of
management in Boulder: management strategy. Boulder management components
Colorado (CU), Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS),
include:
• Protect public safety and minimize liability; and Colorado State University (CSU).
• Maintain a healthy, diverse, and sustainable • Planting; To slow the spread of EAB in Colorado, the CDA imposed
urban forest; • Removals; a quarantine on the movement of all ash tree products
and hardwood firewood out of Boulder County.
• Maintain or increase the urban tree canopy • Pesticide applications;
to maximize the environmental, social, and To assist staff with EAB monitoring and management,
economic services provided to Boulder; • Biocontrols; Boulder Forestry consulted with two of the leading
• Minimize risks to non-target organisms from • Quarantine; national EAB researchers and two local experts in
entomology and tree pest management: Dr. Deb
pesticide applications; • Outreach and engagement; and McCullough, Michigan State University; Dr. Krista Ryall,
• Minimize costs; and • Wood debris management. Canadian Forest Service (CFS); Dr. Whitney Cranshaw,
Colorado State University; and Dr. Sky Stephens, U.S.
• Minimize disruption to other forestry operations. Forest Service. The group provided research documents,
guidance on EAB strategies, and information on possible
differences in EAB behavior in Colorado.
Since initial detection, over 1,350 public ash trees have
been removed from Boulder’s urban forest. Additional
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 64
ash removals are currently behind schedule when Control Method: Application of Pesticide Control Method: Biocontrol (Parasitic Wasp Eggs)
Boulder Forestry had to adjust priorities and focus on
the removal of more than 500 dead Siberian elms, which
had been killed by a November 2014 freeze event.
Approximately 5,300 public ash trees remain in city parks
and ROW. Boulder Forestry is treating approximately
25 percent of the remaining public ash trees through
pesticide application in a three-year rotation, where
the remainder will be removed over the next several
years. To manage this transition, Forestry staff
members are proactively removing ash trees that are
near ash exhibiting symptoms of EAB, in poor condition,
or poorly placed (e.g., under power lines). Ash trees
in development projects are also being phased out
when possible, including private development and city
projects (e.g., Transportation, Parks and Recreation,
and University Hill General Improvement District Capital
Improvement projects).
Pesticides
The analysis of pesticide options indicates that impacts from TREE-äge. In 2014 and 2015, TREE-äge was
Boulder’s EAB strategy complies with the city’s Integrated imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide, posed a high applied to public ash trees within the known infested
Pest Management Policy and takes into account non- risk to pollinators and other non-target organisms, while areas in a targeted strategy. This product will continue
target effects, environmental impacts, and long-term showing inconsistent efficacy for EAB control. In March to be evaluated as more information becomes available.
objectives. Pesticides must be evaluated prior to use 2014, Forestry and IPM staff recommended that the As local EAB populations decline due to mortality in
and are only used if other options are not feasible. city manager prohibit the use of imidacloprid for EAB untreated ash trees, it is likely that the number of trees
Forestry staff assessed four commonly used pesticides control on city properties, including public street ROW. will be reduced each year for both products.
utilizing data from the EPA and other regulatory agencies, Two products are currently being used by Forestry staff More than 25 percent of Boulder’s public ash trees meet
advice from leading experts in EAB management, and for EAB management: TREE-äge and TreeAzin, a “semi- the criteria for EAB treatment. All public requests for
open literature. The decision-making process for EAB synthetic” tree injection and a natural tree injection. pesticide applications are being tracked by Forestry
treatment is complex due to differences between There are knowledge gaps about each of these products, staff. Feedback from contractors suggest that many
products, diverse use rates, multiple methods of and Forestry staff is seeking partnerships and research homeowners are treating ash trees, but only a small
application, timing of applications, pest control efficacy, opportunities to investigate potential environmental percent report these activities.
and environmental considerations.
65 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Biocontrols state quarantine took effect on November 12, 2013 and Trees allows the city to enforce regulations for dead ash
a federal quarantine was enacted in April of 2014. trees located on private property where there is the
Four species of non-stinging parasitic wasps have been
potential to threaten public property. Forestry staff,
released in Boulder to combat EAB. Additional releases CDA enforces the quarantine by entering compliance
Boulder Police Department, and the City Attorney’s
are planned over the next few years. Two of the agreements and inspecting arborists, woodworkers,
Office are coordinating to enforce the removal of dead
species have been found in traps, which is proof that firewood dealers, and others handling regulated articles.
ash trees on an as-needed basis.
they are successfully reproducing and overwintering in Regulated articles include EAB specimens, ash nursery
Colorado. The long-term goal for natural enemies is to stock, ash logs, branches and chips, green lumber, all Forestry begins enforcement actions with letters,
suppress EAB populations in the post-outbreak phase. If hardwood firewood, or any other article, product, or phone calls, and other communication. If there is
effective, this could result in a reduction in the amount means of conveyance that may present a risk of spreading no compliance, Forestry collaborates with the City
of pesticides applied in the future. EAB. The sale and movement of regulated articles out Attorney's Office and Boulder Police Department for an
of a quarantined area are prohibited. Movement of administrative warrant to allow a contractor to enter
Quarantine
regulated articles, other than nursery stock, is allowed onto private property to remove the tree.
EAB and many other pests are dispersed through multiple if the regulated material meets certain specifications
Forestry anticipates that current staffing levels will
pathways, including movement of nursery stock and verified during inspection.
not be sufficient to support enforcement efforts as EAB
firewood. Firewood is a raw forest product that is widely
Existing city code, B.R.C. Chapter 6 Protection of Trees reaches its peak.
utilized and moved throughout the U.S., with relatively
and Plants, 6-6-2 Removal of Dead, Diseased or Dangerous
limited consideration of the potential for pest dispersal
or the associated risks.
To restrict movement of pests, federal and state
quarantines prohibit the transport of firewood and other
ash wood materials outside of quarantined areas.
Because EAB is a federally quarantined pest, APHIS
works with state cooperators to detect, control, and
prevent the human spread of EAB. To restrict intrastate
movement of regulated articles, including live plants
and wood from ash and EAB, the Colorado Department
of Agriculture (CDA) has imposed and is enforcing a
quarantine on the movement of all ash tree products
and hardwood firewood out of Boulder County. After
discussions with local trash haulers, CDA also included
small portions of Jefferson and Weld Counties to gain
access to two landfills within the quarantine area and
control flood debris and EAB-infested material. The
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 66
EAB Outreach and Engagement

Public Education / Outreach / Engagement
Education and outreach are critical components of Education and outreach are critical components of response to an invasive tree pest. Emerging Pests in Colorado (EPIC) and the
Boulder’s EAB management strategy. Forestry staff has Colorado EAB Response Team are two inter-agency working groups formed to increase industry and public awareness about invasive
pests. Participants included staff from the CDA, CSFS, CSU, APHIS, and foresters from several cities including Boulder, Denver, and Fort
collaborated with other city departments and outside Collins.
agencies to increase outreach efforts. Boulder Forestry
is proud to have developed effective EAB workshops Multi-agency efforts to raise industry and public awareness about the threat of EAB and other invasive pests since the EAB detection
include:
and dissections for private industry and other forestry
stakeholders. In 2016, Boulder hosted EAB tours in • Websites: CDA has posted educational material about EAB on their website: www.EABColorado.com. A website was created
for Boulder specific EAB information at: www.EABBoulder.org and a hub to engage the community specifically on EAB and
cooperation with the Colorado EAB Response Team. resiliency was created at www.resilienttogether.org/emerald-ash-borer.
Participants included foresters and City Council members
from nearby communities. The response to this tour was • News Releases: The CO EAB Response Team and City of Boulder have distributed over 30 news releases and handled over 100
media requests since the EAB discovery.
positive and Boulder hosted tours again in July of 2017.
• EAB Workshops: Boulder Forestry hosted a series of EAB Identification and branch peeling workshops in 2013, 2014 and
2015 and a series of EAB Van Tours in 2016 and 2017. The interagency group has trained over 550 foresters, arborists, and
Consistent with long-term department goals, Forestry
landscape professionals from six states on EAB symptoms and branch peeling techniques.
will continue to implement strategies that “Take Care of
What We Have” and proactively engage in “Community • Presentations: EAB presentations to Parks and Recreation and Environmental Advisory boards, the Downtown Management
Commission and City Council. Meetings with over 30 local HOA groups to discuss EAB management;
Building” as a method to address the sustainability
of Boulder’s urban tree canopy. Staff will continue to • houses
Open Houses: Hosted three EAB specific open houses for the public in 2014 and provided EAB tables at the two UFSP open
in 2017 and 2018 and informational tables at Farmers Market and McGuckin’s on multiple occasions.
explore additional opportunities to increase awareness,
collaborate on community tree plantings, identify • Educational material produced: Emerald Ash Borer Quick Guide, EAB Decision Matrix, Revised Edition of Insecticide Options
for Protecting Ash Trees from EAB, Colorado specific EAB FAQ’s, EAB identification cards, utility billing inserts, and RTD bus
environmentally sensitive methods for managing wood advertisements.
debris, and focus efforts to increase investment in tree
care and replacement over time. • Launched TreeOpp program: Community awareness/engagement wood utilization program repurposing ash wood into lumber,
art, furniture in partnership with BLDG 61, Bridge House and ReSource.
• Tree Give away and sales: Launched first annual Boulder Tree Recovery Program in 2017 with support from National Arbor Day
Foundation – gave away ~250 1-5gallon trees to residents to plant on private property. Facilitating and subsidizing the sale of
15 gallon trees to residents in 2018 and beyond.
• Seedlings for BVSD 5th graders: Each spring Boulder Forestry provides a short educational presentation to BVSD 5th graders
on the importance of our urban tree canopy, the potential impacts of EAB and explains how they can make a difference. Each
student also receives a seedling tree to plant for future generations to enjoy.
• Tree Planting Events: Hosted multiple community volunteer tree planting events since 2013 at locations around the city.
• Tree Trust: Partnered with the PLAY Boulder Foundation to launch a Tree Trust.
• Home and business owner contacts: Reaching out to individual residential property owners and downtown commercial
business owners as opportunities arise to replace declining public ash trees though letters, door hangers and newsletters.
67 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Tree Replacement Boulder is planning a Spring 2018 tree sale of 15-gallon Wood Debris Management
trees with tree costs subsidized via Public Works Water
A variety of tree species, including western catalpa, With the discovery of EAB in 2013, Boulder became an
Conservation, the Climate and Sustainability Division
hackberry, swamp white oak, London planetree, English EAB quarantined community, where hardwood wood
and the Parks and Recreation Department. Boulder is
oak, and sugar maple are among the species recommended waste from the community was required to be disposed
also continuing the National Arbor Day Foundation Tree
to replace ash and increase diversity in the urban forest. of in designated areas within and on the border of the
Giveaway of seedling trees through the Natural Disaster
Since ash removal began, Boulder Forestry has decreased County. Also, it is a violation of state and federal law to
Recovery Program.
the percent of public ash from 17 percent in 2000, improperly dispose of wood waste. All UFRs generated
to 14 percent in 2005, to 12 percent in 2015 through To kickstart the no-net-loss canopy strategy on private through maintenance operations are diverted from
diversification in replacement efforts (Chart 11). property, Boulder Forestry mailed letters to property the landfill. Wood utilization options that have been
owners in neighborhoods heavily impacted by EAB, implemented or explored include:
From 2014 through 2017, Boulder Forestry planted 1,935
encouraging property owners to request trees through
trees in city parks and public street ROW in support of
the Boulder Forestry tree planting program. Letters • TreeOpp: Boulder partnered with BLDG 61
Boulder’s no-net-loss canopy goal. Efforts were made to Makerspace at the Boulder Public Library to provide
were sent to property owners with good planting sites,
plant trees in neighborhoods most heavily impacted by expert woodworking training for participants
including those with enough public ROW to support
EAB. The UFSP is proposing a goal for Boulder Forestry in Bridge House’s Ready to Work program. The
a large-maturing tree, an irrigation system, and no
to plant 600 new trees annually. It is important to note program teaches participants to turn EAB-infested
overhanging trees. The letters included information
that the success of newly planted trees requires a strong wood debris into crafts, furniture, and functional
about Boulder’s tree replacement program and the
commitment to a frequent and effective pruning rotation products, for purchase by area residents;
benefits of urban tree canopy and offered to plant a
cycle.
tree in the ROW adjacent to the home for free. • Biomass: Boulder entered into an agreement with
Chart 11: Ash as % of Public Trees Boulder County to utilize chips from whole trees
as a quality heating fuel. Boulder County owns
18%
17% Even prior to the EAB detection, and operates two heating systems (biomass fueled
16% boilers) at the Boulder County Parks and Open
14% Boulder Forestry had begun to Space facility in Longmont, as well as the Boulder
14%
12%
12% reduce the percent of public ash due County Jail in Boulder that burns woody biomass
to heat its buildings;
to improve tree diversity. The overall
% of Ash
10%
8% percent of public ash decreased from • Mulch/Composting: Tub grind logs into mulch,
which is then utilized within the city park system
6% 17% in 2000 to 15% in 2005 to 12% or moved off-site for composting;
4% in 2013 through selective removals • BioChar: Charcoal is used as a soil amendment to
improve soil quality. Biochar is a stable solid, rich
2% and diversification in replacement in carbon, and can endure in soil for thousands
0%
2000 2005 2015
plantings. of years. Biochar can increase soil fertility of
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 68
acidic soils (low pH soils), increase agricultural Boulder developed a delimitation survey that found property, tree replacement will require a coordinated
productivity, and provide protection against some EAB in several neighborhoods in central Boulder. The effort between Boulder Forestry and the community.
foliar and soil-borne diseases; and site area was divided into 38 one-square-mile grids
All untreated ash trees on both public and private
and ten trees were selected randomly in each grid
• Lumber: Higher quality logs are set aside for local for inspection. Additional trees were sampled in high-
property and naturalized areas along the creeks and
sawmill operators to mill for furniture or flooring ditches are expected to die from EAB over time. Since
impact areas. For each selected tree, two branches
or to sell to the public via ReSource. EAB detection, Boulder has planted over 1,900 new trees
were removed, and then examined by extension agents
in city parks and street ROW. A canopy loss of up to 32
The EAB quarantine makes it illegal to move any by painstakingly peeling each log into paper-thin layers
percent is expected in some Boulder neighborhoods due
hardwood firewood outside of Boulder County due to using a draw knife. The city successfully identified
to EAB. Although considerable, the overall loss to the city
the difficulty in identifying ash from non-ash after it has EAB in several grids, and has updated its findings with
urban tree canopy is not as great as expected losses in
been cut to firewood size. All residents cutting firewood continued research. Currently, EAB is expected to be
other Front Range communities that are predominantly
must sign a liability waiver and agreement stating wood present everywhere in the city.
green or white ash.
will not be moved outside of Boulder County.
Initial EAB management actions included news releases,
Boulder Forestry staff participate in the emerging pests
Department Strategy and Collaboration website postings, HOA meetings, educational materials,
in Colorado (EPIC) working group and the Colorado EAB
workshops, and television interviews. Over the next two
Boulder’s EAB Interdepartmental Strategic Team works to response team to share strategies, conduct workshops,
to five years, EAB will have a significant direct budgetary
identify and implement long-term strategies to manage develop templates for management plans, and keep
impact on Boulder and private residents. Unless
EAB on a citywide scale and to ensure consistency across apprised of advances and challenges in pest detection
immediate actions are taken to replace the anticipated
departments. The team includes representatives from and management.
loss to canopy (~25 percent of existing canopy), the
the departments of Open Space and Mountain Parks,
transformed canopy will have considerable economic, The EPIC committee includes city foresters from
Public Works, Transportation, Planning, Greenways,
social, and environmental impacts for decades. Because Denver and Fort Collins, as well as input from other
Risk Management, Police and the City Attorney’s Office.
the majority of the trees in Boulder are on private relevant regional agencies. EPIC’s goals are to increase
cooperation and communication around emerging pests
and diseases. This endeavor includes public education
and outreach, which is a crucial component of EAB
management, through workshops and the development
of management plan templates.
Over the next few years, proposed EAB management
strategies, including tree removal, tree replacement,
wood disposal, and pesticide treatments, will continue
to have a significant direct budgetary impact on Boulder
and private residents.
69 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Commercial Tree Program for tree protection, tank watering of trees without
supplemental irrigation systems, tree replacement,
Boulder’s Commercial Tree Program (CTP) monitors and negotiating with commercial property owners to
and maintains public trees in the downtown area and improve site conditions.
other commercial areas throughout Boulder, including
In 2000, Boulder Forestry collaborated with the Planning
sidewalk treatments (tree grates, tree pits, and pavers)
Department to revise the design and construction
associated with those trees.
standards for tree grate construction to standardize the
The program only receives funding to provide services sizes and styles of grates and to require the installation
for the downtown trees, which includes: installing and of supporting frames. Funding was granted to the
maintaining tree grates (construction of supporting program in 2005 from patio lease revenues to allow for
frames, leveling grates and pavers with surrounding hardscape repairs, and additional funding was added
sidewalks to minimize trips, expanding grate rings to in 2008 at the request of City Council to include tree
allow for tree growth, and repairing or replacing broken replacements in the downtown area.
panels or guards), installing tree guards as needed
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 70
Tree Inventory and Because trees vary considerably in life expectancy,

growth habit, and maintenance requirements, an
species diversification and budgeting for tree-related
expenditures. In addition to a current inventory, it is also
Asset Management accurate inventory is crucial for strategic planning. Asset important to maintain up-to-date maintenance records
management is used to track the status and history of on each tree for liability purposes and budget tracking.
One of the key themes from BPRD’s recent Master each inventoried asset, including new and replacement There is also a public interface that includes valuable
Plan is, “Taking care of what we have.” Through plantings, tree condition, maintenance needs, work calculations on environmental services provided by each
the development and implementation of an Asset history, and individual tree reports and photographs. public tree.
Management Program (AMP), the department intends
to manage data and provide support for all facets of On a broader scale, the software can help plan For logistical reasons, Parks and Recreation (including
Forestry operations. The result will be a well-informed maintenance operations and provide analysis for Forestry) is transitioning to a partnership with Utilities
organization that prioritizes decisions and resources to use a single citywide asset management system
supported by a robust database. (Beehive).
In anticipation of the transition to an AMP in
2012, Boulder purchased DRG’s TreeKeeper® asset
management software to consolidate the tree inventory
and improve tracking for tree maintenance activities.
Forestry staff rely heavily on TreeKeeper®’s mobile
applications for data collection. Despite the benefits of
the software, there is currently no option for offline
data collection (cellular connection in West Boulder is
spotty).
Over the past 30 years, the number of public trees has
increased steadily. In 1987, the original public tree
inventory was collected in a spreadsheet format and
contained information on 27,000 trees. An update in
2000 included 36,000 public trees, where the addition of
location data provided the first tree layer for Boulder’s
GIS program.
The most recent inventory update (2015) collected
data on 50,800 trees and included additional data fields
to track tree grates and guards, along with pest and
disease metrics that will inform long-term strategy for
EAB management and the UFSP.
71 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Development Review, Tree city staff, the Planning Board, or City Council, depending
on the specific request. Coordination occurs throughout
These requests include:
Protection, and Mitigation the process and includes: • Determination on whether a tree is public or
private;
Planning and Forestry staff works closely together to • Requests to remove trees through a development • Requests to remove public street trees (outside
review development proposals, including single-family review process;
of a development review process); and
residential, multi-family, mixed-use, and commercial
development. All new development and redevelopment • Project specific and appropriate tree protection • Tree appraisals for construction projects and
standards;
projects that meet specific minimum thresholds are enforcement issues (outside of development
required to provide street trees. Forestry staff reviews • On-site inspection pre-construction to determine review).
development landscape plans to ensure compliance feasibility of preservation, assess conditions, and
Mitigation fees are tracked through Boulder’s software
with Design and Construction Standards (DCS). determine specific requirements associated with
and account payments systems. Planning staff typically
Recommendations are provided for species selection protection/preservation;
adds the amount due under a building permit and the
and spacing, removal of undesirable trees, methods to
minimize impacts during construction, and tree value • On-site inspection during construction to assess responsible party can pay the Planning and Development
tree protection and condition changes; walk-in service counter, which ensures consistent
appraisals for desirable trees that are scheduled for
accounting history.
removal. • On-site inspection post-construction to review
damage, mitigation and condition;
The development process includes “by-right” projects
that request no modifications to the land use code • Private tree assessments for development review
and “discretionary” review projects that do request projects when needed to support staff concerns All new development
modifications. Discretionary review may be approved by or discrepancies in arborist supplied tree
Silva cell installation on Pearl Parkway for the Boulder inventories; and redevelopment,
Junction project. • Requests for project history to determine
obligations of private property owners; meeting specific
• Maintaining tree inventory for removals and new minimum
planting;
• Planning staff typically recommends and reviews

tree species selections, but does ask Forestry
thresholds, are
staff for input as needed; and
required to provide
• Subject area experts as needed.
Forestry also responds to requests from adjacent private street trees.
property owners (especially single-family residential).
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 72
All transportation capital projects coordinate closely

with Forestry and staff has the opportunity to provide
input on tree removal and replacements. Yet, ultimately
tree planting and removal decisions are made by the
project managers.
Other challenges include:
• Current DCS are outdated in regard to application to

city projects, tree species, planting specifications
and diversity. They allow only small-maturing trees
to be planted into ROW strips less than six feet.
• Inefficient tracking and communication between

work groups.
Challenges to the existing process typically occur

• Construction oversight for tree protection and
additional landscape review taxes Forestry staff
around city projects that are not subject to the DCS or and siphons resources away from core Forestry
Title 9 standards. This includes inconsistency in Boulder programs, such as the TSIP, CTP, IPM, and Rotational
Forestry’s role and authority to make determinations Pruning.
on tree removal. For permitted projects (e.g., civic
area redevelopment, private developments), Boulder Fixed-term staff was hired in both Public Works and Parks
Forestry is responsible for evaluating trees that will and Recreation to manage the construction aspects for
potentially be impacted by the project. additional CIP projects after the 2011 Bond initiative, but
most projects had both existing public trees within the
The actual decision to remove individual trees is up to project area and new landscape planned. Construction
Boulder’s project managers, not Forestry, and there oversight for tree protection and additional landscape
is no requirement for justification. For non-permitted review taxed Forestry staff for several years and took
projects (e.g., playground refurbishments) Forestry resources away from core Forestry programs such as the
takes a more active role in determining removal for TSIP, CTP, IPM and Rotational Pruning.
individual trees.
73 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Enforcement of Tree Regulations more proactive in communication to allow property

owners more time for tree removal before the trees
that number increased to approximately 100 trees for
dangerous trees, mainly due to EAB and dead Siberian
B.R.C. Chapter 6. Section 2 Removal of Dead, Diseased becomes a high risk. elms from the 2014 freeze event. In 2017, the number
or Dangerous Trees allows city staff to conduct of enforcements was just under 150 trees.
Over the next several years, the number of dangerous
enforcement efforts on private property to address
trees is expected to increase significantly as ash trees The ordinance currently allows Boulder Forestry to
infested, diseased and/or dangerous trees. During
are killed by EAB. Research indicates that ash trees killed give the property owner “fifteen days from the date
summer months, Forestry staff surveys all city parks,
by EAB dry out and start to fail within a few years after of the notice or such shorter time as the manager
streets, and alleys to identify diseased and dangerous
tree mortality, posing a public safety risk. Discussions finds appropriate in view of the nature and extent
trees on both public and private property. When
with the City Attorney’s office, Risk Management, and of the condition.” Local tree care companies have
forestry staff identifies a violation, a compliance case is
Boulder Police Department, indicate Boulder has a duty experienced significant increases in requests for work
initiated, and the property owner is notified with a first
to enforce city regulations for dead ash trees located on and have been unable to remove trees within the
class letter. Forestry staff works with the Boulder Police
private property but that have the potential to threaten 15 days required by the ordinance. In many cases, it
Department and the city attorney’s office to address
public property. Boulder is not proposing to implement has taken 30+ days to get these dying/dead ash trees
issues of non-compliance. Before a tree care contractor
enforcement efforts on private property where the trees removed, thereby increasing public safety concerns. To
can enter private property to remove a diseased or
only pose a threat to neighboring private property. minimize risk, starting in 2018, Boulder Forestry will
dangerous tree, the city must obtain an administrative
enforce on private property ash trees with less than 50
warrant from the court. The cost of tree removal is Between 2010 and 2015, Forestry enforced on an
percent crown symptoms. Removing symptomatic ash
billed to the property owner and, if needed, a lien average of 20 properties each year to address diseased
while still green should also lower removal costs as ash
placed against their property taxes. Existing feedback trees and an average of 25 properties for dangerous
trees that exhibit >50 percent crown symptoms must
from the community is that Boulder Forestry must be trees that posed a threat to public property. In 2016,
be removed with specialized equipment that increases
removal costs.
Ash trees along Greenways pose another concern. Green
ash is naturalized (to various degrees) along all creeks
and ditches in Boulder. With the exception of Boulder
Creek Path, Public Works manages trees along bike paths
adjacent to Greenways, therefore, Boulder Forestry
does not currently survey these areas for dangerous
trees. Due to the proximity of bike paths, tree removal
or enforcement should be expected (depending upon
whether it is public or private property) as trees die.
It is anticipated that current staffing levels, even as
supplemented by contractors, will not be sufficient to
support enforcement efforts as EAB reaches its peak.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 74
Arborist Licensing and and to both public and private trees that are
infested/infected with a major insect/disease
contact with licensees through meetings, newsletters,
and training in hopes of further strengthening the high-
Staff Training problem such as EAB, TCD of black walnut, DED, quality standards of tree care in Boulder.
drippy blight of red oaks, Mountain Pine Beetle,
Boulder Forestry is recognized for their expertise and etc.
proactive approach to urban forest management.
To better protect all trees, a licensing program was 2. Tree Contractor – for all persons or companies
created to ensure that all tree work (public and performing tree work that are not ISA certified
private) performed within the city limits of Boulder is or choose not to test through the city. Licensees
conducted to the same standards. Forestry and Planning under this category are not allowed to perform
staff work collaboratively to manage the city arborist tree work to trees in the public ROW or to public or
licensing program for tree care contractors to ensure private property trees that are infested/infected
the following: with a major insect/disease problem.
• All tree work within the city is performed in Under this program, any person or company performing
a safe, professional manner and according to work to either public or private trees (tree pruning and
industry standards; tree removal) within city limits must be licensed in one
of two categories; certified arborist or general tree
• All persons/companies performing tree work care contractor. Forestry staff administers testing and
within the city have the necessary insurance; annual training and provides updates on city standards
• All diseased/infested wood is disposed of in a for licensed arborists.
proper manner to prevent the spread of insect or There are some recognized limitations to this program,
disease problems; and including:
• Maximize environmental services are derived • No requirement to show proof of safety training;
from the Boulder urban forest.
To ensure that outside contractors meet these
• The current two-tier system is confusing to the
public and stakeholders believe the system should
expectations, Boulder created a two-tier arborist be only one tier (the top tier); and
licensing program:
1. Certified Arborist License – for all International
• No effective enforcement mechanism for ensuring
compliance with this requirement.
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborists or
professional-level tree care companies. Licensees The application process requires numerous modes
in this category have demonstrated a higher level of contact, including an e-mail address, and the city
of knowledge and professionalism and are allowed is progressing towards multilingual options for all
to perform tree work to trees in the public ROW information. Boulder Forestry would like to increase
75 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Emergency Storm Response Communication, Public to be inclusive and inviting to all Boulder community
members include:
Boulder Forestry often responds to emergencies Outreach, and Notification • Articles in local newspapers volunteer-led tree
involving trees. This includes public trees that have
As a part of normal operations, Boulder Forestry plantings in city parks;
been damaged by storms or high winds, involved in
maintains active communication lines with multiple
automobile accidents, and vandalized. Forestry also
audiences, including the Boulder community, other city • Annual Arbor Day celebration;
responds if a private tree falls or drops branches into
the ROW. During and immediately after major storm departments, green industry leaders, woodworkers, • Tree give-away program;
regional foresters, and city, state and federal agencies.
events, Forestry staff conduct comprehensive surveys • Seedling giveaway for BVSD fifth graders at the
to identify and prioritize work, including pruning and The city primarily communicates with residents through Water Festival;
removal, to provide clearance and ensure public safety established outreach programs, including, the Boulder
in the ROW. Forestry and Public Works collaborate to Forestry Newsletter, Emerging Pests in Colorado (EPIC), • Fall photo contest;
complete the cleanup. Forestry staff remove damaged
branches in trees and Public Works removes downed
and the Colorado EAB Response Team. Methods of • Online self-guided notable tree tour and
communication include email, workshops, door hangers, accompanying application for Snow Much Fun
trees and branches. In large storm events, the city mailed postcards, news releases, public meetings Scavenger Hunt;
engages contract crews to assist with cleanup and debris and workshops, research tours, online resources,
removal. and farmer’s markets and other community events. • Map your ash tree and replacements; and
Although Forestry and Public Works coordinate regularly Community engagement activities that are organized • Citizen science project with 100 Resilient Cities.
during large storm events, there is no formal emergency Door hangers are the primary method used to notify
response protocol. Sometimes there has been confusion adjacent property owners of upcoming tree care
and misunderstanding of Forestry’s responsibilities and operations on their street. Due to the high percent
priorities. As a result, Public Works and Forestry have of rental properties, Boulder Forestry must also send
each expressed the desire to review policy and develop letters to property owners in addition to the door
protocols to address emergency response, including hangers. Notification is extremely challenging given the
storm calibration and plans for the mobilization of number of rental properties.
equipment and personnel.
Successful outreach campaigns find ways to give notice
to both owners and managers in addition to tenants. For
high profile projects and when major traffic disruptions
are scheduled, Forestry employs additional methods to
reach concerned stakeholders, including news releases,
social media, flyers, and website resources.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 76
Forestry coordinates with local tree care professionals Boulder Forestry recognizes the importance of outreach
to provide updates to bid and contract requirements, and collaboration with stakeholders and understands
information and updates on emerging pests and disease that key messages need to be tailored to the individual
treatment strategies, and goals for improving species needs and concerns of different groups. Stewardship
diversity. of the urban forest requires the commitment and
engagement of the entire community, especially in the
Regionally, Boulder Forestry participates in the
face of managing and recovering from the devastation
Emerging Pests in Colorado (EPIC) working group and
that is occurring with the invasion of EAB. Forestry
the Colorado EAB Response Team to share strategies,
staff and stakeholders have identified opportunities
conduct workshops, develop templates for management
to improve outreach and communications strategies,
plans, and keep apprised of advances and challenges in
including:
pest detection and management.
• Updated door hangers, including new messaging
to increase EAB awareness;
• Better and more proactive methods for

communication with property owners for tree
removals on private property;
• Website elements to better engage youth and

schools;
• Increased use of online story maps and other

graphic tools to promote awareness of EAB,
planting goals, and other key messaging;
• Additional contests and events to connect the

community with the urban forest; and
• Stronger EAB messaging so that the public has

clearer idea of impacts.
77 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Public Service Requests safety pruning. Severe weather has also played a role,
including the deep freeze that occurred in November
Public service requests are submitted through an online 2014, killing more than 500 Siberian elms on public
portal and have been steadily increasing since 2013. property and spring snow storms in 2016, which also
Prior to EAB detection, Forestry received an average caused significant damage to public trees.
of 210 requests per year. From 2013 through 2015, the
Currently, Boulder does not track the rate of service
average was 659 requests per year. In 2016 and 2017,
requests generated from planning staff. For example,
Boulder Forestry received 853 and 793 requests for
there is no historical record of additional reviews,
service (Chart 12). These values do not include the 1,621
construction oversight, tree appraisals, or inspections.
emergency response requests since 2010. In addition to
Without this record, tracking changes over time to
online service requests from the public, Forestry also
create financial forecasts is difficult.
addresses internal and jurisdictional requests.
Previously, the turnaround for responding to service
Several factors contribute to the increase in service
requests was one week. Following the detection of
requests, such as pest problems including EAB and drippy
EAB, response time increased to two weeks. Currently,
blight of red oak, deferred maintenance and suspended
the response time for non-emergency requests is one
pruning cycles, and a rise in requests for clearance and
month.
Chart 12: Approximate Public Service Requests Per Year

900
800
700
600
Service Requests
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 78
Wood Utilization haul away costs for this program were over $35,000 in
2016 alone and are expected to exceed $50,000 in 2018.
local artisans that tutor apprentices in conjunction with
Bridge House's Ready to Work program. TreeOpp uses
Across the United States, large amounts of urban forest wood from ash tree removals to create marketable
In 2014, Boulder entered into a memorandum of
residues (UFR) in the form of wood chips, brush, logs, products for the community, including furniture and
understanding with Boulder County to utilize chips from
and leaves are generated by landscape maintenance crafts.
whole trees as a quality heating fuel. Boulder County
and tree care companies, homeowners, and municipal
owns and operates two biomass fueled heating systems Today, all UFR generated from Boulder Forestry
tree care operations. This debris can have a big impact
at the Boulder County Parks and Open Space facility operations is transferred to Forestry’s log yard, where
on landfill operations and mismanagement of infected
(Longmont) and the Boulder County Jail (Boulder) staff strive to use only sustainable practices and
debris can increase the severity and spread of pests and
that burn woody biomass to heat their facilities. This minimize the amount of UFR entering landfills. Since
disease.
mutually beneficial program supplies the county with 2000, only two truckloads of wood infected with DED
Prior to 2005, when TCD of walnut was identified in a source of locally generated biomass and provides were diverted to the Erie landfill. All other UFR was
Boulder, Forestry hosted an annual firewood sale. The a sustainable use for the UFR generated by Boulder successfully diverted to other use.
sales generated little revenue but were successful at Forestry operations.
Many cities have realized there is no single long-term
reducing UFR and disposal costs.
In 2016, a grant from the Knight Cities Foundation solution for managing UFR, and, considering the high
When pest infestations made firewood sales impractical, allowed Boulder to partner with Bridge House and volume and low quality typical of UFR, identifying
logs were ground into mulch that was then used in city BLDG 61 Makerspace, to develop the TreeOpp program. sustainable uses is an ongoing challenge. A suite of
parks or moved off-site for composting by an outside Bridge House is a local nonprofit that assists individuals plausible options is crucial to effectively manage debris
vendor (A-1 Organics in 2014-2016). The grinding and experiencing homelessness. TreeOpp trains and employs and minimize costs.
79 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Funding for Forestry Operating Budget year rotational prune, etc). The formula estimates that
the 4,458 trees on lands currently under the jurisdiction
Operations The annual budget for forestry operations is funded
through four primary sources; the General Fund, the
of Public Works require annual maintenance costs of
approximately $75,000 to maintain the trees.
A stable budget allows urban forest managers to program Parks and Recreation $0.25 Sales Tax Fund, the Capital
necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage when it Improvement Program (CIP), which provides limited- To put these costs in perspective, the overall budget for
is most beneficial and cost effective. Public trees are a term funding to address specific goals, and through Boulder in 2017 was $321,866,000. Forestry’s budget
vital component of Boulder’s community infrastructure. reimbursement for trees removed through development of $1,258,335 represents less than 0.4 percent of the
Unlike most components, including buildings, and (Tree Mitigation. In 2017, the overall budget for forestry overall annual budget for Boulder (Chart 13).
pavement, the value and services provided by a tree was $1,258,335, including $220,000 in CIP funding to The General Fund and the Parks and Recreation Sales
generally appreciate over time. To realize this potential, address EAB management (Table 8). Tax fund provide the largest and most consistent funding
specific maintenance tasks must be coordinated at
A Tree Cost Estimate formula was developed by Boulder for Forestry operations. Funding is dependent upon tax
critical life stages.
Forestry to determine the cost to maintain Public Works revenue and is subject to social and political will.
Trees are living organisms, constantly growing and trees which includes: the cost of replacement planting, Since 2014, the Forestry budget has been supplemented
changing over time and in response to their environment. rotational pruning, pesticide applications and removal. annually with approximately $220,000 in CIP funding
There are a number of factors that affect tree health The formula can be adapted for the different life to address EAB management, including ash removals,
and structure, including nutrition, available water, stages of a tree (Establishment, Growth, Maturity, Over pesticide treatment, tree planting, tank watering,
pests, disease, wind, and humidity. While it might seem Maturity) and can assume proactive management (10 and wood debris management. Previously, CIP funds
like most changes to trees take a long time to occur,
have supported updates to the tree inventory. Funding
some specific maintenance is critical at certain stages Table 8: Operating Forestry Budget (2017) from CIP is generally short-term in nature, intended to
of life. For instance, young trees benefit greatly from 2017 Operating Budget (Forestry) $ address specific issues and goals.
early structural pruning and training. Major structural
Salaries & Benefits - Standard $489,258
corrections can be applied easily and at a low cost when Since 2014, annual funding for forestry operations
Admin - Supplies, Training, Cell Phones, Etc. $33,604
a tree is young. (including CIP) has increased by 9 percent. Excluding
Pruning $167,700
short-term CIP supplements, base funding for forestry
Unfortunately, if left unattended poor structure can Fleet $105,000 operations has only increased from $880,000 to
evolve into very expensive issues and increase liability Removals $87,273 $1,038,335. Over that same four-year period, the U.S.
as a tree matures. At which point it may be impossible Commercial Tree Program (tree grates/guards) $62,000 dollar experienced inflation by 3.4 percent. As a result,
to correct the issue without causing greater harm. Salary - Seasonals $70,000 the actual purchasing power of the forestry budget has
As a public tree nears the end of its useful lifespan, Planting $18,500 decreased from 2014 levels.
planning and budgets should provide consideration for IPM $5,000
more frequent inspections and eventual removal and Subtotal $1,038,335
replacement.
Capital Improvement Program (EAB) $220,000
Total $1,258,335
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 80
Chart 13: Municipal Budget Mitigation Donations

Other
24.9%
Parks and Recreation: Per ordinance, Boulder Forestry receives compensation for On occasion, the Parks and Recreation Department
City Forestry
0.4%
public trees removed or damaged through development receives donations from individuals and organizations.
projects, vehicular accidents, and vandalism. Funding is BPRD maintains a list of specific projects that would
Pa rks a nd Recreation: earmarked for public tree planting and establishment. benefit from donated funding for those who express an
Other
7.4%
The general Forestry budget contains enough funding to interest. Otherwise, donations are used at the discretion
plant approximately 75 trees annually. The mitigation of the Director to best meet the current needs of the
Fi re fund allowed Forestry to plant an additional 200-400 trees department, including forestry operations.
5.7%
Publ ic Works annually. However, the mitigation funding is sporadic
Most donations are one-time gifts and as such do
40.7%
and not a reliable source for long-term planning.
Pol i ce
not represent a consistent or sustainable funding
10.4% source. Regardless, every donation is appreciated and
acknowledged by a letter from the Parks and Recreation
Open Space and Advisory Board.
Mounta in Pa rks
10.5%
Funding Mechanisms in Various U.S. Cities

Special Assessments: One of the most stable sources of funding for urban forestry programs is the special assessment. Some states authorize cities to assess all property owners for specific
public benefits and services such as sewer systems and public trees. The assessment can be levied as a fee per foot of ROW frontage or as a percentage of the property value.
Taxes: Many cities attain funding for urban forestry through special taxes. St. Louis, Missouri implements a property transfer tax and a sales tax (1/2 cent) to supplement forestry operations.
Burlingame, California devotes a portion of a gas tax to urban forestry.
Capital Improvement Projects: A short-range plan, usually four to ten years, which identifies capital projects and equipment purchases, provides a planning schedule and identifies options
for financing the plan. If trees are defined as capital assets, then funds can be allocated to the protection and management of trees during infrastructure and utility projects.
Development Fees: Private property owners in an area that will benefit from development may be required for a proportion share of the public infrastructure required to serve a development.
Trees can be considered public facilities, and the costs to plant and care for them can be supported by these development fees.
Stormwater Fees: Stormwater fees are often implemented through an assessment to property owners to build and maintain stormwater infrastructure. The trees and vegetation of an urban
forest help mitigate stormwater runoff and lessen the burden placed on conventional stormwater infrastructure. Communities like Milwauakee have recognized that the urban forest provides
legitimate stormwater management activity and can be funded by such stormwater fees. With that level of recognition, Milwaukee recently approved a small increase in the stotrmwater
fee, and earmarked it for urban forestry.
Biogenic Utility: A biogenic utility is a utility founded on the services provided by trees. The services can be calculated in dollars, pounds of pollution filtered, gallons of rainwater
intercepted, tons of carbon dioxide avoided, and kWh of energy not used. Denver Water, in Colorado, is the utility organization that supplies drinking water to over a million people. Denver
Water collaborated with the Forest Service, which signed a $33 million cost-sharing agreement for forest management and watershed restoration. The average residential water user will
pay an extra $27 over the course of five years to match the Forest Service’s $16.5 million allocation.
81 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Funding Shortfalls
Ideal funding provides the resources necessary to
support the quality services historically provided by
Boulder Forestry and allows BPRD to meet community
expectations for the care and maintenance of the
urban forest. At current levels, funding shortfalls have
significantly reduced Forestry’s ability to provide regular
maintenance to street and park trees. While funding has
remained somewhat stable since 2014, EAB response
and recent weather events have required managers to
reallocate maintenance budgets to respond to these
emergencies and reduce their impacts on public safety.
As a result, pruning rotations have been extended
beyond the previous interval of eight years (park trees)
to ten years (street trees) (2012).
Deferred maintenance can be expected to have additional
future impacts on operational budgets as trees that are
neglected are more likely to experience damage and
failure during extreme weather events. Neglected and
storm-damaged trees are also less likely to realize their
expected useful lifespan, reducing their overall services
and utility to the community and reducing the overall
benefit to investment ratio for the urban forest. More
importantly, neglected trees increase risk exposure to
Table 9: Average Tree Care Costs (2012-2016)
Park Tree Street Tree
Tree Size Class Removals
Pruning Pruning
1-7" Diameter $104 $56 $142
8-15" Diameter $105 $91 $245
16-30" Diameter $203 $208 $605
31"+ Diameter $379 $397 $1,287
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 82
property and public safety. Trees of different sizes have calculated from the routine operating budget ($1.04
different needs for tree care. Boulder has calculated Million) and does not include EAB CIP funding.
On average, US forestry
these average tree care costs (Table 10).
Fort Collins and Longmont, two other Colorado
budgets are 0.52% of overall
Industry standards in urban forestry suggest that communities, are examined for context. Fort Collins has municipal budgets. To reach
cities should provide rotational pruning and general approximately 52,000 public trees and a total budget
maintenance on a five to seven-year rotational cycle. of $2.28 million. Longmont now manages 21,061 public the average, Boulder would
Structural and clearance pruning may require shorter trees, and has a base budget of $647,400.
intervals for affected trees.
need an annual forestry
The mean annual salary for highly-skilled Boulder city
National Comparison arborists is between $61,084 and $ 79,560. The United budget increase of $497,735.
States Bureau of Labor Statistics collects data and
The most common primary funding mechanism used
regularly develops a mean of all occupations in the
for urban forestry programs among municipalities in
country. In 2014, the mean annual wage was $47,230
the United States is the General Fund (86%) (Hauer and
while the mean salary for a municipal field arborist
On average, US
Peterson, 2014). On average, the General Fund provides
71 percent of all funds used for forestry budgets.
was $47,837. Entry-level positions, seasonal workers, municipalities invest $31.67
laborer, clerical, and truck driver jobs were lower. It is
On average, forestry budgets account for 0.52 percent important to note that the cost of living in Boulder is 21 per public tree. To reach the
of total municipal budgets. The average per tree budget percent greater than the national average, suggesting
is $31.67. By comparison, Boulder currently invests that employee compensation should be correspondingly
average, Boulder would need
$20 per tree and less than 0.4 percent of the overall higher than communities with a lower cost of living. an annual forestry budget
municipal budget (Table 10). The $20 per tree value was
increase of $458,836.
Table 10: Boulder’s Urban Forest Budget in Comparison with Other Communities
Glendale (2005) Bismarck (2005) Cheyenne (2005) Boulder (2017) Longmont (2017) Ft Collins (2017) Berkeley (2005) Average
Investment Per Public Tree $13 $18 $19 $20 $31 $44 $65 $30
Total Forestry Investment $276,436 $316,640 $327,897 $1,038,335 $647,400 $2,280,000 $2,372,000 $1,036,958
Total Public Trees (Street + Park) 21,481 17,821 17,010 50,800 21,061 52,000 36,485 30,951
Population 220,000 56,234 53,011 107,167 92,852 167,000 104,000 114,323
83 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Proposed Budget
To provide the recommended core programs and
responsibilities, Boulder forestry will require additional
funding (Table 11).
Specifically, current funding levels are inadequate to
support:
• Pruningand maintenance cycles: The industry

recommendation is five to seven-year rotation;
• EAB management: The costs for treatment and

removal will continue to rise over the next several
years;
• Traffic control and towing costs are increasing: for

some trees, the traffic control costs exceed the
removal cost;
• A tree planting initiative to preserve Boulder’s

current level of tree canopy cover (16%): The
initiative requires increasing public tree planting
to 600 trees per year and facilitating 2,025 new
trees on private property;
• Planting initiatives should include an increased

level of young tree care. because proper watering
and structural pruning are required to ensure
young trees live to their fullest; and
• Public engagement and programming.

WHAT DO WE HAVE? 84
Table 11: Funding Scenarios
$1,800,000
Boulder Forestry Annual Funding Scenarios
$35,500 $15,000
$1,600,000
$85,250
$1,400,000 $155,000
$10,000
$25,500
$1,200,000 $42,250
$238,523
$25,500 $7,000 $105,000
$33,750
$1,000,000 $105,000
$178,023
$350,700
$117,523
$800,000 $272,700
$222,700
$600,000
$400,000 $732,862
$662,862
$592,862
$200,000
$-
Fiscally Action Vision
Constrained $1.1M $1.3M $1.6M
Administration Tree Removals Traffic Control/Towing Planting (Private Subsidy)
Rotational Pruning Fleet Planting (Public)
85 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Threats to the tree planting efforts result in increased resiliency and • Ice or snow settled in branch unions can cause
species diversity in anticipation of climate shifts and tissue damage and potential for decay and cavity
escalations in disease and invasive pests. development;
Urban Forest Storms, severe weather, climate change, and unusual • Severe weather can damage irrigation systems;
weather fluctuations can cause significant damage and
Climate Change and Severe chronic stress in the urban forest, including: • De-icing chemicals can cause salt burn on foliage
and create undesirable soil conditions. Prolonged
Weather • Snow buildup on branches during early fall or exposure can reduce overall plant performance;
late spring snowstorms can cause excess weight
Boulder’s extreme weather will continue to impact
the species of trees that can successfully establish and on branches, which break or form internal cracks • Trees can fail in wind events and damage
property or adjacent trees as they fail;
thrive in Boulder. Climate change will continue to be a that further weaken branches;
factor due to changes in precipitation seasons and type
• Cold snaps after trees have just broken bud can • Prolonged drought can cause summer defoliation
(rain, ice, or snow), temperature fluctuations outside and tree mortality if irrigation systems are
cause defoliation and damage to new tissues,
historic patterns, and changes in regional temperature not maintained or without adjustment to
requiring the tree to mobilize stored resources to
norms. These changes blur the lines of established plant accommodate insufficient precipitation;
leaf out again in a second flush;
hardiness zones and the species that can be grown in a
given region. • Extended periods of extreme cold can kill species • High summer temperatures can increase
transpiration rates and require increased
that have thrived in the area for decades,
Around the world, foresters are reviewing plant irrigation regimes;
effectively shifting the area into a different
material lists in a proactive effort to ensure that urban climate zone; • Warmer winter temperatures may alter dormancy
requirements;
• Reduces the number of chill days, critical for

trees to produce fruit/nut crops;
• Alters reproductive ability because plants

need to flower to reproduce. In order to
flower, they need a trigger, which is usually a
long winter chill; and
• People can see tree damage and develop

concern for remaining healthy trees, leading to
premature removal or unnecessary and overly
aggressive pruning practices.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 86
Extreme weather events can be a challenge to manage

because of their unpredictable duration and frequency.
Fortunately, urban forest managers do have some tools
to prepare for, and reduce the impact of, severe weather.
For example, there is a need for routine adjustments
to irrigation to accommodate weather patterns. It is
important to note that these adjustments are not always
completed, especially on privately managed systems.
Some systems are controlled by smart irrigation
controllers, which monitor evapotranspiration and
adjust irrigation based on real-time data. Storm
response and emergency preparedness plans can simplify
storm response protocol and ensure coordination and
collaboration among departments. The primary tool in
the face of uncertain weather patterns is establishing a
diverse composition of many species.
87 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
It's not easy being a tree; 1990's

Boulder
Type of Event
Forestry Cost
Severe Weather Events October, 1991 $51,250 Freeze
Extreme weather events can be a challenge for Boulder; high winds, snowfall,
flooding, and temperature fluctuations all pose threats to the health of trees. Tree- March, 1992 $32,045 Snow
related costs for severe weather events are mainly due to post-storm clean-up and
tree replacement. September, 1995 $363,710 (Over 3 Years) Snow
Costs are often difficult to fully record. For example, the severe weather events in October, 1997 $7,000 Snow
October, 2011 had an unknown additional cost for citywide branch clean up. The
severe weather event in March and April of 2016 included an additional $375,000 February, 1999 $4,000 Wind
in citywide branch clean up. Because these branch clean up costs are unknown or
estimates, they are not included in the Boulder forestry cost values for those years. 1990's Decade Total Cost: $458,005
Key strategies in the face of uncertain weather patterns include the establishment of
diverse species composition along with proactive pruning. Collaboration and planning
among departments is also vital. Emergency response plans are critical to effectively
respond to severe weather events.
Freeze Damage Freeze Damage Snow Damage

WHAT DO WE HAVE? 88
Boulder Boulder
2000's Type of Event 2010's Type of Event
Forestry Cost Forestry Cost
September, 2000 $2,000 Snow May, 2010 $1,500 Wind
2002 through 2005 $122,660 Drought October, 2010 $4,000 Wind
March, 2003 $5,000 Snow October, 2011 $50,000 Freeze and Snow
March, 2004 $5,000 Wind January, 2012 $29,000 Wind
June, 2004 $2,000 Wind May, 2013 No Data Freeze and Snow
February, 2007 $2,500 Wind September, 2013 $25,000 Flood
June, 2007 $7,200 Wind November, 2014 $300,000 Freeze and Snow
December, 2008 $4,500 Wind March + April, 2016 $150,000 Freeze and Snow
October, 2009 $12,200 Snow 2010's Decade Total Cost: $559,500
2000's Decade Total Cost: $163,060
Drought Damage Wind Damage

89 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Thousand Cankers
Other Invasive Pests & Diseases Gypsy Moth
Invasive pests and disease, including EAB, are one of An additional threat to the Boulder landscape is the gypsy
the most significant threats to urban forests around moth (Lymantria dispar). The moth was introduced to
the world. The impacts from invasive pests can be the Northeastern U.S. in the 1800s and has since steadily
both environmentally and economically devastating. increased its range. Today, its distribution is primarily
Invasive pests are not new to the Boulder landscape. east of the Mississippi with outbreaks in Michigan and
DED was introduced into Colorado in the 1970’s and first Wisconsin. The moth is the most important defoliating
discovered in Boulder in 1978. Over the past 40 years, caterpillar in North America, affecting a wide range of
Boulder has removed more than 1,000 American elms. shade trees and shrubs. Infestations could be especially
Across Colorado, approximately 30,000 have been lost devastating to trees already weakened by drought
to DED. Other pests that have resulted in tree mortality stress.
in Boulder over the past ten years, or are expected to The moths are primarily transported in the form of egg
cause tree mortality in the near future, include: EAB, masses attached to nursery plants, firewood, outdoor
TCD of walnut, drippy blight of red oak, Japanese furniture, campers, or trailers that originate from areas
beetle, pine wilt nematode, and ips beetle in spruce. where gypsy moth is present (Camper and Cranshaw,
The urban ecosystem and insect/disease problems 2013). The gypsy moth has been introduced to Boulder
and other parts of Colorado in the past and reintroduction been controlled through biological control, but control
associated with it are constantly changing. Looking at of this pest is dependent upon preventing introduction
the history of insect infestations in Boulder, it is likely is possible with a highly mobile population that could
transport the eggs from gypsy moth infested parts of the and early detection.
that new insects that cause damage to Boulder’s urban
trees will continue to be introduced in future years. country. Previously, gypsy moth spread in Colorado has Thousand Cankers Disease
Gypsy Moth Caterpillar TCD currently threatens millions of black walnut trees
across the U.S. The disease is caused by the combination
of a fungus (Geosmithia morbida), which is vectored
by the walnut twig beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis).
The disease was first observed in Boulder in 2003 and
is considered to be native to the southwestern U.S. Its
range has expanded greatly over the past two decades
(Sitz, 2017). Treatment or control measures have not yet
been identified, but voluntary quarantine of suspected
infected material is advised.
Detecting infection can be difficult. Sometimes the
infection can persist for years with no external signs or
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 90
symptoms. Walnut twig beetles tunnel into the bark and Kermes Scale and Lonsdalea Susceptible oaks account for 912 trees in Boulder’s
introduce the fungus, which then kills an area under the Enterobacteria public tree inventory, but there are many more on
bark, known as a canker. When the beetles are abundant, private property. Boulder Forestry monitors public oak
cankers can girdle twigs or branches, stopping the flow Kermes scale (Allokermes galliformis) is a common insect trees, providing pruning and removal as needed. Larger
of sugars through the phloem, and causing yellowing, pest associated with northern red, pin, and gambel oaks diameter red oaks were also sprayed with Ecotrol
wilting, and branch die back. Trees under stress usually (Quercus rubra, Q. palustris, and Q gambelii). Typical (rosemary oil) in 2016 in an attempt to control the
die within three years of initial symptoms. symptoms include reduced tree vigor and twig die back. scale. It is likely more mature northern red oaks will
Kermes scale alone is rarely fatal to trees. be removed unless a reliable, effective control can be
Since 2003, approximately 900 walnut trees have been
found.
removed in Boulder due to TCD. There are less than 100 In 2010, new symptoms, including sap weeping and
black walnut trees remaining in city parks and ROW and dripping exudate, were observed on dying northern red
most are less than ten inches in diameter. Since the oaks. Further testing found the scale associated with
disease complex only damages a small area under the a bacterial pathogen (Lonsdalea quercina), which was
bark, the walnut wood can be milled and used to create infecting trees and causing the new symptoms.
useful and beautiful wood products.
Signs of Drippy Blight Canopy Dieback due to Drippy Blight Kermes Scale
91 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Bark removed by woodpeckers searching for emerald

Emerald Ash Borer ash borer larvae and pupae.
EAB, a small metallic-green jewel beetle which feeds
on ash trees, is thought to have been introduced to the
U.S. in the mid to late 1990s through wooden shipping
or packaging materials originating in China. It was first
detected in Michigan in 2002 and since then has moved
across the country to over 30 states and two Canadian
provinces. To date, EAB has killed hundreds of millions
of ash trees, and that number is increasing rapidly.
Annually, EAB spreads only short distances (0.5 to six
miles) through the natural dispersal and flight of adult
beetles. EAB has also spread through the movement of
infested material such as firewood.
North American ash trees have shown little resistance
to EAB and it is widely considered to be the most
destructive forest pest in North America, threatening
all native ash trees of the Fraxinus genus.
EAB was likely introduced in Boulder through infested
firewood around 2008. In late September 2013, Boulder
Forestry staff discovered an EAB infestation within the
city. The beetles were detected by staff when sampling
a dead ash tree prior to its removal. This was the first Currently, ash trees comprise 12 percent of Boulder’s
detection of EAB in Colorado and to date, the western- public trees and this percentage is estimated to be the
most occurrence of this invasive pest in North America. same for private property. Over the next five years,
A subsequent inter-agency survey showed EAB was well- EAB is expected to reduce Boulder’s urban tree canopy
established within Boulder at the time of discovery. by approximately 25 percent (776 acres), reducing the
overall canopy cover from 16 percent to 11 percent. The
Forestry staff and local arborists have been treating impact of EAB will have considerable economic, social,
larger diameter (>9” DBH), healthy ash with pesticides and environmental impacts for decades. To date, the
as one defense against EAB. This prophylactic approach cost of EAB management, including tree removal, tree
will reduce the impact of EAB in individual trees where replacement, wood disposal, and pesticide treatments
the treatment is applied. EAB is 100 percent deadly to has already impacted the Forestry budget and diverted
ash trees that are left untreated. resources from routine, necessary operations.
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 92
Distinctive “S” shaped curves indicate that EAB larva "D" shaped holes are formed when the adult EAB beetles
Forestry staff sampling an ash tree with EAB symptoms.
have fed on the interior of the tree. exit the the branches and trunk of the tree.
93 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
EAB Impact available pheromone for trapping purposes and

EAB symptoms are similar to those of other insect
In terms of invasive forest pests, EAB may well represent pests and environmental problems.
the worst-case scenario. EAB management differs from
other invasive tree pest management strategies in five 4. Speed of infestation within community: EAB
major ways: populations expand exponentially. Mated female
beetles produce 40-70 eggs on average but can
1. Mortality of susceptible hosts: There is very little produce more than 200 eggs. Populations can
resistance to EAB in North American ash species. therefore expand quickly before detection.
Researchers have found almost 100 percent Midwest cities report that without the use of
mortality in most species of ash and especially pesticides, all ash within a community are dying
green ash, which is the prevalent ash species after just ten to twelve years from introduction.
across Colorado. EAB also kills ash trees quickly;
at high EAB populations, EAB can kill mature trees 5. Public safety risk: Ash trees killed by EAB dry out
in one to two years. and start to fail within a year of mortality, posing
a risk to public safety and becoming costlier to
2. Scope of infestation: There are more trees remove, as arborists must use special equipment
susceptible to EAB than any other invasive pest and techniques when stability is compromised.
to date. DED in Colorado killed approximately
30,000 American elm trees over a 40-year period Ash is one of the most abundant tree species in Colorado
and threatened 200 million elms across the U.S. comprising approximately 15 percent of all deciduous
EAB threatens 1.45 million ash trees in the metro trees in many urban areas. At the time of detection
Denver area alone and threatens an estimated 7.5 approximately 12 percent of Boulder's public trees were
billion ash trees across the U.S. ash. Assuming a similar percent of private trees, the
estimated number of public, private and naturalized
3. Difficulty in detection: Evidence indicates EAB ash in Boulder is more than 70,000 trees.
is typically established in an area for three to
eight years before discovery. Since beetles attack
in the upper canopies first; at low populations,
trees often do not show symptoms until several
years after initial infestation. There is no
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 94
Emerald Ash Borer Life Cycle
Egg Larvae
0.4 inches in diameter. Creamy white 7 - 10 Days 1 to 1.25 inches in length. The new
egg that turns to amber. Eggs are laid larvae tunnel through the bark to the
from mid-June and well into August. cambial region and feed on phloem.
Females deposit their eggs individually Phloem is a thin layer of tissue beneath
on ash trees, between layers of outer the outer bark that conducts sugars and
bark, and in the cracks and crevices other nutrients throughout the tree.
of the trunk and major branches. Eggs Without the ability to transport sugars
hatch in about two weeks. and nutrients, the tree dies.
1 - 3 Weeks 1 Year
Adult Pupae
1 Month
0.25 to 0.6 inches in length. Long, 0.25 to 0.6 inches in length. During
metallic, emerald green bodies. After April and May of the next year, the
one to two weeks, these new adults overwintering mature larvae will pupate
chew D-shaped exit holes in the bark inside their pupation cells and gradually
and emerge from the ash trees. Adult transform into adults.
emergence starts in late May and peaks
in June. Adults must feed on ash leaves
to mature. They start mating after about
one week and laying eggs in three weeks.
95 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Development & Growth thus planning for employee growth and development is
In many communities across the U.S., land development Conclusion a high priority.
The planning process for the UFSP revealed few
threatens urban tree canopy, especially when parcels
inefficiencies in Boulder’s urban forestry program and
include high-quality established trees. Another
The City of Boulder is well aware of the importance of those that were identified are generally beyond the
challenge to tree preservation is site management on
trees and urban forests to the health and sustainability control of staff, including budget shortfalls and external
construction projects. Tree preservation of private
of the community. Boulder Forestry staff exhibit a threats from severe weather and invasive pests.
mature trees, although a priority for city staff is not
necessarily a priority for private developers. As a result, high level of expertise and dedication to managing the
EAB, severe weather, and climate change are important
long-term survival for these trees is often not attained. community’s urban forest assets and they are supported
considerations when planning for a healthy and resilient
When trees of appropriate species are found in good in their education and professional development.
urban forest. Mortality estimates for the combined
health and condition, developers are encouraged to Boulder Forestry has assembled a strong foundation assumptions of standard tree mortality and mortality
retain them. It's Important to recognize that significant for managing urban forest resources and operations. from pests is a 25 percent reduction in canopy within
barriers exist, including: Forestry staff use a robust asset management system to the next decade if proactive measures are not taken.
A comprehensive tree planting initiative to meet the
• Young trees on development sites are improperly track the condition and history of every public tree, plan
work, conduct threat analysis, and develop informed community’s goal of no-net-loss of tree canopy is a high
placed;
management strategies. A GIS-based land cover map priority for the UFSP. Ongoing adaptive management
• There is a lack of specialized care for young, provides information about the location and extent and monitoring success are cornerstones to building an
newly planted trees; of existing canopy and a platform for development even more resilient urban forest for future generations.
of a comprehensive planting plan. A current resource Increasing species diversity and protecting existing
• There are requirements for ongoing maintenance analysis details the structure, condition, value, and healthy trees are crucial to preserving Boulder’s urban
to ensure private trees reach a mature size and
environmental and socio-economic services provided by forest and the contribution of trees and canopy to
structure, but there are enforcement challenge;
the public tree resource. This information provides a quality of life and sustainability of the community.
• Irrigation systems are not maintained; basis for long-term planning and establishes benchmarks
Industry BMPs recommend routine tree pruning be
for measuring the success of management strategies.
• Dead trees are not replaced; and conducted every five to seven years. Since 2012, due
Boulder Forestry is recognized nationally for to safety pruning and removals necessitated by unusual
• Regulations require planting but not demonstrating leadership and best management weather events, pest invasions, and increasing costs for
maintenance; if trees die in the first year, there
practices. The existing forestry program is very contact services, the routine pruning cycle has increased
is no follow-up.
progressive, with a diverse range and depth of services, to 11 years for park trees and 15 years for public
including annual tree inspections, tree risk evaluations, street trees. This has created a backlog of deferred
maintenance and safety pruning, integrated pest maintenance and an increased number of annual service
management, and community outreach. It is important requests from the public. Deferred maintenance is far
to note that many of the highly-skilled leadership more critical than simply responding to more service
positions within Boulder Forestry are nearing retirement, requests. More than 67 percent (13,034) of young trees
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 96
(<6” DBH) are medium and large-maturing trees that still scenarios. While there are a few emergency plans in To provide the recommended level of care for the
have a lot of growing to do before they reach maturity. place, disaggregating which workgroup does what community's urban forest resources, Boulder Forestry
Structural pruning is critical at this stage to prevent throughout all potential emergency scenarios that will require additional funding. Specifically, current
costly issues and branch failures as these young trees Boulder might face will continue to be an ongoing funding levels are inadequate to support:
mature into their final size in the landscape. Deferring challenge. It is important to continue collaborating
maintenance affects the health and safety of trees, with departments to define and plan for varying • Pruningand maintenance cycles: The industry
recommendation is five to seven-year rotation;
results in additional failures during severe weather emergency events that will impact the urban canopy.
events, reduces the lifespan of trees, and increases risk This is especially true with Public Works, as this has • EAB management: The costs for treatment and
to people and property. been identified as a critical department to work with in removal will continue to rise over the next several
the face of emergency response planning. years;
In the past, staff were conducting safety inspections on
approximately 100 trees per year. Due to the advanced The second challenge is synchronizing software • Traffic control and towing costs are increasing: for
age and size of trees in older neighborhoods, that number and database management tools to be congruent. some trees, the traffic control costs exceed the
is now 200 to 250 trees per year. This presents another Currently, there are several different tools employed removal cost;
challenge concerning evaluation and monitoring, among different teams which increase technological
especially for the TSIP and newly established trees. miscommunication. Beehive has received positive • A tree planting initiative to preserve Boulder’s
current level of tree canopy cover (16%): The
Risk of trees in the TSIP are currently much lower than feedback from the stakeholders who use the software.
initiative requires increasing public tree planting
trees 20 years ago because the highest risk trees were
Community outreach and public perception are high to 600 trees per year and facilitating 2,025 new
already removed. The scope of the program represents
priorities for Boulder Forestry. Nationally-lauded trees on private property;
a significant logistical burden on Forestry operations and
workshops and presentations, combined with an
may need to be scaled back to keep up with demand.
informative and easy to navigate website, provide the • Planting initiatives should include an increased
level of young tree care because proper watering
The City of Boulder has a proven track record of community with educational opportunities.
and structural pruning are required to ensure
interagency collaboration, as demonstrated by the
In recent years, cost of living increases, mounting young trees live to their fullest; and
interdepartmental EAB response. Two key challenges
public expectation for service delivery, and stagnant
exist for coordination and collaboration efforts among
organizational budgets have created some gaps • Public engagement and programming.
Boulder departments. The first challenge is clarifying
between public expectations and service capacity.
the expectations of workgroup roles and department
Emerging urban forest threats, changes in climate, and
jurisdictions when facing an emergency response
community growth are obstacles to maintaining the
event. There are multiple workgroups within and
high level of service expected by Boulder residents. In
between departments who play a key role in emergency
many cases, challenges can be viewed as opportunities
response protocols and decision making. Furthermore,
for development and increased efficiency.
the characteristics of an emergency event will differ
dramatically and will sometimes change which group
takes on the role between these varying emergency
97 WHAT DO WE WANT?
What Do We Community Input

Outreach for the UFSP focused on two stakeholder
Want?
groups; managing stakeholders (those who plan for,
maintain, or manage the public urban forest) and
the community at large. Each of these groups is a
crucial partner in a successful urban forestry program.
Every stakeholder has unique goals and insight that
Branching Out contributed to the development and priorities of the
UFSP. Two Forks Collective coordinated with Boulder
and DRG to develop a phased outreach process to
determine the community’s views about current needs,
Our Trees. Our Legacy. trends and attitudes about urban forestry programs as
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
PHASE ONE PHASE TWO PHASE THREE PHASE FOUR

Background Research and Analysis Technical Needs Assessment and Analysis of Information and Action Plan -Recommendations, Priorities and Implementation Draft and Final Plan Development and
Goal Establishment Strategies Consideration by Parks & Recreation Board
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Long Term Strategy Public Tree Inventory Documented Urban Forest Resource Analyzed Urban Forest Strategic Plan Urban Tree Canopy Assessed Advisory Boards Updated DRAFT Urban Forest Remaining to be accomplished in 2018:
PLAN PROCESS
- Detection Efforts Kicked-Off - Overall Canopy Cover Calculated - City Council Updated Strategic Plan Reviewed - Final Urban Forest Strategic Plan to be
- All Public Park and Street Trees - Structural Characteristics
- Emergency Response - Canopy Potential Determined - Community Working Group Developed
Inventoried Collected - Consultants Selected
- Interdepartmental EAB Strategic Group - Forest Fragmentation Identified - Consulted - Advisory Boards to be Updated
- Inventory Data attached to - Baseline Data Derived - Technical Advisory Team
- Carbon Storage Calculated - Presented to Parks and Recreation Board
Initial Tree Canopy Data Collected Asset Management Software Identified
Advisory Boards Updated - Annual Benefits Calculated for Consideration of Approval
- Public Engagement Plan
All Public Tree Maintenance - Priority Planting Sites Identified - City Council Presented with Information
Developed
Tracked Packet
What did we do… Who did we hear from….

Tree Stories Collected Public Open House Youth Water Festival Public Open House Remaining to be accomplished in 2018:
ENGAGEMENT
• Surveys..over 300 responses • Residents

COMMUNITY
• Interviews with stakeholders, forestry experts and city officials • Neighborhood Associations Stakeholders Interviewed Community Working Group Tree Give Away with National - PLAY Boulder Foundation’s Tree Trust
- Internal (3 meetings) Arbor Day Foundation Initiative Kick-off Event
• Tree Story Stations...over 100 submissions • Commercial and business organizations
• Open House...approx. 200 attendees • Education community - External Volunteer Tree Plantings - Tree Give Away with National Arbor Day
• Working Group Session- three sessions over 8 months • Non-profit organizations Surveys Taken Foundation
• Youth Opportunities Advisory Board Presentation • Environmental organizations - Technical - Youth Water Festival
• Growing Up Boulder – Youth Engagement • Government organizations - Public - Volunteer Tree Plantings
- Discounted Tree Sale
WHAT DO WE WANT? 98
well as assist in the development of relationships that groups after an initial phone call to describe the project. 4. To determine if knowledge of Boulder Forestry’s
will support the long-term stewardship of Boulder’s The email included a brief description of the project activities is influenced by certain variables, such
urban forest. The public engagement process included and a link to the survey. All responses were anonymous, as demographics, residency, and values.
qualitative and quantitative methods for outreach and though participants were given the option to include 5. To understand stakeholder willingness to engage
engagement, including: contact information if they were interested in being in tree stewardship activities, and which
contacted further about the project. The survey was
• Stakeholder Long Form Survey conducted in the fall of 2016 and resulted in sixty-two
factors may influence this willingness, including
identifying groups most and least willing to
• Community Short Form Survey responses total. While the survey is not a randomized engage in tree stewardship.
sample, and therefore generalizations about the
• Tree Story Stations responses are limited, the use of validated questions Short-Form Survey
• Tree Speak Public Open House (2) in larger community surveys allows for comparisons of
As Boulder Forestry expressed the desire for the
these responses to the general population.
• Working Group Meetings (3) survey to reach a larger selection of residents, a short
The survey asked a combination of questions to better version of the survey was developed that only included
• Feedback from the Youth Opportunities Advisory understand stakeholder’s beliefs, values, knowledge questions on residents’ attitudes and knowledge about
Board (YOAB) and attitudes about the urban forest, Boulder Forestry Boulder’s urban forest, Boulder Forestry activities,
• Interviews with stakeholders, forestry experts and their activities, their views about their community, and their willingness to engage in tree stewardship.
and city officials the environment, current issues in urban forestry, and No demographic, current environmental activities, or
demographic information. The survey also included current attitudes and level of engagement in city issues
The following is a summary of the public input received questions on current environmental behavior and their were included. The goal of the survey was to get a
on key issues for Boulder’s urban forest and the forestry willingness to engage in tree stewardship. The survey general snapshot of attitudes and values around these
program. A full accounting is available in the Community used a combination of multiple-choice, open-ended, questions from a slightly larger sample, but without
Input Report (2017) developed by Two Forks Collective. and validated measures from other Boulder surveys to identifying which groups to target in order to reduce
allow for comparison. the length of the survey and increase the response rate.
Surveys The short-form survey resulted in 290 responses.
The long-form survey had five main goals:
Long-Form Survey 1. To understand what stakeholders think and feel
This survey analysis looks at findings from the five goals
of the long-form stakeholder survey to help inform the
For the long-form survey, the consultant team and about the urban forest in Boulder.
development of the UFSP, findings from the short-form
Boulder Forestry identified key stakeholder groups
2. To understand what stakeholders know, think, survey and how they compare to the long-form survey,
that were important to get feedback from on current
and feel about Boulder Forestry’s activities, initial themes that emerged from the tree storytelling
forestry issues. These groups included representatives
responsibilities, and goals. workshops held in the fall of 2016, and themes from
from local businesses, neighborhood associations, local
the Davey key informant surveys and interviews. This
arborists, youth and community groups, non-profits, 3. To determine what groups are the most or least
report also compares the findings from the surveys
and education. The survey was sent out via email from concerned about issues around the urban forest,
to larger, statistically-significant surveys conducted
Boulder Forestry to key contacts from these stakeholder including attitudes and values.
99 WHAT DO WE WANT?
recently in Boulder: the 2014 Boulder Community Who answered the long-form survey? How does this compare to majority of respondents also owned their residence
Survey, the 2015 BVCP Community Survey and Focus Boulder’s population? (88%). For those who answered (48/62), 50 percent did
Group Summary Results, and the 2014 Boulder Parks not have children living at home, which is not surprising
Organization
and Recreation Department Master Plan. Lastly, this given the older age of the majority of respondents,
report offers recommendations for who to target, and For those who answered (43/62), 42 percent came while roughly a quarter had children aged 12 or younger
how, for marketing and outreach for the UFSP and tree from a neighborhood association, 23 percent from a or adults over 65 living with them. When compared to
stewardship. commercial or business organization, 21 percent from Boulder’s population, this sample has a slightly longer
the education community, and 9 percent from a non- residency rate (20 years or more versus an average of
profit/environmental organization. Only 2 percent
Survey Results answered the survey from government.
17 years), and a higher rate of home ownership (88%
versus the 53% in the BVCP). The household composition
Age of the respondents roughly correlates with Boulder’s
Chart 14: Survey Respondent Demographics household composition, with roughly a quarter of
For those who answered (49/62), over 50 percent of the
Gender and Ethnicity respondents having either children under 12 or seniors
respondents were over 50.The high level of responses
(over 65) living with them (BVCP).
75+
for older respondents may also be a reflection of
25-34 Age Ranges more time available for community involvement, Contacted further
especially as over one third of the respondents Lastly, just under half of the respondents (48%) were
55-64
35-44
were from a neighborhood organization, and is typical willing to be contacted further to participate in a focus
in community outreach efforts. group.
Education 1. What stakeholders think and feel about the urban forest in
For those who answered (48/62), respondents were Boulder (questions 1-7).
evenly divided into thirds between having a bachelor,
Urban Forest: Definition
45-54 masters, or doctoral degree, with slightly more having
a bachelor’s degree. When asked about what they defined as the urban forest,
almost 60 percent of survey respondents felt that it
65-74 Residency included all trees and woody shrubs in the city, with
Given research that has linked residency to increased 20 percent defining it as street and park trees. This is
likelihood of community involvement and attachment, encouraging in terms of stakeholders understanding that
the long-form survey also asked respondents about their trees are part of a larger ecosystem, and is reflected in
residency. For those who answered (50/62), 92 percent almost 70 percent perceiving an association between the
Men of respondents were residents of Boulder, and over 50 urban forest and open space. However, it also reflects
98% of respondents
Women are white percent (62%) have lived in Boulder for over 20 years. public confusion about Boulder Forestry responsibilities
Being a resident of Boulder from between 2-20 years and tools to address tree health on public and private
was evenly divided around 12-14 percent. The vast property. As only street and park trees are considered
WHAT DO WE WANT? 100
wise part of the community urban forest in Boulder (and and the threat of development, which is not surprising
dynamic under it’s jurisdiction), this presents an opportunity given the priority of the preservation of Open Space
for Boulder Forestry to clarify roles and responsibilities seen in the 2015 BVCP. Respondents were also asked if
important work
lucky imperative environment with the public, as well as use this general concern as a
starting point for tree stewardship.
they associated Boulder’s urban forest with the nature
surrounding Boulder. This is important since research
artificial open
health serene
correction shows that urbanites do not always associate urban
varied
enjoyable Urban forest: Associations and Values
nature with ‘nature’, and thus value it’s preservation
abundance meaningful Respondents were also asked to identify up to three and creation less than ‘nature out there’. The majority
necessary words to describe Boulder’s urban forest. By far the of respondents associated Boulder’s urban forest with
threatened
most common response was centered on beauty, with surrounding nature and open space (76%). While the
wildlife
shade green
serene/relaxing, dynamic/vital, shade, quality of life, association between urban nature and bigger ‘outside,
maintenance and threatened, nature, diverse, health untouched’ nature is not always positive-i.e. urban nature
and love following as primary themes. Secondary is considered ‘weak’ nature- (Hough, 2004), previous
pure peaceful colorful themes include references to the seasons, open space, surveys in Boulder have indicated that there is a strong
fulfilling Chart 15: Survey Respondent Associations and Values identification with and values around environmental
nature ecospace colorful calming stewardship and the preservation of Open Space (BVCP
great cooling desireable Shade & Amenity
and parks MP) among Boulder residents (City of Boulder
time natural
arboreal place thankful and County, 2015). Furthermore, in the 2014 Boulder
Community Survey nearly all the respondents reported
maintenance
Cooling the City
visiting both Open Space and neighborhood parks (City
of Boulder, 2014), which traditionally is indicative of a
higher personal valuation of these spaces. In addition,
beauty
Boulder residents have prioritized a unique identity and
seasons
love vital appreciation
Sense of place
Positive Impact sense of place and this has been linked to the quality of
harmony ephemral on Life both Open Space and neighborhood and public spaces
precious
space life (City of Boulder Parks and Recreation, 2014). As trees
have traditionally been associated with a high level of
Other
symbolism and personal attachment (versus grasses for
example) (Pearce, Davison, and Kirkpatrick, 2015), this
81% Associating the urban forest with their neighborhood quality may explain why they are highly valued and associated
with larger nature outside the city.
70% Have a
good sense of 66% Informed themselves on Boulder’s issues
A majority of respondents also somewhat or strongly
community associated Boulder’s urban forest with climate change
101 WHAT DO WE WANT?
(44% and 41%). This association again shows that for Boulder Forestry responsibilities it may help to have a
these respondents they recognize, at some level, Urban Forest and Larger Boulder Policy more targeted message about key roles that Boulder
the link between Boulder’s urban forest and larger Forestry deems essential for Boulder residents to know
environmental issues. This also reflects one of the 2015 Respondents’ ambiguity about the impact of climate about and that support the UFSP. Similarly, there was a
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plans’ key values, which change on the urban forest is reflected in respondents’ wide variety in responses about what the top goals of
is environmental stewardship and action on climate ambiguity on whether current Boulder policy documents Boulder Forestry should be, possibly reflecting a lack of
change. on climate change, resiliency, and comprehensive knowledge about what is needed for the health of the
planning had any relationship to the urban forest. urban forest. This might reflect a lack of awareness or
Urban Forest: Benefits While most respondents felt there was some association understanding about the scale and timing of the threats
Neighborhood quality is also linked to neighborhood between the urban forest and the BVCP, with 75 percent to the urban forest as indicated by forestry staff, as
attachment and residential satisfaction. These are feeling that they were or somewhat related, almost equal well as increased frustration with current maintenance
important since neighborhood attachment has been numbers did or did not see any relationship between of the urban forest.
linked to environmental behavior such as recycling, and the urban forest and the climate change plan (32% and
therefore potentially tree stewardship (Takahashi and 37% respectively). However, Boulder Forestry messaging Don’t know about code
Don’t know about emergency
about climate change seems to have gotten through to enforcement, inventory counts,
Selfa, 2015). response 43%
planning and licensing 34%
a higher percentage of their listserv respondents than
Urban Forest: Threats the short survey with almost 80 percent of the short
Almost 80 percent of respondents felt that pests and form respondents associating Boulder’s urban forest
Lack of concern over fast-growing Drought tolerant trees are
disease were a threat to Boulder’s urban forest. This with Boulder’s climate change plan. The resiliency plan trees to replace current trees 40% important 30%
likely reflects recent efforts by Boulder Forestry to was also more associated with the urban forest, with
educate Boulder residents about the threat of pests 68 percent perceiving some relationship, but a sizable
and disease, and in particular EAB, to the urban forest. percentage (31%) did not see any relationship. This This question also included an open-ended response
However, only 51 percent of respondents felt that ambiguity speaks to the need, also identified by Boulder option for both surveys. Respondents indicated
climate change was threat to the urban forest, closely Forestry staff, for better coordination and collaboration that education, maintenance, and pests were key
followed by lack of maintenance (44%). between Boulder departments on initiatives and responsibilities they thought Boulder Forestry should
messaging around the role of the urban forest. This be responsible for, with some unsure about current
This question also included an ‘other’ category. For the
should be helped if Boulder Forestry receives more responsibilities or adequacy of services. Secondary
long-form survey, 50 percent of respondents indicated
sustainable funding and in-house expertise to help them themes included clarifying homeowner versus Boulder
that development and construction was a threat to
deal with current and upcoming forestry issues. Forestry responsibilities, issues around drought and tree
Boulder’s urban forest, with maintenance, Boulder
watering, inventorying and increasing bushes and shrubs
Forestry and Boulder’s government also mentioned as 2. What stakeholders know, think and feel about Boulder Forestry along street frontage and in parks, and uncertainty or
primary themes. Secondary themes included a lack activities, goals, and responsibilities (questions 8-15). dissatisfaction with current levels of maintenance and
of awareness of the interconnectedness of ecosystem
Most respondents were somewhat familiar or had outsourcing.
services and benefits, pests, pollution, and sprawl/
increasing population. heard of most of Boulder Forestry’s responsibilities.
Given the wide variety of respondent knowledge about
Satisfaction with current Boulder Forestry Activities Most were interested in moderate maintenance (50%), analysis was also undertaken to determine if there were
While there is room for improvement, this also speaks with 34 percent not interested or only interested in any characteristics that could be identified for those
to an opportunity for Boulder Forestry to focus on one-off help such as tree planting. While the short- who did not identify urban forestry as important. In
targeted, clear goals and messaging, public engagement, form survey had a slightly higher percentage that was other words, is there a single variable or characteristic
and alignment with interested in tree stewardship, this is not surprising to explain their lack of interest, and how could this be
larger Boulder goals Current Maintenance 43% given the assumed higher level of interest and used in outreach strategies? For question 5, there was
and values more engagement with Boulder Forestry activities for their no single variable that could explain respondents’ lack
explicitly through listserv. Also not surprising is a higher percentage of of concern for the urban forest.
the UFSP process Current Direction 49% the long-form survey respondents who felt that Boulder
Similarly, there was no single variable that could explain
and marketing. It Forestry should be responsible for maintenance.
respondents’ who did not associate Boulder’s urban forest
also means that Boulder Forestry reflects larger 53% With further targeted outreach and messaging Boulder
with climate change, nor those who did not associate it
current opposition Boulder values Forestry may be able to either increase the percentage
with their neighborhood quality. As there was a fairly
may be from a vocal of residents interested in tree stewardship or actively
small percentage who did not show concern for Boulder’s
minority, not the larger population (at least from this engage those interested in future programs.
urban forest (as framed through these questions), this
sample). Similarly, when educated (in the phrasing of 3. Which groups are the most or least concerned about issues around may help to explain the lack of a single variable or
the question) with the reasoning behind the removal of the urban forest, including attitudes and values (questions 5-7). characteristic to identify these respondents. A larger
trees, the vast majority did not like it but understood sample, or a more representative sample (especially
that it was sometimes necessary (95%). This is also seen Understanding what factors may predict concern over
for traditionally under-represented survey groups, such
in the respondent’s feelings about insecticide use; given urban forestry in respondents can be important in order
as low-income, non-white, and younger demographics),
the introduction about why it is sometimes necessary in to tailor messaging and marketing for the UFSP. For
may yield different results. However, the association of
the survey question, 80 percent were okay with it if question 5, which asked about respondents’ association
residential attachment with concern for urban forestry
necessary. This speaks to the importance of messaging between Boulder’s urban forest and surrounding nature
discussed above can help with marketing and outreach
and education for Boulder Forestry, and the potential for and open space, respondents who had lived in Boulder
in terms of associating, through values and imagery,
insecticide use to be more acceptable with education. for a long time, as well as those who felt at home in
urban trees with place making and home, attachment
their community, were more likely to associate the
Tree Stewardship and quality of life. This last quality in particular may
urban forest with larger nature. Trees themselves,
be useful as it has been highlighted as a key value for
This is promising in terms of the goals of Boulder even street trees, are also often associated with strong
Boulder in the 2014 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Forestry to increase public tree stewardship as part of emotional and personal connections for residents. This
the UFSP and to deal with threats to the urban forest. is supported by the associations with the urban forest 4. Is respondents’ knowledge and feelings about Boulder Forestry’s
and open comments from the survey addressed above, activities influenced by certain variables or characteristics?
as well as the Tree Story outreach.
50% / 61% Another way of asking if Boulder residents are concerned
Interested in being a tree steward Given that the majority of respondents indicated with the urban forest is to determine how much they
that they were concerned about urban forestry and know and feel about Boulder Forestry activities, since
~ Long / Short survey associated it with larger environmental issues, an a lack of interest would correlate with a lack of action
or initiative to find out more about Boulder Forestry correspond to Q17A and Q30. Additionally, all of the Statistical Analysis Synopsis
activities. It is also helpful to know which groups are top-performing models contain these to explanatory For this analysis two questions were asked: 1)
more likely to know about, and feel good about, Boulder variables, and in every model these two indicators What factors indicate a willingness to participate
Forestry activities in order to identify populations that have the strongest explanatory effect. When examined in a potential tree stewardship program Q14, and
might be ‘low hanging fruit’ to start with for outreach more closely, both of these predictors have a significant 2) To what degree would respondents be willing
and marketing for the UFSP. positive relationship with the variable Knowledge. In to participate (i.e. level of tree stewardship)
other words, the more times per year a person recycles, Q15. For both questions a similar approach was
Statistical analysis synopsis
the more likely they are to be knowledgeable and used as for the above analysis.
To do this, a model comparison approach was used to agree with Boulder Forestry activities. Similarly, those
identify key indicators for respondents’ knowledge and willing to participate in a focus group about urban For Q14, the explanatory variables included the
feelings about Boulder Forestry and their activities. forest issues are more likely to be knowledgeable and demographic variables, the new knowledge metric,
First, a single response variable was created by agree with Boulder Forestry activities. This is supported and questions 3, 7, and 11, which asked about
averaging responses to two questions: Q8, ‘How by research that shows that current environmental threats to the urban forest, associations between the
familiar are you with the Boulder Forestry responsibilities behavior is associated with a higher level of knowledge urban forest and neighborhood quality, and feelings
below?’, and Q11C, how well respondents agreed or about environmental issues (Stern, 2000) and pro- about Boulder Forestry’s current activities. These
disagreed with ‘Boulder Forestry’s policies reflect the environmental values (Liuna, Jingke, Lijuan, Wenjun, explanatory variables were included given their
values of the Boulder Community’ to create a single and Kexin, 2015). Given the high rate of recycling in insight into respondents’ feelings about how much
new metric called ‘Knowledge.’ All possible explanatory Boulder, this may be a good place to start in terms of threat Boulder’s urban forest is under (and therefore
variables were then defined, including the demographic targeted marketing outreach. Because of the increased number of variables
battery from the end of the survey, as well as other the number of combinations that could be
values and attitudes around the urban forest. 5. Which factors influence a person’s willingness and degree of explored was reduced, which created a
participation in a potential tree stewardship program? logistic regression model for all combinations
Linear regression models were created to assess the
The last analysis focused on identifying what factors of five or fewer explanatory variables. This resulted in over
results. A model was created for every combination
may influence a person’s willingness, and degree of 16,000 models.
of six or fewer variables. This resulted in more than
35,000 potential models. Each model was then ranked participation, in a potential tree stewardship program. For Q15, the same approach was taken, with the same
based on its performance and complexity. If any two This goal was identified in collaboration with Boulder explanatory variables. Because responses to Q15 have
models had the same performance, the one with Forestry given current budgetary constraints, the backlog multiple levels, a multinomial logistic regression was
fewer explanatory variables was deemed preferable. of maintenance, and upcoming increased maintenance used. Again, a regression was compared for every
This ranking was quantified using Akaike’s information with climate change and pests. While the program is combination of five or fewer explanatory variables,
criterion (AIC). still under discussion and has not been developed yet, producing 16,000 models.
understanding respondent’s willingness to potentially
Results participate, as well as who might be the most willing, Results
The resulting best-fit model had only two explanatory can be very helpful in marketing and outreach efforts. For Q14, the results show that the key variables
variables; ‘TimeRecycled’ and ‘FocusGroup’, which associated with their level of interest in participating in
a tree stewardship program are a) Time spent gardening The most likely response is to not participate (2), which home (Q18) as key explanatory variables. This is not
(either at home or in the community), b) Education, indicates a bit of an uphill battle to get residents to surprising given that those who are more willing to
and c) Time spent in Boulder (residency). Specifically, participate in a tree stewardship program. However, educate themselves about Boulder Forestry activities,
those with a bachelor or master’s degree, who have comments from the ‘other’ response category in the who agree with them, and who are willing to participate
lived in Boulder 2-5 years, or 16 plus years, and those long-form survey shed some light on this reluctance. in a focus group, are more likely to ‘help out’ through
who engaged in gardening activities, were more likely Many indicated that age and health issues are a barrier tree stewardship. Similarly, Feeling at home, which is
to interested in participating in tree stewardship. It is to increased participation, as well as time limitations linked to attachment to one’s community, has been
unclear why those who have lived in Boulder between and a lack of specific information on specific trees. linked to an increased likelihood of environment action
11-15 years were not as likely, but this could be due This is not surprising given the older age of this sample (Takahashi and Selfa, 2015). Given the priority in the
to time crunches, age, and other factors, or just the population, but can also be expected from residents 2015 BVCP over quality of life and sense of place, as well
sample for this survey. While due to a large standard aged 30-45 who are more likely to be in the crunch years as links above between trees and neighborhood quality,
error for each estimate no one variable can be assumed of working and raising children. However, since the tree it would be prudent to link Boulder Forestry activities
to be significantly indicative of participating in a tree stewardship program does not exist yes, and would likely to supporting and enhancing the quality and sense of
stewardship program, the best models all contained include more specific information on tree watering and place for residents’ neighborhoods as one aspect of the
these explanatory variables. This means that it is highly responsibilities, this may increase potential willingness marketing and outreach campaign. This is particularly
likely that outreach and marketing for residents who to participate. There were also comments about trees true given the emotional and personal connection many
engage in gardening activities (and are thus more likely in the right of way; some were already watering the residents expressed to trees in the Tree Story outreach
to be comfortable taking care of trees and other plants), tree on their right of way since they deemed Boulder and comments in the survey.
who have a moderate level of education, and who are Forestry maintenance inadequate, which may reduce
residents of Boulder will be more effective. It is also their desire to increase their participation, and many Tree Stories
likely that these variables are linked, but the current indicated a desire for a more comprehensive and
data is too messy to determine their relationship. clearer stewardship and enforcement program between At the same time the long and short form surveys
property owners, managers, and the city. As confusion were underway a broader outreach activity was taking
For Q15, explanatory variables were added to the model place in a more creative form. In an effort to get the
over responsibility for trees in the right of way are
and ranked on its probability that it explains respondents’ community thinking about “trees”, we developed “Tree
known to Boulder Forestry as on-going issues, it would
level of participation to the question. These levels of Story Stations.” A series of wood boards were created
be helpful for this to be part of the outreach and
participation are: 1) No response; 2) None of them. This
marketing for the UFSP. Comments over the desire to see
is the responsibility of Boulder Forestry and should be
a comprehensive, public, and integrated tree inventory
covered by current taxes; 3) I would like to help out
and maintenance program online further support the
but am unable/it’s not feasible to do so; 4) I would be
need for integrated outreach and education.
willing to occasionally water a tree outside my business/
residence/workplace; 5) I would be willing to water For those willing to engage in some level of tree
and maintain a tree outside my business/residence/ stewardship, the results show that the best models
workplace; 6) I would participate in tree planting; 7) I all identify a) participating in a focus group, b) the
would participate in youth education. knowledge variable developed above, and c) Feeling at
and temporarily placed in the Main Library, recreation Canopy Scenarios

centers and at local events. People were given
information about the development of the Strategic 1 CANOPY LOSS 2037 0%
Plan and asked to submit stories, photos, drawings or 28% Canopy loss*
poems on-site or online, illustrating their connection 28% CANOPY LOSS
to trees. As an added incentive each submission would

1,997
PRIVATE
Private Public 1,960 trees
Planting
automatically enroll you in a monthly drawing for a Canopy Acres

Next 20 yrs.
variety of prizes from Boulder Parks and Recreation. -776 PUBLIC

10,000 trees
Acre loss
City of Boulder
Over 100 submissions were shared at the stations $634,439

canopy loss
500
ANNUAL
Planting
Annual Average (trees)
10,000
and online by a wide range of community members Environmental Benefit Private: 1500
Planting $187,500
ANNUAL
$3,750,000
Investment
Public: 497
including children. The submissions were very moving

and reflected how deeply connected the Boulder
community is to trees. A selection of stories were also
2 NET NEUTRAL 2037
0% Canopy Growth* 11%
shared in a special display at the public meeting for 0% CANOPY LOSS
other community members to enjoy. Private Public
2,773
PRIVATE
40,500 trees
Planting
Next 20 yrs.
Tree Speak Open House

Canopy Acres
0
Acre loss PUBLIC
12,000 trees
The initial public meeting hosted at a local public $876,155

City of Boulder
600
ANNUAL
gathering space, was designed to provide the

Planting
Annual Average (trees)
12,000
Environmental Benefit Private: 2121
$225,000
ANNUAL
community an opportunity to learn about the role of

Planting
Public: 652
$4,500,000
Investment
Boulder’s Forestry Division, an overview of the strategic

plan process, summary of the initial analysis and bring 3 CANOPY GROWTH 2037
6% Canopy Growth*
89%
awareness to the vast number of programs and resources providing options on how to achieve proposed canopy
forestry provides. In addition the event hoped to goals. There were also individual stations devoted to EAB 6% CANOPY GAIN
2,939
Private Public
capture the community’s response to recommendations Awareness, the TreeOpp program, Tree Story submissions
PRIVATE
50,500 trees
Planting
on maintaining and growing Boulder’s urban canopy and and a demonstration on interactive mapping tools. Canopy Acres Next 20 yrs.
166
what types of outreach activities that would be most
PUBLIC
Acre gain 14,000 trees
The event was well attended, with a wide variety of

effective. CANOPY GAIN
City of Boulder
participants. Approximately 130 people RSVP’d to the $931,296 Planting

(trees)
700
14,000
ANNUAL
Multiple stations featuring specific topics allowed event, however it was estimated that close to 200 Annual Average
Environmental Benefit
Private: 2,204
Planting $262,500
ANNUAL
$5,250,000
Investment
attendees to either learn individually or engage with people attended. Public: 735
members of the forestry division. Two stations sought

to capture the community’s preference on maintaining Tree Speak Open House | March 9, 2017 | Boulder Urban Forest Strategic Plan | Project lead: Kathleen Alexander, 303-441-4406
9
or growing the urban canopy over the next 30 years,

Station Responses 4. Tree Planting Requirements for City Projects • CSU Master Arborist Program (similar to Master
Canopy Scenarios 14% - Increase the minimum requirements Gardeners (plus 3 votes)
for tree planting on city development or re-
Participants were given a graphic overview of Boulder’s development projects. • Outreach volunteers to help homeowners plant
current urban canopy along with information on current and care for trees (plus 3 votes)
5. Increased Tree Protection Standards for Private
threats and their impact on the canopy over the next 20
years. Community members were then presented with Projects 12.6% - Tree protection standards exist • More budget money for Forestry
three scenarios and the requirements to achieve each for public trees. Add defined requirements for • Plant more female trees to reduce woes of
outcome presented. Community members presented their acceptable tree removals and tree protection allergy sufferers. Worth it for diversity.
during construction for private property trees on
preference for a scenario by voting with a sticker. The
three scenarios presented were canopy loss, net neutral- private development projects. • Don’t let developers remove trees
no loss in canopy, and net gain-a small growth in canopy
over the next 20 years. 89 percent of those who voted
6. Create a Foundation 11% - The community Working Groups
should create a foundation to solicit private/
preferred canopy growth over the other two options. corporate funding to supplement tree planting, Working Group 1
The community was then asked to provide their maintenance and/or education. In an effort to collect more in depth insights from the
preference on a list of tactics that would help achieve a 7. Mitigation Funding for Tree Removal 6% - community and initiate relationships for long-term
net neutral or net canopy gain. Below are the community Mitigation is required by code for public trees stewardship, Boulder Forestry and the consultant
preferences for the tactics outlined. removed on any development project. Add teams, identified eight key stakeholders to participate
a requirement for trees removed on private in a series of working group sessions. These individuals
How do we take care of it?
property for development projects. Funding included a representative from a local nursery, practicing
1. Tree Planting Requirements for Private could be ear-marked to support community tree certified arborists, neighborhood association members,
Projects 21% - Increase the minimum planting projects. a member from a local tree related non-profit, and a
requirements for tree planting and on-going member of Boulder Community Hospital. The working
care for private development or re-development 8. Increased Tree Protection Standards for group participants attended two facilitated discussion
projects. City Projects 5% - City development or re- sessions.
development projects should have defined
2. Tree Planting for Public Property 15.6% - requirements for acceptable tree removals The first working group session was designed to familiarize
The city should plant additional trees on public and increased tree protection standards during working group participants of Boulder Forestry activities
lands, in parks and on street rights-of-way. construction. and work to date regarding Boulder’s public trees. This
was followed by a presentation of the baseline urban
3. Subsidized Tree Planting for Private Property 9. Other Ideas (comments): tree canopy analysis for Boulder, canopy over the next
14.5% - The city should host a program to help
subsidize the cost of tree planting on private • More diversity in tree species 20 years including EAB and other invasive pests, climate
change, severe weather events and development.
property. This could include passing on bulk
pricing for trees and/or support in planting trees.
• Full time staff devoted to planting and young
tree care and maintenance
“We need to communicate how long • Additional Information: Provide detailed “Trees are directly associated to human
information to the community on the
it takes to properly replace canopy in maintenance costs associated with each canopy health. Clean air is one of the most valued
addition to the loss that is inevitable, scenario and how this fits within the city’s resources. Messaging should be focused
priorities and budget. around health, (trees are) critical for the
and how taking care of trees can help
maintain the canopy.” The working group was then asked to provide their health of our children, creating a healthy
thoughts around community wide solutions to preserve environment for our children. It is critical
~Working Group Participant Boulder’s urban tree canopy. Below are the opportunities for human life for trees to exist in our
the working group identified. community.”
The group was then presented with three scenarios that
take into consideration the gap in existing resources for
• Using the Boulder Arts community as a model, ~Working Group Participant
the community needs to present to the city their
maintaining canopy given known threats. desire for an additional tax that can be applied and tree protection. In the second session the working
• Scenario 1: a 28 percent canopy loss by 2037 toward efforts to preserve and grow Boulder’s
tree canopy.
group was divided into three smaller groups and given
• Scenario 2: Net Neutral Canopy by 2037 one of the following topics and questions to focus on:
• Scenario 3: 6 percent canopy growth by 2037. • Identify effective tree related non-profits and Volunteer Engagement
emulate their tactics.
• How does this get started and who should be
Working group participants reviewed the scenarios and
provided feedback on how they thought the community
• Have the city emphasize the gap that exists responsible for management and funding?
between what is needed to maintain and
would react to impending canopy loss and what their grow Boulder’s urban canopy and what can be • What type of program would be most effective in
preference would be regarding the three scenarios accomplished with the existing budget. Boulder?
presented. All working group participants agreed that
establishing a goal to grow the urban canopy was Working Group 2 • Tree Planting Initiatives
optimal. In the course of reviewing the feedback from the • What challenges and opportunities do you see for
initial working group session, comparisons were made engaging residents and encouraging tree planting
The discussion followed three basic themes:
to other communities with experience implementing (and care) on private property?
• Messaging: Improve the city’s messaging desired programs and strategies. Davey Resource Group • Should taxpayers subsidize or facilitate tree
regarding our current canopy, strongly reviewed over 25 different programs considered to planting and care for private property? How?
emphasizing impending threats and their overall be successful urban forest strategies. Working group
impact over the next 20 years. participants were provided these real-world examples Tree Planting Initiatives:
• Awareness: Education on the importance of trees of successful programs across the following topics: • What challenges and opportunities do you see for
should be presented in the context of tree’s volunteer engagement, resilience and sustainability; engaging residents and encouraging tree planting
impact on human health. tree planting initiatives, city-non-profit partnership (and care) on private property?
• Should taxpayers subsidize or facilitate tree • Consider innovative and effective marketing allow the community to interact with forest
planting and care for private property? How? strategies such as leaving dead trees in place management.
temporarily, illustrating future view corridors
Tree Protection on Private Property
without Ash, etc. • Work collaboratively with all other sustainability
• Do you support some level of tree preservation Tree Planting Initiatives:
and resiliency initiatives that focuses on climate
action, conservation and livable communities.
requirement for private property?
• Would you support a tree removal permit process • The working group recommended that an Tree Protection on Private Property:
advocacy group outside of city staff needs to
separate from the development process?
champion an initiative to educate, inspire, • The working group supports the idea of exploring
tree protection on private property and
• Should mitigation (in lieu of preservation) for mentor and train community members on
recognizes that many communities along the
private tree removals be allowed? planting initiatives, protecting and caring for
Front Range currently have some form of this
trees on private property and how to ensure
The outcomes of these smaller focused discussions within the city.
sustainability of the urban forest.
echoed may of the recommendations from the first
session while identifying some key components that • An advocacy group should also consider funding • The group understands that tree canopy goals
can’t be met just from planting, we need to
were seen as necessary for success. Below is a summary programs and incentives for tree protection,
effectively manage and protect existing trees.
of key findings for each topic covered. planting and maintenance in the form of grants,
Volunteer Engagement:
discounted nurseries, or consider tax initiatives • Need to initiate a systematic methodology for
to fund forest initiatives similar to other exploring an option for this in Boulder that
• Focus on the issue of EAB and other critical designated taxes for resource conservation. is based on science, criteria and evaluation
threats to the urban forest to provide a “call to metrics.
action” in the community. • Trees are a critical component of public health,
economic vitality and livability in a community. • Could start small with a pilot program and
• Clearly and effectively communicate the They should be prioritized and funded similar to work towards a comprehensive approach that
consequences of EAB and its impact on the any other critical infrastructure especially with would result in smart regs, incentives instead of
forest. the resiliency and sustainability in mind. penalties.
• Encourage community participation through • Also consider a long term approach through • Need rigorous engagement and buy-in from
volunteerism, promotions, fundraising, and changes to development codes to increase community with an understanding that the
partnership. planting or preservation and care of existing urban canopy doesn’t see property lines and is a
• Focus on more “close to home” initiatives such trees on private property. community resource.
as working with neighborhood groups, schools,
churches or commercial centers manage and
• Consider an attractive and effective marketing Working group participants agreed to continue to be
campaign to increase public awareness through part of Boulder’s Urban Forest Strategic Plan process
care for their trees through planting, pruning, social media, professional groups, youth by reviewing the draft plan providing feedback and
treating, etc. engagement and digital interactive tools that recommendations on the strategies outlined.
Working Group 3 presentations, school tree plantings, Some key comments that came out of the discussion for
opportunities for input, etc. goal no. 1 include:
For the third working group exercise, participants
were provided in advance, a draft version of the Urban Each overarching goal had 3-4 specific actions. The Timing
Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) along with a summary of working group was asked to discuss the actions presented, City (tax$)
0 5 10 15 20
community outreach efforts to date and a document prioritize them in order of importance, specify where B
outlining UFSP Goals, Priorities and Actions derived these actions fell on a timeline between 1-20 years, and
from all of the data and community input gathered thus designate the level of responsibility between the city, A
far. The session was designed to focus on 7 goals where strategic partnerships and the community. The groups
the working group would have the most impact. Below collective decisions for each action were then charted
are the seven goals in no particular order or ranking. on separate maps. Partnerships
Responsibility
C D E
1. Establish a no-net-loss urban tree canopy (UTC) Q1: Establish a no-net-loss urban tree canopy (UTC) goal
goal through 2037 through 2037.
2. Create an Urban Forest Emergency Response ACTIONS:
and Drought Plan including overall citywide
A ommunicate the goal to the community and engage
C Community
coordination and clean-up efforts.
them in identifying and executing solutions.
3. Updates to city codes and policies to better
B Develop and implement a Public Tree Planting Plan
protect public and private trees to achieve the
to achieve the UTC goal. The plan should have
UTC goal.
both citywide and neighborhoods specific planting • There is an opportunity for contractors and
4. Establish and increase funding and staff resources and diversification targets to increase street tree commercial arborists to help educate the
to support all Forestry maintenance operations stocking with a diverse mix of well adapted species. general public on species diversity and the city’s
to desired community level of service for urban proposed goals. As well as providing educational
C Educate private property owners on diversification support around tree maintenance and care
forest management.
goals needed for large maturing trees and proper for both young and mature trees and how
5. Explore the establishment of a partner non- tree maintenance to ensure trees live to maturity. this directly plays into achieving the citywide
profit urban forest foundation or “tree trust”
D Incentivize, educate and partner with private preference of no-net-loss UTC.
to leverage additional financial and community
property owners to provide cost sharing, free
support for the urban forest.
replacement trees or incentives to contribute to • Marketing and communication: Benefit of
communication, possibly hiring professional firm.
6. Develop a community-led volunteer program planning efforts on private property.
focused on urban tree canopy.
E Asses canopy cover for progress and adjust planting • Communicating the same message- work with
partner groups to get message out.
7. Continue existing and develop additional youth and/or preservation goals as needed-recommended
engagement programs including educational time frame: every 10 years. • Initiate a Tree Keepers organization to help
with maintenance and promptly recognizing and species per park site based upon science and research city opportunity to communicate need to water
recording harmful pests. based horticultural Best Management Practices. and tree maintenance- it will affect everyone.
• Partner with a non-profit organization that can Some key comments that came out of the discussion for Goal 3: Updates to city codes and policies to better
provide the educational programing needed goal no. 2 include: protect and maintain public and private trees to
through a stable volunteer base. achieve the UTC goal.
• It is vital to have educated neighborhoods to help 0 5

Timing
10 15 20
ACTIONS:
generate buy-in and participation in helping to City (tax$)
A A Revise licensing requirements for Certified Arborists
achieve the stated UTC goal.
performing tree work in Boulder (may include shift
• Focus funds on educating the community rather
C
from existing two-tier to single Certified Arborist
than providing free replacement trees. Free License, require proof of safety training, educate
trees don’t always establish a strong foundation all licenses on pertinent city codes, develop
for continued care and maintenance. Partnerships enforcement mechanism to ensure company
Responsibility
B
compliance with all licensing requirements, etc.).
• Examine possible incentives for rental property
owners to help maintain and care for trees on B Start community dialog on appropriate updates
their properties. pertaining to trees on Public Property:
Goal 2. Create an Urban Forest Emergency Response i. Develop Park Design and Construction Standards,
Community
and Drought Plan including overall citywide update Tree Protection (for public street trees),
coordination and clean-up efforts. Diversity and Streetscaping requirements in
the City Design and Construction Standards and
ACTIONS:
ensure consistency.
evelop an Urban Forest Emergency Response Plan
D
A
including overall citywide coordination with clear • Bring back ‘Spring Clean-Up Day’- a former ii. Develop pesticide application permitting system
citywide effort for private treatment of street trees similar to
role clarification among departments and criteria
City of Denver requirements. Ensure industry
for different levels of pruning and citywide cleanup • Ensure that tree maintenance education is shared best management practices are followed for
efforts. across all existing vehicles of communication
the maintenance of all public and diseased
(email/newsletters/social media).
B ducate property owners about trees and drought so
E trees. Update code to address enforcement and
they can be prepared and know what to expect when • Look at Fort Collins Emergency Response Protocol penalties
water restrictions are enacted. as an example to emulate.
iii. Review current ordinance and policies for
C oordinate with Utilities Division to develop a
C • Educate and communicate is a resonate need in public tree protection and strengthen where
Parks Drought Plan that establishes priorities and the plan, there needs to be “someone” whose appropriate.
appropriate amount and timing of irrigation per tree job it is to do this. The city should exploit every
iv. Enforce existing requirements for irrigation and iv. Update codes to add appeals process for • This could fall under a 2018 citywide ecosystem
mulching for public street trees by adjacent enforcement of tree nuisance abatement on management plan.
property owners. private property and lengthen the time frame for
remedy to timeframe appropriate for tree and • Would it make sense for the Boulder Forestry
v. Prioritize the upgrade of streetscaping along division to reside under Resilience /Sustainability
site conditions.
arterials to allow for trees long term through rather than Parks and Recreation?
Capital Improvement programs including v. Update codes to improve and enforce long-
installation of permanent irrigation systems term maintenance of landscape requirements • Other cities become accredited Tree Care
Industry Association- These associations perform
(example locations include 30th St, Iris Ave., and on private property including provisions for
an audit every 3 years.
Foothills Pkwy). inspection and enforcement. Add personnel
necessary to oversee and monitor tree protection Goal 4. Streamline all forestry maintenance operations
vi. Create green infrastructure master planning
in construction on public property. and establish and increase funding and staff resources
document to improve stormwater management
to support desired community level of service for
Some key comments that came out of the discussion for
vii. Review policies and enforcement for slacklining urban forest management.
goal no. 3 include:
pilot project utilizing trees in city parks.
Timing
ACTIONS:
C Start community dialog on appropriate updates 0 5 10 15 20
City (tax$) A Strengthen and streamline Forestry operations
pertaining to trees on Private Property: A
maintenance processes and programs (includes
i. Convene a group of stakeholders to develop outreach, pruning, IPM, tree risk, commercial trees,
regulations for any new requirements for tree wood utilization, asset management, contracted
protection for private property trees. Determine services and continued implementation of the EAB
what level of protection is desired by the people Long Term Strategy.
Partnerships
of Boulder.
Responsibility
B
B stablish a sustainable funding mechanism for
E
ii. Benchmark codes from other communities Boulder Forestry programs, including tree planting
(i.e. prevent the removal of existing trees and rotational pruning.
prior to acquiring an approved landscape plan,
C ngage executive management in discussion and
E
tree removal permitting process, preservation
collaboration regarding available/potential funding
requirements for certain private property trees, Community
C
options that support the community vision for
require mitigation for significant, desirable
the urban forest and the desired level of service
private trees removed through development
expressed by stakeholders and community members.
projects when replacements cannot be planted
on site, mitigation requirements, etc.) ank mitigation fees for private trees removed
B
• These actions would require a 2-year public D
through site review projects (trees that cannot be
iii. Review and strengthen parking lot shade engagement process similar to the process that
occurred under the Boulder Zero Waste Plan. replaced on site must be mitigated with funds going
guidelines and enforcement.
into the Tree Fund).Use funds to support new tree
planting, establishment, and maintenance, including fund Action B. This is illustrated on the graph as Some key comments that came out of the discussion for
programs that increase trees on private property. Action E . goal no. 5 include:
Some key comments that came out of the discussion for Goal 5. Explore the establishment of a partner non- Timing
goal no. 4 include: profit urban forest foundation or “tree trust” to 0 5 10 15 20
City (tax$)
Timing
leverage additional financial and community support
City (tax$)
0 5 10 15 20 for the urban forest.
A D
ACTIONS:
C
A Create a call to action to articulate “Why Now?”
Partnerships
Responsibility
A B
B acilitate the development of a leadership team to
F
direct the vision and capacity building of an emerging
Partnerships E
B
Responsibility
nonprofit. Tap into existing networks, resources,

C D
and populations (non-profits, businesses, NPO’s,
government agencies, school districts, neighborhood
associations). Community
C evelop specific and actionable goals and funding

D
Community
sources. The city can initiate a program with seed
money and deliverables, but other fund-raising
efforts will be necessary to support continued
volunteer efforts. Explore grants for project funding • We need to identify potential benefactors to kick
and to diversify funding sources and partners. off a larger foundation.
• Citizens every two years have a funding requests-
we should be asking residents to fund certain D valuate outreach strategies and divide outreach
E • Corporate sponsorship.
forestry efforts. between Boulder Forestry and urban forest
foundation regarding raised money, trees planted • Create a tree trust committee to evaluate the
• Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Funding and new memberships.
establishment of a foundation.
could be source to help with tree planting and
maintenance. E artner with private property owners to provide
P • PLAY Boulder Foundation (PLAY) wants to take on
the main arm of the foundation as the Tree Trust.
cost-sharing, free replacement trees, or incentives
• Engage everyone, create lobby mechanism to get for private property tree planting. Note: This option
message out and get it on ballot. The feedback collected from these three working group
was not reflected on the graph, as the working sessions has helped to reevaluate and prioritize the actions
• Organize all “public trees” into common group participants couldn’t determine where this for specific goals for the UFSP. Additionally this information
will be used to help inform recommendations for a
management and establish funding mechanism action should be located and how this effort may be marketing strategy, identifying strategic partners, tactics and
executed.
• A ballot initiative should be established to help communication strategies.
Goal 6. Develop a community-led volunteer program C ontinue seedling giveaway to Boulder Valley School
C of the urban forest and its’ effect on each individual
focused on urban tree canopy. District 5th graders. community members. The need for community
participation, and that the community’s desire for a
ACTIONS: D Develop additional youth engagement programs. level of service and urban forest management they are
A Build a team of engaged advocates that understand The working group ran out of time before being able willing to allocate additional resources to.
the community’s unique urban forestry challenges to reflect their decisions for Q.6 and Q7 on the graph Actions that identified the need for communication and
and opportunities. presented. education were given immediate priority and were seen
B uild a strong individual member base. Emulate
B Some key comments that came out of the discussion for as ongoing. This is evidenced in the charts for goals 1, 2
tactics from other local organizations that are goal no. 6 and no. 7 include: and 5 where all actions that include communicate and/
successful in advocating volunteers. or educate resided on the timeline between 0-5 years.
C evelop volunteer-led programs and train volunteers
D
• Infilling Arborist careers, Arborists are recognized Communication related actions were also prioritized as
as a skilled profession and therefore qualifies mainly the responsibility of the city and included the
to lead or assist with programs (may include: for workforce development initiative- Front recommendation of hiring an outside marketing firm to
forestry maintenance and general support such Range apprenticeship program is currently craft an effective and engaging message.
as clearance pruning, pest surveys and reporting, being designed to create a pipeline teaching
mulch distribution, managing online requests, youth horticulture as career. From the working group perspective education related
engagement/educational programs, educating actions were seen as something that would be most
community, host a program to help subsidize the • Having the City of Boulder partner with local effectively executed by strategic partners. This is
cost of tree planting on private property, offering schools to help educate kids and create consistent with past working group sessions in that
block grants to subsidize private plantings and assist ambassadors. it focuses on cooperation with community partners,
neighborhoods in tree planting efforts, development
of an urban forest newsletter, etc.)
• BVSD could partner with a non-profit for sensing that strategic partners would likely be more
effective in soliciting community participation, through
educational programing.
their approach, ability to access various types of funding
Goal 7. Continue existing and develop additional
youth engagement programs including educational
• Need to start educating kids at an earlier age and resources. In addition the group emphasized that
presentations, school tree plantings, opportunities • All about collaboration with all stakeholders. the urban forest is comprised of more than just public
trees, it is a community asset, and therefore, the
for input, etc. Cooperative effort.
Who coordinates? community envisions the need for a non-profit partner,
ACTIONS: urban forest foundation or tree trust to help cultivate
A ontinue partnership with Utilities to educate youth
C
• Tree Museum- at CU-an existing resource that and steer community involvement. During the final
could be utilized meeting it was shared that Boulder PLAY would like to
about trees through city Water Festival. for education. become the foundation arm for a Tree Trust. Members
B ollaborate with Boulder Valley School District (BVSD)
C In conclusion, the recurring themes that have emerged of the working group recommended that a committee
to develop urban forestry educational program for from all three of the working group discussions include; be established to provide some foundational framework
elementary aged children and present annually. clear effective communication regarding the importance for a Tree Trust to successfully take hold.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS TO CONSIDER: Overall, the greatest amount of discussion in each effort to see if the students identified an element of
working group session continually focused on actions the plan they felt their peers would be interested in as
• Professional communication and marketing that closely align with the goals and actions stated in a topic for their 2017 Fall ATP.
• Care is more consequential than planting the ‘Engage’ section of UFSP Goals. This tells us that the
community is in agreement with the UFSP stated need
John Marlin, a member of the Boulder Forestry division,
• Tree give-away care supplement. e.g. 10 min for the community to work alongside the department
gave an overview of the plan, the role of Boulder Forestry
education pamphlet. and impact of pests such as the emerald ash borer. As a
in order to achieve goals outlined in the strategic plan.
• Someone needs to be in charge of the education whole students were most interested in the large loss of
canopy due to emerald ash borer and how they could be
and communication.
YOAB part of the solution. With this topic in mind the group
• Reexamine spring clean up for tree maintenance. In an effort to encourage Boulder’s youth to become split into 4 smaller groups to discuss specific ideas on
• Should Forestry be under Sustainability or more civically engaged, Boulder has established a Youth what a future ATP project would entail. As a result a
Resilience? ex. Recycling and Compost. Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB). YOAB is a group semester long project will be co-developed with the
students, allowing them to take their creative ideas
• Forestry is a citywide resource more than Boulder of 16 City of Boulder resident high school students, who
work to promote the youth voice in the community, and help educate the public around threats to Boulder’s
Parks and Rec or Public Works.
provide opportunities for youth across the city and advise Urban canopy.
• Support accreditation of private companies. the municipal government on youth-related policies
• Bond funding to support Forestry/EAB. and issues. In addition to monthly meetings, each year Young Children's
• Cultural landscape rehabilitation funding for students are involved in an Alternative Team Project,
(ATP). ATP’s are semester-long projects comprised of Tree Preferences
historic properties.
3-4 students who select their own topics based on the Boulder Forestry coordinated with Growing Up Boulder,
• Identify benefactors or corporate sponsors. opportunities available and what is meaningful to them. Boulder Journey School, and Boulder County Head Start
• Create a committee to direct the Tree Trust. Boulder Forestry coordinated with YOAB to present the in an effort to collect insights and generate awareness
• Tree Trust vs. tree trust (general term.) Boulder Urban Forestry’s Strategic Plan process in an among young children. Growing Up Boulder is Boulder’s
child-and youth-friendly city initiative and is based out
• Clarify tree fund in no. 4. of the Community Engagement Design and Research
• Arboretum Center at the University of Colorado Boulder; its mission
is to empower Boulder’s young people with opportunities
• Include career development and training for youth for inclusion, influence, and deliberation on local issues
(Youth Engagement).
that affect their lives.
• Start earlier than 5th grade, eco-cycle partnership Through a series of activities that included outdoor
for education.
exploration, discussion video and drawing, children
• Champion tree list, highlight in the plan. were able to express their preferences and expand their
understanding of trees in their natural environment.
The following summarizes young children’s thoughts with the PLAY and their initiative of creating a Tree
about trees. Trust. A core objective of the event was to clarify where
city’s Forestry’s efforts will be concentrated and clearly
• Provide shade. communicate the level of community participation
• Have berries, seed pods, and acorns to squish needed in order to achieve collective goals.
and use for imaginative play.
• Encourage wildlife (squirrels and chipmunks).

• Are deciduous, so they can play in the leaves. trees through a neighborhood/HOA mapping program.
• Bear fruit, because they can eat the fruit and Community members also shared some of their own
climb these trees more easily. ideas, which included a summer camp for kids involving
The results of these activities were communicated tree identification and care, educating neighborhoods
through a brief video and poster which was shared at on tree care and initiating friends of the urban forest.
the public meeting. The Goals and Actions boards showed goals across four The event was well attended and participants were very
main categories: Plan, Protect, Manage and Engage. engaged and able to successfully field their questions with
Final Open House In response to one of the actions within the Engage members of the forestry division. The station focused
category, Boulder forestry partnered with PLAY, one on GIS mapping tools had a number of participants
The final draft of Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP)
of the featured stations at the event. PLAY has been interested in finding out more about their own trees.
was presented to the Boulder community at Upslope
in the process of developing a Tree Trust, an initiative PLAY also had many lucrative conversations around the
Brewing Company. This meeting provided a chronology
designed to help assist with educating and engaging Tree Trust, receiving 6 volunteer requests, two of which
of the research, community outreach and milestones
community participation around Boulder’s urban forest. committed to joining the Tree Trust committee and one
that occurred throughout the process. Additionally this
Their station focused on introducing the Tree Trust interested in spearheading a Friends of the Tree Trust
meeting provided Boulder Forestry the opportunity to
initiative to the community, recruiting volunteers and membership program focusing member retention at the
present a comprehensive summary of the strategic goals
gathering community preferences around priorities for neighborhood level.
and actions that will take place in order to meet the
needs of Boulder’s urban forest as well as community the Tree Trust over the next few years.
stated desires for the future of their urban forest. PLAY solicited feedback on activities related to each
Conclusion
Multiple stations featuring specific topics allowed UFSP goal category. Feedback from the community We can conclude from the engagement process that
attendees to either learn individually or engage with revealed an overall preference for activities under the the Boulder community values their urban forest,
members of the forestry division. The stations focused categories of Protect and Manage. The specific activities understands impending threats and wants to see the
on sharing the goals and actions outlined within the that received the most interest were: Fund tree plantings urban canopy thrive and grow.
UFSP, providing continued education around EAB, GIS and care program for private trees through a Tree Trust
We also know that the continued health and maintenance
mapping, data collection and introducing the partnership membership model, and Digital mapping of private
of Boulder’s urban forest is a complex task that requires
joint efforts from the community and Boulder Forestry. resiliency and sustainability, preservation, tree planting priorities for the UFSP explore; the consolidation
Though this process members of the Boulder community initiatives, food gardens, and solar solutions (Davey of urban forestry responsibilities, increasing staff
have helped identify the core areas where assistance is Resource Group, 2017). The case studies offer insight resources and funding, providing a more consistent
needed: into strategies that were particularly effective, as well contracting operating procedure, improvements to
as possible pitfalls to avoid. Lessons learned from these the tree inventory database, further development and
• Clear concise messaging around the benefits and programs were incorporated into the priorities and integration of the IPM program, and periodic review and
threats to Boulder’s urban forest.
actions of the UFSP. alignment of UFSP priorities.
• Broader, ongoing community wide education Protect
focused on maintaining Boulder’s urban forest.
• Community participation in activities that best

support Boulder Forestry efforts.
Conclusion The urban forest represents a valuable asset, one which
must be nurtured and protected. This is accomplished
through municipal code, policies, and design and
The emerging partnership with PLAY is a strong first construction standards that support tree planting and
step that has the potential to help with education Plan Goals and Priorities longevity. The priorities of this goal include; revision of
and community action. However, additional help tree protection codes and policies, improved standards
will be needed to support a citywide communication Based upon review of the current urban forestry program
and resources,and input from the community and other for tree maintenance, expanding options for tree
effort that aligns with the strategic goals and actions mitigation payback, streamlining pesticide permitting,
outlined in the UFSP and also effectively align with stakeholders, the UFSP identifies four goals.
and improvements to the TSIP.
efforts from strategic partners. Plan
Engage
Davey Resource Group worked with Forestry to identify Urban forestry is an important part of Boulder’s
successful programs throughout the U.S. in order resilience strategy. Increasing the resilience and The Boulder community places a high value on
to explore best practices and potential solutions to sustainability of the urban forest directly supports environmental stewardship. Engaging with and educating
address the challenges and opportunities identified the resilience of the community. The priorities of this the community with the most current information on the
goal include; establishing a no-net-loss canopy goal, urban forest will mobilize activists and facilitate policy
developing a planting initiative that increases trees on implementation. In the development of the UFSP, many
Case Studies public and private property, increasing species diversity,

development of specific resiliency plans (climate,
stakeholders expressed a desire for a community-based
urban forest advocacy group to promote, protect, and
emergency, drought, pests etc.), and integrating urban enhance Boulder’s urban forest. Priorities to engage the
forestry goals with other city guiding documents. community are; communicating UFSP goals and plans,
by Boulder stakeholders. We explored the structure diversifying funding sources and partners, facilitating
and policies of more than 25 different programs and Manage private property tree plantings and maintenance, and
interviewed program leaders to better understand the the establishment of a partner non-profit urban forest
key components that lead to success. DRG reviewed Boulder has an exceptional Forestry program and foundation.
focused on nonprofit tree advocacy, volunteers, already implements many industry BMPs. Management
117 HOW DO WE GET THERE?
How Do We
Get There?
Goals, Priorities, Boulder Forestry will achieve this goal through smart
planning, effective management, tree protection
and community engagement. These four themes are
Actions explored in the following pages.
The UFSP analysis provides a spatial understanding of The strategic plan includes three cost scenarios,
the past, present, and future potential for tree canopy, following the city’s business planning approach that
and is a valuable tool to help managers align urban requires departments to prepare for a future without
forestry management with the community’s vision for increased revenue. This approach acknowledges the
Boulder’s urban forest. need for an effective organization to balance priorities—
and their associated expenditures—using three tiers of
In Boulder, plantable areas include 4,335 acres, and
fiscal alternatives.
within that area, 905 acres are high or very high priority
planting areas. These high and very high priority planting • The Fiscally Constrained ($) alternative plans for
areas offer the highest return on investment. prioritized spending within existing funding.
Given current losses to EAB and anticipated losses

• The Action ($$) alternative describes the
additional services or capital improvement that
to continued climate change stressors, Boulder could be undertaken when additional funding is
Forestry’s overarching 20-year goal will be to restore available.
and maintain, rather than increase, its current • The Vision ($$$) alternative represents the
canopy cover of 16%. complete set of services and facilities desired by
the community.
HOW DO WE GET THERE? 118
GOALS
Plan Manage Protect Engage
PRIORITIES PRIORITIES
• Develop and implement a 20-year Planting Plan for
public trees to support the 16% urban tree canopy cover
• Establish a dedicated, sustained funding source beyond
the departmental budget for Boulder Forestry operations
• Strengthen Boulder Forestry’s role in all city CIP projects • Provide the community with balanced and objective
to minimize damage to tree assets and canopy loss. information to assist them in understanding the problems,
by 2037. to increase the level of service to meet the community’s alternatives and options to achieve the Boulder urban tree
• Participate in an inter-departmental Urban Ecosystems

high standards. • Public Property to increase tree protection, improve
Strengthen existing city requirements for trees on canopy goal.
Management Strategic planning process to integrate
ecosystem protection and monitoring across urban,
• Expand the Public Tree Planting program to support
efforts toward the goal of 16% canopy by 2037.
site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity
• Partner with the community on projects to broaden
knowledge, support and funding for the Boulder urban
agricultural and wildland systems. increase forest resiliency. tree canopy goal.
• Create an Urban Forest Emergency Response Plan for

• Shift management responsibility for all trees in public
street ROW and around public buildings under Boulder • Strengthen existing and develop new city requirements • Develop and expand opportunities for community
citywide coordination to ensure appropriate coverage and Forestry to maximize advantages in expertise and scale. for Private Property to increase tree protection, improve involvement in the commitment to achieve the Urban
minimize risk to the public. site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity Tree Canopy goal.
• Increase investment in proactive, preventative
maintenance by exploring options to increase the
increase forest resiliency. • Involve the public on the analysis, alternatives and
frequency of pruning events for public street trees. recommendations for further urban forestry related
• Refine the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program • performing tree work in Boulder to improve public safety
Revise licensing requirements for all tree care companies planning processes and potential code changes.
to improve tree health while minimizing cost and negative and tree health.
impacts to ecosystems and the public.
• Streamline the Tree Safety Inspection Program (TSIP)

to manage risk and minimize City exposure to claims as
well as reduce the financial and logistical costs on forestry
operations.
• Continue implementation of the EAB response strategy

to maintain public safety, ecosystem services, and forest
function in the face of unprecedented canopy loss.
• Transition to a common software Asset Management

System to allow efficient forestry business processes
across city work groups and provide essential baseline data
for strategic forest management.
• Continue to explore all wood utilization options to

improve resiliency to increased cost or disappearance of
any single waste stream.
• Explore the expansion of the Commercial Tree Program

(CTP) beyond the immediate downtown area to maintain
urban tree canopy, protect property and better manage
public safety issues.
• Develop a staff succession plan within Forestry to

encourage continual professional development and
facilitate transitions in leadership to minimize disruption
to operations.
• Deliver a State of the Urban Forest Report biennially for

elected officials, key urban forest stakeholders, and the
public.
PLAN
Urban forestry is an important part of Boulder’s resilience strategy. Resilience is the ability of a community to prepare for and respond effectively to stress.
Some stressors occur suddenly, like the 2013 flood, drought, and invasive pests. Others take their toll over time, including ever-increasing maintenance costs,
ongoing development pressure, and the senescence of large specimen trees. Whatever the stressor, what is most important is that resilient communities not
only bounce back from these challenges but also "bounce forward." These resilient communities preserve the quality of life today and improve their legacy for
future generations. Boulder’s urban forest serves as a buffer to many community stressors, providing cooling shade, cleaner air, and a reduction in stormwater
runoff to avoid sudden and more severe flooding. Increasing the resilience of the urban forest directly supports the resilience of the community.
The following priorities and actions support this goal:
Timeframe Cost Priorities and Actions
Year 1. Develop and implement a 20-year Planting Plan for public trees to support the 16% urban tree
$$ canopy cover by 2037.
1-5
a. Outline achievable canopy cover goals by maintenance district, accounting for current canopy level, land use, soils, irrigation, vulnerability
to heat islands and storm water, community desires and equity.
b. Determine ideal percentages for species diversity at every scale from block, to maintenance district to citywide.
c. Conduct urban tree canopy (UTC) analysis every ten (10) years to record changes and progress towards community canopy goals.
d. Conduct tree resource analysis every ten (10) years to record changes and progress towards planting and diversification goals.
e. Identify species that will be resilient to potentially drier, hotter conditions of Boulder’s future climate.
f. Identify baseline species diversity within maintenance districts, develop lists of desirable species for each maintenance district and
establish diversification goals per maintenance district. Prioritize large stature shade trees to maximize leaf area and ecosystem service
provision per tree.
g. Establish a specific number of plantings for each year through 2037. Prioritize tree planting within neighborhoods based on canopy
priorities. Focus tree planting where community need is greatest.
h. Ensure tree planting and diversification goals are included and prioritized within all city projects.
i. Future planting schedules will be adjusted to account for any season that falls short of its goal.
j. Develop process to monitor survival of new plantings and modify planting schedule to account for losses.
k. Develop process to comprehensively reassess canopy by maintenance district every ten years to determine if progress is proportional to
goals. This evaluation process should include revisiting planting plans if the program is not on track to meet 2037 goals.
Year 2. Participate in an inter-departmental Urban Ecosystems Management Strategic planning process

$
1-5 to integrate ecosystem protection and monitor across urban, agricultural and wildland systems.
c. Participate in a consortium of environmental planners, activists, researchers, and organizations to develop an integrated ecosystems
management strategy that can address increasing environmental threats and build on opportunities to enhance ecosystems and ecosystem
services in and around the city.
d. Collaborate on the Plan with staff from multiple departments such as OSMP, Long Range Planning, Public Works, Utilities, etc.
Year 3. Create an Urban Forest Emergency Response Plan for citywide coordination to ensure appropriate
$$ coverage and minimize risk to the public.
6-10 d. The response plan should include branch clean-up efforts, wind/snow storms, floods, and planning for each stage of drought.
e. Using data from the 2002 drought and other dry periods, prioritize trees within city parks based upon species, size, contribution to the
site and overall value to the community to maintain adequate tree canopy.
f. Determine which areas of park landscapes should be irrigated to preserve highest priority trees based on drought severity and duration
and use appropriate amount and timing of irrigation for species preservation in line with water conservation goals.
g. Keep watering regimes during drought conditions in mind when designing future park irrigation systems.
h. Ensure adequate water for trees in median areas during periods of mild to moderate drought.
i. Work with the Utilities Division to establish temporary modified water budgets for parks during periods of drought and when establishing
new landscapes when original landscapes were impacted by natural hazard.
j. Clarify roles of city personnel for coordination, communication, pruning/removal of public trees, and debris cleanup management in the
event of wind or snow storms or other local natural disasters causing major damage to trees.
k. Develop criteria for appropriate levels of city inclusion into branch clean-up efforts based upon storm impacts; criteria may include:
Minor events - residents responsible for their own debris removal; Moderate events - limb drop-off services provided by the city; Major
events – citywide clean-up.
MANAGE
Boulder has an exceptional Forestry program and already implements many industry BMPs, from selecting quality nursery stock, to regular maintenance and
pruning, to the removal process when salvageable wood is utilized. Boulder’s 50,800 public trees are maintained and inspected regularly, with their history
and status tracked in a management database. Since 2013, the personnel, training, equipment, and budget to support these activities has not kept pace with
community expectations, leading to longer pruning cycles, increasing response times, and some deferred maintenance. Reasons for this include the steeply
increasing costs of contract pruning and traffic control plans and an unprecedented number of recent tree removals due to severe weather events and invasive
pests, including the EAB.
These management priorities, goals, and tactics provide guidance for steering Boulder’s advanced and proactive urban forest management program back in line
with the community vision for the urban forest.
Year 1. Establish a dedicated, sustained funding source beyond the departmental budget for Boulder
$-$$$
1-10 Forestry operations to increase the level of service to meet the community’s high standards.
a. Engage executive management regarding potential funding options, such as voter-supported bonds to fund capital projects for improved
infrastructure and streetscaping along arterials and improved future maintenance.
b. Develop process to collect mitigation fees for private trees removed through development projects to increase tree planting and post-
planting care.
c. Identify the funding mechanism when new public trees are added through development.
d. Research the ability to use urban forest planting and/or preservation projects to earn carbon credits and create an additional funding
source.
e. Allocate funding to temporarily increase the annual tree planting budget for ten years to support urban tree canopy goal.
f. Anticipate budget changes due to living wage requirements for tree planting and maintenance contractors.
g. Identify options for short-term funding to manage emergency response for tree damage after storm events, including debris management.
Year 2. Expand the Public Tree Planting program to support efforts toward the goal of 16% canopy by 2037.
$$
1-5 a. Develop a more strategic approach to species and site selection to ensure the resilience and optimize ecosystem service provision of
Boulder’s urban forest.
b. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of contracted versus In-house plantings to maximize available resources.
c. Increase the number of trees planted on public property to support urban tree canopy goal.
d. Coordinate with other city departments to maximize the number of trees planted through CIP projects.
e. Collaborate with nurseries to propagate a more diverse palette of trees that tracks Boulder’s diversity requirements and updated planting
recommendations. Determine if nurseries may offer discounts for lower income families.
f. Continue collaboration with regional urban forest managers to explore opportunities for cost-sharing and bulk pricing for tree stock and/
or growing trees through multi-year contracts.
g. Experiment with new tree species to assess their performance in Boulder’s climate. Establish a pilot for different nursery stock to assess
potential inclusion in procurement/planting processes.
h. Develop a consistent methodology to monitor and track new planting survivability long-term.
i. Formalize and document planting program business processes with a focus on entering new trees into inventory and assigning early growth
stage maintenance at planting.
Year 3. Shift management responsibility for all trees in public street ROW and around public buildings
$ under Boulder Forestry to maximize advantages in expertise and scale.
6-10 a. Collaborate with other city work groups to document current public tree assets and jurisdictions.
b. Calculate the cost maintaining existing trees outside of Boulder Forestry jurisdiction and identify potential funding sources for all
maintenance.
c. Initiate conversation between departments regarding consolidation of city owned trees under Boulder Forestry along with proportional
resources.
d. Collaborate with Public Works on protocol for clearance pruning, including training of Public Works staff and joint pruning operations.
e. Collaborate with flood utilities to develop proactive tree removal plan for ash trees infested with EAB along creek flood ways.
Year 4. Increase investment in proactive, preventative maintenance by exploring options to increase

$$-$$$
1-5 the frequency of pruning events for public street trees.
a. Maintain the current eight-year pruning rotation for city park trees to address structural defects in trees before time and growth make
them costly and hazardous.
b. Phase in the reduction of the systematic pruning rotation for street trees from the current 14 years to the industry recommended
eight years while expanding the number of size classes pruned. Evaluate progress annually to ensure program is moving towards the
eight-year goal.
c. Estimate cost/benefit of expanding pruning rotation to include Flatirons Golf Course.
d. Develop a process to standardize and assign follow-up work and structural prunes on young trees.
e. Annually revisit contract specifications and in-house policies and directives to ensure that tree care operations adhere to current
industry standards, including ANSI A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations, ANSI Z133.1-2012 for Arboricultural Operations Safety
Requirements, and ISA Series BMPs.
f. Ensure that all tree care operations comply with federal and state wildlife protection requirements. Forests in natural areas should be
managed as minimally as possible to preserve wildlife habitat, natural resource value, and creek integrity.
g. Strengthen contracting process to be more consistent: check all contracts for completion and consistency, coordinate with purchasing
office instead of directly through the city attorney’s office to streamline contracting process, develop continuing services agreements
in addition to our annual services agreements.
h. Streamline and coordinate traffic control to require tree care companies subcontract work, or allow tree care contractors to directly
invoice Forestry for needed traffic control.
i. Train park staff to provide young tree clearance pruning to reduce demand for clearance pruning in parks.
j. Explore cost/benefit and funding mechanisms for establishing a second in-house crew.
5. Refine the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program to improve tree health while minimizing
Year
$ cost and negative impacts to ecosystems and the public.
1-5 a. Ensure BMPs are followed for the maintenance of all diseased/infested trees for both public and private property.
b. Continually read current scientific literature, attend conferences, consult with researchers, and meet with vendors to identify new
solutions to pest problems.
c. Annually review and update specifications for applicators.
d. Establish pilot program to conduct select injection treatments in-house to reduce contracted cost and increase logistical flexibility.
e. Develop a pesticide permitting process for private treatment of public street trees with the notification requirement on the applicator
rather than the property owner.
f. Evaluate public requests to apply pesticides to public street trees to ensure application will not conflict with city policy or unacceptably
impact human health or ecological function.
Year 6. Streamline the Tree Safety Inspection Program (TSIP) to manage risk and minimize City exposure
$ to claims as well as reduce the financial and logistical costs on forestry operations.
1-5
a. Ensure that forestry staff are Tree Risk qualified through the International Society of Arboriculture and that risk assessments are
conducted by qualified arborists.
b. Document TSIP processes to facilitate its transition to Beehive. Explore whether tree risk can be managed through other existing
programs and workflows after Beehive transition.
c. Reduce size of program by streamlining hazard surveys and developing specific, stringent guidelines for trees to be included in program
and a process for removing trees from program when risk is mitigated through pruning or target relocation.
d. Develop guidelines for using different classes of inspection that are proportional to likely tree risk and reasonable given the size of
the resource.
e. Shift to industry recommendations for inspection of hardware (cables/bracing) in public trees.
7. Continue implementation of the EAB response strategy to maintain public safety, ecosystem
Ongoing $$
services, and forest function in the face of unprecedented canopy loss.
a. Continue to partner with Colorado EAB Response team on EAB management including biocontrol releases.
b. Increase the diversity of tree species on public property and induce or incentivize planting on private property and through development.
c. Evaluate public ash scheduled for treatment annually and ensure trees still meet criteria for treatment.
d. Continue to proactively remove ash before they present an unacceptable risk to the public or overwhelm staff management capacity.
e. Strengthen and continue collaboration with other departments to assist with private tree enforcement.
f. Increase the timeframes for compliance with enforcement of private property tree removals to allow for local contractors’ scheduling
concerns, and send “pre-notices” for property owners so they have more time to react before trees become higher risk.
g. Control invasive plants by collaborating with other departments on the re-vegetation of existing natural areas.
h. Train Public Works staff to monitor trees along bike paths under Public Works jurisdiction for public safety.
Year 8. Transition to a common software Asset Management System to allow efficient forestry business
$ processes across city work groups and provide essential baseline data for strategic forest
1-5 management.
a. Document data management processes for transition to Beehive.
b. Conduct staff trainings to ensure business process implementation for Beehive.
c. Develop, adopt and execute uniform work flows for asset management software across City work groups programs.
d. Adhere to uniform business processes for data entry and management to ensure the tree inventory remains up-to-date, accurate,
functional across work groups, and resilient to employee turnover.
e. Ensure all private pesticide applications to public trees are entered into the Forestry Asset Management System.
f. Develop protocol for documenting and protecting habitat of protected species on Forestry assets during Beehive transition.
g. Streamline the integration of information collected from the Citizen Science 100 Resilient Cities program into city databases.
h. Conduct a resource analysis every ten years, including population, structure, replacement value, and tree services.
i. Conduct a canopy analysis every ten years, including land cover, ecosystem services, changes over time, and land use.
9. Continue to explore all wood utilization options to improve resiliency to increased cost or
Ongoing $ disappearance of any single waste stream.
a. Continue to divert all wood resources away from the landfill.
b. Develop distribution processes for all wood resources and document the annual amount of wood re-purposed and its end-use.
c. Continually evaluate new end-uses for urban wood waste and process improvements for woodlot.
Year 10. Explore the expansion of the Commercial Tree Program (CTP) beyond the immediate downtown
$$ area to maintain urban tree canopy, protect property and better manage public safety issues.
6-10
a. Analyze inventory data and determine cost to expand program focusing on higher priority areas such as those with less canopy coverage.
b. Coordinate with Community Planning and Sustainability to ensure all landscaping requirements for both public and private property are
met and enforced.
c. Build a database of commercial properties with potential planting sites and owner contact information to assist with future outreach
efforts.
Year 11. Develop a staff succession plan within Forestry to encourage continual professional development
$ and facilitate transitions in leadership to minimize disruption to operations.
1-5
a. Formalize policies to develop personnel capable of assuming leadership positions.
b. Identify minimum educational and certification requirements for supervisory positions and make time and resources available to junior
staff to pursue those qualifications.
c. Encourage and accommodate employee participation in trainings, particularly supervisory trainings.
d. Conduct regular staff trainings on asset management software, young tree structural pruning, and emerging urban forest challenges and
opportunities.
12. Deliver a State of the Urban Forest Report biennially for elected officials, key urban forest
Ongoing $ stakeholders, and the public.
a. Include updated benchmark numbers for trees planted, removed, pruned, and changes to the overall community urban forest.
b. Integrate into Annual Plan reviews.
PROTECT
The urban forest represents a valuable asset, one which must be nurtured and protected. One of the key directions from the stakeholder interviews and
community meetings was a directive to maintain and preserve existing trees. This is accomplished through municipal code, policies, and design and construction
standards that support tree planting and longevity. In most cases, these code revisions are small adjustments to sound existing policies.
Year 1. Strengthen Boulder Forestry’s role in all city CIP projects to minimize damage to tree assets
$$-$$$
1-5 and canopy loss.
a. Emphasize public trees as essential infrastructure and the need to preserve individual trees and maintain urban tree canopy in light
of climate change.
b. Prioritize the upgrade of streetscaping along arterials to allow for trees long-term through Capital Improvement projects, including
installation of water-efficient, permanent irrigation systems (example locations include 30th St, Iris Ave.).
c. Participate in the development of Park Design and Construction Standards, processes, and contract templates.
d. Collaborate with CIP project teams to identify best way to formalize Forestry participation in the planning process to identify potential
impacts on trees and advise on alternative or mitigative approaches.
e. Formalize Forestry participation during construction so that impacts to trees can be monitored and minimized.
f. Formalize Forestry participation post-construction to ensure follow-up care on newly planted trees and enforce warranty replacements.
g. Increase the planting of large maturing, drought tolerant species on all public projects requiring improved tree diversity.
h. Require mitigation for significant, desirable public trees removed through CIP projects when equal public replacements cannot be
planted on-site. Provide multiple options for mitigation calculations rather than only appraised value to ensure equitable calculations
and minimize staff time.
i. Require adequate planting space (soil volume) for all new tree plantings based on industry BMPs. Integrate structural cells whenever
possible, and as funding allows, in commercial areas for all projects.
j. Require, through code, all new plantings have a water efficient, permanent irrigation system maintained for the life of the tree.
k. Explore hiring temporary forestry inspectors for bond-related parks and transportation CIP projects involving trees.
l. Review policies and enforcement for slacklining pilot project utilizing trees in city parks.
Year 2. Strengthen existing city requirements for trees on Public Property to increase tree protection,
$ improve site preparation, and strengthen tree species diversity requirements to maintain the
1-5
urban tree canopy and increase forest resiliency.
a. Review and update current ordinances and the city Design and Construction Standards to reduce ambiguity in tree protection standards,
increase requirements for tree planting and diversity, emphasize location of new trees for urban heat island mitigation, and develop
guidelines for tree management and planting to accommodate both a growing urban tree canopy and solar panels.
b. Review approved public tree planting list biennially to add or replace species based on performance or new information. Maintain
species list as a separate document from code or standards to streamline updates.
c. Require adequate planting space (soil volume) for all new tree plantings based on industry BMPs. Integrate structural cells with
stormwater inlet option whenever possible in commercial areas for all projects. Consider permaculture concepts to build soil nutrition
and capture rainwater.
d. Improve stormwater management with green infrastructure on public property through private development, including minimum
green infrastructure requirements for new and redeveloped sites.
e. Require all new plantings have a water efficient, permanent irrigation system maintained for the life of the tree. Enforce existing
requirements for irrigation and mulching for public street trees by adjacent property owners.
f. Formalize consequences for unpermitted pesticide applications to public trees. Update code to address enforcement and penalties.
Year 3. Strengthen existing and develop new city requirements for Private Property to increase tree
$$
6-10 protection, improve site preparation, and strengthen tree species diversity requirements to
maintain the urban tree canopy and increase forest resiliency.
a. Benchmark tree protection and diversity requirements for other cities as a comparison.
b. Develop five-year public engagement plan for city code, city manager rule, policy, and guideline updates. Update codes to align with
the community vision for tree protection and mitigation for private property trees and phase in gradually over a specified period of
time.
c. Update tree protection requirements in city codes and City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and related permitting
processes to protect and prevent the removal of existing trees prior to acquiring an approved landscape plan.
d. Require mitigation for significant, desirable private trees removed through development projects when replacements cannot be
planted on-site. Provide multiple options for mitigation calculations rather than only appraised value to reduce staff time needed.
e. Update codes to improve, inspect and enforce long-term maintenance of landscape requirements on private property.
f. Add personnel necessary to oversee and monitor tree protection during construction on private property.
g. Require adequate planting space (soil volume) for all new tree plantings based on industry BMPs. Integrate structural cells with
stormwater inlet option whenever possible in commercial areas for all projects. Consider permaculture concepts to build soil
nutrition and capture rainwater.
h. Improve stormwater management with green infrastructure on private property through private development, including minimum
green infrastructure requirements for new and redeveloped sites.
i. Review parking lot shade guidelines and enforcement. Strengthen policies to provide increased shade within a 20-year establishment
period.
j. Update codes to add appeals process for enforcement of tree nuisance abatement on private property and lengthen the timeframe
for remedy to timeframe appropriate for tree and site conditions.
Year 4. Revise licensing requirements for all tree care companies performing tree work in Boulder to improve
$
1-5 public safety and tree health.
a. Explore requirement for all licensed tree contractors to obtain the ISA certified arborist certification and provide proof of formal safety training
by licensees.
b. Use meetings, newsletters, and trainings to increase contact with licensees, strengthen the high-quality of tree care, and ensure knowledge
of pertinent city codes.
c. Continue to increase accessibility of licensing process and website to accommodate different languages and disabilities.
d. Formalize protocol for responding to wildlife in trees during pruning or removal operations for both city staff and contractors.
e. Develop protocol for response by contractors when conflict with protected animal species cannot be avoided.
f. Develop enforcement mechanism to ensure company compliance with all licensing requirements, city codes and natural resource protection
requirements.
ENGAGE
The Boulder community places a high value on environmental stewardship. In the development of the UFSP, many stakeholders expressed a desire for a
community-based urban forest advocacy group to support environmental stewardship and promote, protect, and enhance Boulder’s urban forest. Connecting
with and educating the community with the most current information on the urban forest will mobilize activists and facilitate policy implementation. Specific
priorities include; opportunities to establish and promote a deeper understanding of the year-round benefits of trees, challenges and opportunities facing the
urban forest, opportunities for volunteers and collaboration, updates to the Forestry website, the development of specific outreach materials for new plan
components (e.g., drought, landscaping, EAB), and print material outreach such as updated door hangers.
Priorities to engage the community are; communicating UFSP goals and plans, diversifying funding sources and partners, facilitating private property tree
plantings and maintenance, establishing a partner non-profit urban forest foundation and using the forestry website, flyers, tabling events, tree talks, and
social messaging to connect with the Boulder community.
Year 1. Provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding
$ the problems, alternatives, and options to achieve the Boulder urban tree canopy goal.
1-5
a. Formalize clear and consistent design and language for Boulder Forestry outreach materials.
i. Hire a professional firm to develop and execute a consistent outreach strategy outside of the capacity of the department.
ii. Coordinate the outreach strategy as citywide rather than a departmental effort.
iii. Communicate no-net-loss goal to the community and engage them in identifying and executing solutions. Create a call to action and
clearly articulate “Why Now?”
iv. Share and promote Boulder Forestry's vision, capabilities, and expertise to increase public support and willingness to fund and expand
Boulder Forestry’s role.
v. Encourage community members to act in urgency to the predicted decline of the urban tree canopy.
a. Systematically contact commercial property owners list directly and via DBI/DMC newsletters to engage with tree maintenance
activities such as watering, replacing mulch, etc. to maintain tree health.
vi. Promote public tree planting plan for the community to support the Urban Tree Canopy goal including; prioritized areas, diversification
goals, and maintenance guidelines.
vii. Promote drought preparedness messaging to the community to minimize loss and/or damage including; basic steps to conserve water
while preserving trees, when and how much to irrigate trees, how to conduct simple inspections of their irrigation system, and identify
over watering and advantages of drought tolerant trees compared to low water use trees.
viii. Promote the public tree EAB response plan for the community to provide the available community actions to respond constructively to
the anticipated impact.
a. Increase public outreach and notification so residents are aware of full scope of EAB impact and urgency and what they can do to
support and sustain the urban canopy.
b. Develop outreach campaign for applicators and residents to increase awareness and compliance with pesticide permitting process.
c. Promote timely removal and replacement of dead/dying ash trees on private property for safety.
d. Develop sign designs and a plan for ash tree removals in high traffic areas, like the Boulder Creek Path for education and awareness
for community members and visitors.
e. Inform public of vetted resources available, such as the planting plan, for replacement options to support canopy goals and public
safety.
ix. Promote individual forestry programs and respective strategies, especially sensitive programs such as Integrated Pest Management.
x. Update Boulder Forestry notification door hangers;
a. Evaluate the tree removal notification process to ensure residents understand the timeline and reasons for specific tree removals.
b. Develop educational door hangers (i.e. cartoon of thirsty tree to get residents to water routinely).
c. Develop door hangers to explain why some trees must be treated with pesticides.
b. Continue to update and improve the Boulder Forestry website.
i. Increase user access to key information and resources.
ii. Publicize current canopy characteristics such as population size, diversity, and ecosystem services compared to 2037 goals.
iii. Maintain a public-facing tree inventory platform for resident information, requests. This platform can also serve as a place to calculate
and publicize ecosystem services.
iv. Add a dynamic map of contracted work and rotational pruning schedules.
v. Provide easy access to or integrate licensing and permitting process workflows.
vi. Highlight interesting and fun apps and tools already available, such as the Notable Tree List and public tree identification.
vii. Develop a digital platform for people to build community through shared passion for trees and the natural environment.
viii. Educate the public about why and which pesticides are used.
ix. Provide transparent budget and cost information for all policy actions.
x. Create a system for public suggestions for process improvement ideas.
c. Continue existing youth educational programs.
i. Continue partnership with city utilities to educate youth about trees through the Water Festival.
ii. Continue seedling giveaway to Boulder Valley School District elementary students.
d. Collaborate with private tree care companies to disseminate outreach materials and educate residents on behalf of Boulder.
e. Increase the use of social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) to better communicate with residents to build advocacy.
2. Partner with the community on projects to broaden knowledge, support and funding for the
Year
$ Boulder urban tree canopy goal.
1-5 c. Support the development of a non-profit urban forest foundation or tree trust to support canopy goals and management.
iv. Facilitate the development of a staff leadership team to direct the vision and capacity building of the emerging non-profit.
v. Define the level of resources, staff, and funding that the department will allocate to a non-profit partner.
vi. Define success criteria for continued support of a non-profit.
vii. Identify and develop strategies with partners to solve community challenges through trees, for example: jobs training for youth.
viii. Explore partnerships that can identify and support opportunities for grants, diversified funding, new partnerships, crowd-funding, etc.
b. Continue to work with partners to expand waste utilization strategies to accommodate anticipated increase in debris.
iii. Develop new or expand existing wood product markets for wood utilization.
iv. Communicate opportunities to end-users of wood to maximize re-use.
e. Identify and develop strategies with partners to remove barriers to volunteer participation for all community members, such as webinars
to aid with time challenges.
Year 3. Develop and expand opportunities for community involvement in the commitment to achieve the
$$
1-10 Urban Tree Canopy goal.
a. Continue to engage neighborhoods with volunteer tree planting events. Prioritize those areas with lower urban tree canopy or those
greatly impacted by EAB.
b. Identify and partner with vendors or sponsors to defray planting and ash removals costs for private property owners.
i. Continue to facilitate and/or subsidize tree planting for private property owners through existing tree-giveaways and sales.
ii. Explore partnerships that can identify and support opportunities for grants and financial assistance for low-income residents and non-
profits to facilitate tree removal and planting or help defray costs.
iii. Provide cost-sharing, free replacement trees, or incentives for private property tree planting.
iv. Explore options for grants and financial assistance or a payback program for low income residents or non-profits to facilitate tree
removal costs.
v. Offer mini-grants to subsidize private plantings and assist neighborhoods in tree planting efforts.
vi. Work strategically with other Boulder Forestry programs to source high-quality, diverse, low cost nursery stock. Tree requests are
made online and distributed at neighborhood events to facilitate easy transport.
vii. Provide information on proper tree planting and free mulch at tree giveaways/sales.
viii. Develop strategies to remove barriers to participation for all community members.
ix. Ensure tree planting programs are championed by an NGO or community leader to provide an alternative and effective voice in
communicating the critical nature of the current situation.
c. Recruit and train committed volunteers.
i. Assist with forestry maintenance activities and general support.
ii. Emulate tactics from local other local organizations that are successful in activating volunteers.
iii. Educate engaged advocates that understand the community’s unique urban forestry challenges, opportunities, policies, and funding
sources.
iv. Develop and implement additional youth engagement opportunities.
a. Develop additional opportunities such as photo contests, apps, interactive websites, etc.
b. Coordinate with BVSD on an environmental educational program for elementary-aged children.
c. Develop an arborist/green industry job training program for youth.
v. Develop a community urban forestry newsletter collaboration between Boulder Forestry staff and volunteers.
vi. Provide opportunities for volunteers to take on leadership roles. Trainees become advocates for the urban forest, armed with knowledge
of area trees, policies, and threats.
d. Perform community satisfaction measurements and track participation in outreach events.
i. Create and deliver biannual surveys for urban forest stakeholders to ensure that management strategies continue to be aligned with
the community’s vision for the urban forest.
ii. Conduct annual UFSP reviews; update available resources, opportunities, and changes in community expectations.
Year 4. Involve the public on the analysis, alternatives, and recommendations for further urban forestry
$ related planning processes and potential code changes.
1-5
a. Provide multiple opportunities for input from the public on Boulder Forestry Emergency Response Plan and Urban Ecosystems Management
Plan.
b. Work with an outside consultant to develop a five-year public engagement plan for City code, city manager rule, policy, process and
guideline updates pertaining to both public and private property trees.
c. Convene a group of stakeholders to review benchmarks and develop options and recommendations.
d. Hold community listening sessions to gauge public support for input on updates to City codes and policies.
e. Provide multiple opportunities for feedback; require a clear and transparent process with the community.
137 HOW ARE WE DOING?
How Are We
State of the Urban Forest Report
This report, delivered to elected officials and key urban
forest stakeholders every two years, includes numbers of
trees planted and removed, and changes to the overall
Doing?
community urban forest (e.g., structure, services,
and value). It will serve as a performance report to
stakeholders, and as an opportunity for engagement. The
data will be used to highlight the successful attainment
of UFSP priorities as well as to inform stakeholders
about any issues or stumbling blocks. This information
can be integrated into urban forest managers’ Annual
Resource Analysis Plan Reviews and be used to pursue additional project
Monitoring and Boulder urban forest managers can update the tree
support and funding.
Measuring Results resource analysis over time and in conjunction with

inventory database updates. The structure, replacement
Community Satisfaction
The UFSP is a living document and city staff must value, and tree services were initially quantified in The results of the UFSP will include measurable
identify timeframes for reviewing accomplishments and 2015. Future studies can compare changes against these improvements to efficiency and reductions in
updating targets dates for action items. benchmarks. This allows for the evaluation of changes maintenance costs. Over time, Boulder will need to
in tree condition, species diversity, services, and overall prepare people for bigger and longer-term benefits.
Achievement of UFSP goals will affect several positive
Annual Plan Review and Update resource value. A recommended action of the UFSP is
changes. These changes will support better tree health
to complete this analysis every ten years to illustrate
The UFSP is an active tool that will guide management progress and success towards UFSP goals. and greater longevity, and also help prevent tree
and planning decisions over the next 20 years. The failures. Meeting community expectations for the care
goals, priorities, and actions will be reviewed yearly for
progress and integration into annual work plans. The
Canopy Analysis and preservation of the urban forest resource is an
important measure of success. Community satisfaction
UFSP presents a long-range vision with timeframes that Canopy changes can occur gradually or suddenly. Using can be measured through surveys, community meetings,
are intended to be flexible. This will allow management GIS analysis, managers can measure and illustrate and public support for the UFSP. Community satisfaction
to adapt in response to emerging opportunities, available changes in overall land cover as well as by neighborhood can also be reflected by the level of engagement and
resources, and changes in community expectations. and land-use. This information can be used to inform support for urban forest programs. A periodic survey of
Each year, specific areas of focus should be identified, canopy goals and monitor attainment. A canopy study urban forest stakeholders will help managers ensure
which will inform budget and time requirements for should be conducted every ten years, or after major that management strategies continue to be aligned with
urban forest managers. canopy-impacting events as needed. the community’s vision for the urban forest.
HOW ARE WE DOING? 138
139 APPENDIX
• Boulder. February 4, 2014. Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/MP_Layout_V7.8_
Final_sm-1-201404020833.pdf
Appendix
• Boulder. January 17, 2018. Municipal Ordinance. https://library.
municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code
• Boulder. May 2017. Boulder’s Climate Commitment. https://

www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/City_of_Boulder_Climate_
Commitment_5.9.2017-1-201705091634.pdf
• Boulder. October 2004. Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan.

https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/comprehensive-
flood-stormwater-utility-master-plan-1-201406101202.pdf
• Boulder.
on
September 8, 2015. City Council 2015 Study Session
EAB. https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/
• Boise, 2013. Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy Assessment https:// Binder1-1-201703031712.pdf
References
parks.cityofboise.org/BoardAgendas/Board2013/130919-ExhibitC-Tr
easureValleyTreeCanopyAssessmentResults.pdf • Ciesla, William M. 2001. Tomicus piniperda. North American Forest
Commission. Exotic Forest Pest Information System for North America
• Boulder. 1999. Forest Ecosystem Management Plan. https://www- (EXFOR). Can be accessed through: http://spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/
• Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/femp-1-201304101140.pdf data/pestreports.cfm?pestidval=86&langdisplay=english
savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings 25:139–148.
• Boulder. 2000. Boulder’s Design and Construction Standards: • Ciesla, William M.; Kruse, James J. 2009. Large Aspen Tortrix. Forest
• Akbari, H., 2002. Shade trees reduce building energy use and
CO2 emissions from power plants. Environmental pollution, 116,
Streetscape Design and Tree Protection. https://bouldercolorado.
gov/plan-develop/design-construction-standards
Insect & Disease Leaflet 139. United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. 8 p. Can be accessed through: http://www.fs.fed.us/
• Boulder.
pp.S119-S126. r6/nr/fid/fidls/fidl-139.pdf
2015. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan https://www-
• Anderson, L.M.; H.K. Cordell. 1988. Influence of trees on residential static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/BVCP_2015_Update_12.6.2017_
FOR_WEB-1-201712061956.pdf
• City and County of Denver. 2016. Emerald Ash Borer Devastation
Photo. http://beasmartash.org/why-should-i-care/
property values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): a survey based on actual
sales prices. Landscape and Urban Planning. (15) 153–164.
• Boulder. 2017. 2017 Annual Budget Volume I. https:// • Clark JR, Matheny NP, Cross G, Wake V. 1997. A model of urban forest
• Aspen, 2016. Aspen Sustainability Report. https://aspenpitkin.com/ www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2017_Annual_ sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1):17-30.
Portals/0/docs/Sustainability%20Report/FinalSustainabilityReport.
pdf
B u d g e t _ Vo l _ I _ _ _ f i n a l _ o n l i n e - 1 - 2 0 1 7 0 1 1 1 1 4 1 8 . p d f ? _
ga=2.256099144.2123841140.1502051515-32090278.1502051515 • Clarke, Stephen R.; Nowak, J.T. 2009. Southern Pine Beetle. Forest
Insect & Disease Leaflet 49. United States Department of Agriculture,
• Atlanta. January 2003. City of Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinances.
http://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=21234
• Boulder. 2017. Climate Action Plan. https://www-static.
bouldercolorado.gov/docs/CAP_document_2017_updated_
Forest Service. 8 p. Photo. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/fidls/
fidl-49.pdf
• Balogun, A.A., Morakinyo, T.E. and Adegun, O.B., 2014. Effect of

FINAL-1-201709121536.pdf
• Clean Energy Collective. 2018. About CEC. http://www.cleanenergyco.
tree-shading on energy demand of two similar buildings. Energy and
buildings, 81, pp.305-315.
• Boulder. 2018. Tree Safety Inspection Program (TSIP). https://
bouldercolorado.gov/forestry/forestry-programs
com/ Davey Resource Group. 2015. Urban Forest Resource Analysis:
Boulder, Colorado. 76 pages.
• Bennett, Andrew F. 1990. "Habitat corridors and the conservation • Boulder. August 6, 2015. Urban Wildlife Management Plan. https://
bouldercolorado.gov/wildlife/urban-wildlife-management-plan
• Davey Resource Group. June, 2017. Urban Forest Strategic Plan: Case
Studies Analysis.
of small mammals in a fragmented forest environment." Landscape
Ecology 4, no. 2-3: 109-122.
• Boulder. February 2016. Living wage Resoultion 926. https://
bouldercolorado.gov/community-relations/living-wage
APPENDIX 140
• Davidson, K., A. Hallberg, D. McCubbin, and B. Hubbell. 2007. Analysis

of PM2.5 Using the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis
• Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A.,
Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D. and
• Houck, J.E. Tiegs, P.E, McCrillis, R.C. Keithley, C. and Crouch, J.
1998. Air emissions from residential heating: the wood heating option
Program (BenMAP). Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Cook, W.M., 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on put into environmental perspective. In: Proceedings of U.S. EPA and
Part A 70(3): 332-346. Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(2), p.e1500052. Air Waste Management Association Conference: Living in a Global
• Day, • Hartman,
Environment, V.1: 373-384.
Eric R. Tuesday, December 9, 2008. Emerald Ash Borer S-Curve Katherine. 2016. Growing Climate Resilience: An Urban
Photo. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Bugwood.org. Forest Design Framework Climatic Change. ResearchWorks At the • Hough, M., 2002. Cities and natural process. Routledge.
• Huang,
https://www.insectimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=5382317 University of Washington. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/
J., H. Akbari, and H. Taha. 1990. The Wind-Shielding
• Denver,
researchworks/handle/1773/38165
2013. Metro Denver Urban Forest Assessment. https://www. and Shading Effects of Trees on Residential Heating and Cooling
denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/747/documents/
forestry/Denver_FinalReport.pdf
• Hauer, Richard, and Ward Peterson. 2014. Municipal Forestry
Budgets and Employee Compensation. Arborist News, International
Requirements. ASHRAE Winter Meeting, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Atlanta, Georgia.
• Department • Indian
Society of Arboriculture. https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Documents/
of Agriculture. Forest Service. Forest Service Pamphlet MTCUS%20-%20Forestry/Municipal%20Forestry%20Budgets%20and%20 Nations Council of Governments [Accessed 23 June 2016]
#FS-363. Employee%20Compensation.pdf Connections 2035 Regional Transportation Plan: Population Projections.
• Dwyer,
http://www.incog.org/transportation/ connections2035/estimates/
J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., & Rowntree, R. A.
1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of
• Haugen, Dennis A.; Hoebeke, Richard E. 2005. Sirex woodwasp - Sirex population/Projected_Development_Process_Summary%20.pdf
• i-Tree
noctilio F. (Hymenoptera: Siricidae). Pest Alert. NA-PR-07-05. United
Arboriculture, 18, 227-227. States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Area State Canopy v6.1. i-Tree Software Suite. [Accessed 22 Sept 2015]
• Energy and Private Forestry. Can be accessed through: http://na.fs.fed.us/ http://www.itreetools.org/canopy

Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse
Gases in the United States 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ spfo/pubs/pest_al/sirex_woodwasp/sirex_woodwasp.htm
• i-Tree Eco v5.9. i-Tree Software Suite. [Accessed 22 Sept 2015]
ggrpt/
• Heisler GM. 1986. Energy Savings With Trees. J Arbor 12(5):113–125. http://www.itreetools.org/eco
• Energy Information Administration. 1994 Energy Use and Carbon

Emissions: Non-OECD Countries DOE/EIA-0579.
• Heisler GM., and DeWalle, O.R. 1968. "Effects of windbreak structure • i-Tree Hydro v5.0. i-Tree Software Suite. [Accessed 22 Sept 2015]
http://www.itreetools.org/hydro/index.php
on wind flow: Agriculture Ecosystems and Environments, 22123, pp.
• Energy Information Administration. 2001. Total Energy Consumption 41-69.

• Johnson, C.W., Barker, F.S. and W.S. Johnson. 1990. Urban and
in U.S. Households by Type of Housing Unit. http://www.eia.doe.
• Hirabayashi S. 2014. i-Tree Canopy Air Pollutant Removal and Monetary Community Forestry. USDA Forest Service, Ogden UT.
• Johnson,
gov/emeu/recs/contents.html. Value Model Descriptions. [Accessed 10 August 2015] http://www. Zachary S., Koski, T., and O'Conner, A. 2017. The Hidden
• Faber, T.A., & Kuo, F.E. 2009. Children with attention deficits itreetools.org/canopy/resources/iTree_Canopy_ Methodology.pdf Value of Landscapes. http://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/hortla/
concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention
• Hirabayashi, S. 2011. Urban Forest Effects-Dry Deposition (UFORE-D) Colorado_Water_2017.pdf
• Kaplan
Disorders, 12, 402-409. Model Enhancements, http://www.itreetools.org/eco/resources/ R, Kaplan S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
• Forest Health www.foresthealth.info for 2006-2010. [Accessed June UFORE-D enhancements.pdf Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30, 2016]
• Hirabayashi, S., C. Kroll, and D. Nowak. 2011. Component-based
• Karl T. Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010.
• Gallup-Healthways, 2016. State ofAmerican Well-Being 2016 Community
Well-Being Rankings. http://info.healthways.com/hubfs/Gallup-
development and sensitivity analyses of an air pollutant dry deposition
model. Environmental Modeling and Software 26(6): 804-816.
sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010. <http://news. sciencemag.org/
sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pollution.html>
Healthways%20State%20of%20American%20Well-Being_2016%20
Community%20Rankings%20vFINAL.pdf?t=1488863538439
• Hirabayashi, S., C. Kroll, and D. Nowak. 2012. i-Tree Eco Dry
Deposition Model Descriptions V 1.0 • Katovich, S. 2004. EAB Woodpecker Photo. USDA Forest Service.
https://www.invasive.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1457030
• Graham, R.L., Wright, L.L., and Turhollow, A.F. 1992. The potential
for short-rotation woody crops to reduce U.S. CO2 Emissions. Climatic
• Hoffman, J. 2016. Why vertebrate populations decline is a problem
for business. Ecosystem Services Diagram. https://www.sustrana.
Change 22:223-238. com/blog/2016/11/8/why-vertebrate-populations-decline-is-a-
• Geng, L., Xu, J., Ye, L., Zhou, W. and Zhou, K., 2015. Connections with
nature and environmental behaviors. PloS one, 10(5), p.e0127247.
problem-for-business
141 APPENDIX
• Klopfenstein, N.B., J. Juzwik, M.E. Ostry, M.-S Kim, P.J. Zambino, R.C.
Venette, B.A. Richardson, J.E Lundquist, D.J. Lodge, J.A. Glaeser,
• McAliney, Mike. 1993. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation
and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). [Accessed
10 August 2015] http://www.crh.noaa.gov
• North
S.J. Frankel, W.J. Otrosina, , P. Spaine, B.W. Geils. 2010. Invasive Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993.
American Electric Reliability Corporation. (NERC). 2009.
• McPherson,
forest pathogens: Current and future roles of Forest Service Research
and Development. In: Dix, M.E.; Britton, K., eds. A dynamic invasive E.G., 1994. Cooling urban heat islands with sustainable Transmission Vegetation Management NERC Standard FAC-003-2
species research vision: Opportunities and priorities 2009-29. Gen. landscapes. In: Platt, Rutherford H.; Rowntree, Rowan A.; Muick, Technical Reference. 2009. http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/
Tech. Rep. WO-79. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pamela C.; eds. The ecological city: preserving and restoring urban sar/FAC-003-2_White_Paper_2009Sept9.pdf
• Northeastern
Forest Service, Research and Development: 23-33. biodiversity. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press: 151-
171, pp.151-171. Area State and Private Forestry. 1998. HOW to identify
• Kruse, James; Ambourn, Angie; Zogas, Ken 2007. Aspen Leaf
Miner. Forest Health Protection leaflet. R10-PR-14. United States • McPherson, E.G., and J.R Simpson. 2003. Potential energy savings in
and manage Dutch Elm Disease. NA-PR-07-98. Newtown Square, PA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. Can be buildings by an urban tree planting programme in California. Urban State and Private Forestry. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/
accessed through: http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/spf/fhp/leaflets/ Forestry and Urban Greening 2(2):73–86. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/ howtos/ht_ded/ht_ded.htm
• Northeastern
aspen_leaf_miner.pdf programs/uesd/uep/products/cufr_415_energy-savings.pdf.
Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Asian Longhorned
• Kuhns, M. and Schmidt, T., 1988. G88-881 heating with wood i. species • McPherson, E.G., and R.A. Rowntree., 1989. Using structural measures
to compare twenty-two US street tree populations. Landscape
Beetle. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. http://www.na.fs.fed.
characteristics and volumes. Historical Materials from University of
Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, p.862. Journal, 8(1), pp.13-23 us/spfo/alb/
• Kuo, F.E. and Faber Taylor, A., 2004. A potential natural treatment for • McPherson, E.G., J. Simpson, D. Marconett, P. Peper, and E. Aguaron.
June 2008, Updated 2013. Urban Forests and Climate Change. https://
• Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest health
protection emerald ash borer home. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national
study. American journal of public health, 94(9), pp.1580-1586. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/urban-forests-and-climate-change Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State
• McPherson,
and Private Forestry. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html
• Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the
inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?. Environment and behavior,
E.G., J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, Maco, S.E., Q. Xiao. 2005.
Municipal forest benefits and costs in five U.S. cities. Journal of • Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Gypsy moth
33(3), pp.343-367. Forestry. 103(8): 411-416. digest. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
• McPherson,
Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. http://na.fs.
• Law, Kenneth R. Law. September 5, 2012. Emerald Ash Borer E.G., Q. Xiao, C. Wu, J. Simpson and J. Bartens. 2013.
Metro Denver Urban Forest Assessment. Center for Urban Forest
fed.us/fhp/gm
• Nowak
D-Hole Exit Photo. USDA APHIS PPQ, Bugwood.org. https://www.
forestryimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=5471783 Research. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Research DJ, Greenfield EJ, Hoehn RE, Lapoint E. 2013. Carbon Storage
Station, Tech. Rep. for Denver Parks and Recreation Department. and Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Community Areas of the
• Longmont, 2008. Urban Tree Canopy & CITYgreen Analysis http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/747/documents/forestry/ United States. Environmental Pollution 178: 229-236.
• OBrien,
Project Report. https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/home/ Denver_FinalReport.pdf.
Joseph. 2003. Large specimen elm tree killed by Dutch elms
•
showdocument?id=448
McPherson, EG., Xiao, Xl, Maco, S.E., VanDerZanden, A., Simpson, disease Photo. USDA Forest Service. https://www.forestryimages.
• Lyle, J.T., 1996. Regenerative design for sustainable development. J.R., Bell, N., Peper, P.J. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1301074
• Park,
John Wiley & Sons. Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Center
S.H., and R.H. Mattson. 2009. Therapeutic Influences of Plants
• Maas,
for Urban Forest Research Pacific Southwest Research Station. Fs.fed.
J, R.A. Verheij, P.P. Groenewegen, S. de Vries, and P. us/psw. in Hospital Rooms on Surgical Recovery. HortScience 44, 1:102-05.
• Pennsylvania
Spreeuwenberg. 2006. Green Space, Urbanity, and Health: How
Strong is the Relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health 60:587–592.
• Mielke, M.E. and Daughtrey, M.L. 1988. How to Identify and Control
Dogwood Anthracnose. NA-GR-18. United States Department of
Horticulutral Society. 2018. Tree Tenders. https://
phsonline.org/programs/tree-tenders
• Maco S.E., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Xiao Q. 2005.
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area. http://na.fs.fed.us/
spfo/pubs/howtos/ht_dogwd/ht_dog.htm. • Population.US.
us/co/boulder/
2018. Population of Boulder, CO. http://population.
City of Berkeley, California Municipal Tree Resource Analysis. Technical
report. Center for Urban Forest Research, US Forest Service, Davis
CA.
• Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban
Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. • Portland, 2015. Portland’s Tree Canopy Present and Future. https://
www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/509398
APPENDIX 142
• Portland. 2018. Neighborhood Tree Stewards (NTS). https://www.

portlandoregon.gov/parks/45124
• Taylor, A.F., F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 2002. Views of nature
and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children. Journal of
• Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View Through A Window May Influence Recovery
From Surgery. Science 224:420-421.
• Purdue • Wikimedia
Environmental Psychology 22: 49-63.
University. 2009. Emerald Ash Borer Life Cycle Mating and Commons. April 2017. Bumblebee Photo. https://
Eggs Photo. https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/EAB/index. • TreePhilly. 2018. TreePhilly A Program of Philadelphia Parks and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bumblebee_2007-04-19.jpg
• Wikimedia
php?page=ident/mating Recreation. http://treephilly.org/
Commons. July 6, 2010. Emerald Ash Borer Adult Photo.
• Riffkin, 2014. Boulder, Colo., Residents Still Least Likely to Be Obese.
Web. http://www.gallup.com/poll/168230/boulder-colo-residents-
• Trust for America’s Health (TAH). September 2015. The State of
Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agrilus_planipennis_001.
jpg
• Tulsa • Wikimedia
least-likely-obese.aspx
World. March 6, 2016. 10,000th tree planted in Tulsa as part of Commons. May 1972. Eureka Area (CA) Smog Photo. https://
• Resolution No. 1159: A Resolution concerning the use of neonicotinoid
pesticides in the city of Boulder. 2015. Can be accessed through:
ReGreen Tulsa initiative. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/
th-tree-planted-in-tulsa-as-part-of-regreen-tulsa/article_b4aa2699-
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SMOG_OVER_INDUSTRIAL_
HUMBOLDT_BAY-EUREKA_AREA_-_NARA_-_543001.jpg
• Wikimedia
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/resolution- 7ec7-59cc-8198-370b7418e281.html
Commons. October 2006. Emerald Ash Borer Larva Photo.
•
concerning-use-neonicontinoid-pesticides-boulder-1-201504101408.
pdf Two Forks Collective. 2016. Community Input Report https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eablarva.jpg
• Rexrode, Charles O.; Brown, H. Daniel 1983. Oak Wilt. Forest Insect • U.S. Department of Agriculture. Emerald Ash Borer Adult Photo. May
2013. https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/8758813020/
• Wikimedia Commons. October 2008. Emerald Ash Borer Pupa Photo.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ventral_eab_pupae_and_
& Disease Leaflet 29. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
• U.S.
Service. 6 p. Can be accessed through: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/ adult.jpg
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Environmental
fid/fidls/fidl-29.pdf. Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP). [Accessed 10 April • Wikimedia Commons. May 2009. Gypsy Moth Caterpillar Photo.
• Sherer, P.M., 2006. The Benefits of Parks. San Francisco, CA: The Trust 2015] http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gypsy_moth_caterpillar.JPG
for Public Land.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Environmental • Wikimedia Commons. January 6, 2005. The Flatirons rock formations,
• Simmons, M.J.; Dodds, K.J.; Elkinton, J.S. 2012. Winter Moth.
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry NA-PR-01-12. http://
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP). [Accessed 22 Sept
2015] http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap
near Boulder, Colorado Photo. https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/8/80/Flatirons_Winter_Sunrise_edit_2.jpg
nhbugs.org/sites/nhbugs.org/files/images/winter-moth-pest-
alert-121212.pdf. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Clean Power
Plan. [Accessed July, 7, 2016] https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
• Wikimedia Commons. May 2009. Stomate Photo. https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tomato_leaf_stomate_cropped_and_
• Sitz, R.A. 2017. Information on Emergent Insect Associated Tree
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. December 3, 2017. Federal Migratory
scaled.jpg
Diseases Including Epidemiological Studies of Drippy Blight Disease of
Oak and Thousand Cankers Disease of Walnut. (Doctoral dissertation,
Bird Treaty Act 1918. https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-
regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php
• Williams E, Lotstein R, Galik C, Knuffman H. 2007. A Convenient Guide
to Climate Change Policy and Technology. Vol2: 134 p.
Colorado State University. Libraries).
• Stern, P.C., 2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent • U.S. Forest Service (USFS). April 2013. Metro Denver Urban Forest
Assessment Report 2013. https://www.denvergov.org/media/gis/
• Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International
Council of Shopping Centers Research Review. 14, 3:39-43.
theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of social
• Xiao,
DataCatalog/tree_canopy_assessment_2013/pdf/Tree_Canopy_
issues, 56(3), pp.407-424. Assessment_2013_Summary.pdf Q., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Ustin, S.L. 1998. Rainfall
• Takahashi, B. and Selfa, T., 2015. Predictors of pro-environmental

behavior in rural American communities. Environment and Behavior, • U.S. Forest Service (USFS). December 24, 2017. Urban Ecosystems
Interception by Sacramento's Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture.
24(4): 235-244.
• Xun,
and Processes. https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
47(8), pp.856-876. Bin, Deyong Yu, Yupeng Liu, Ruifang Hao, and Yun Sun. 2014.
• Taylor, A.F., F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Coping with ADD: • University of Colorado, Museum of Natural History. 2018. Tree Walk.
https://www.colorado.edu/cumuseum/programs/adults/tree-walk
"Quantifying Isolation Effect of Urban Growth on Key Ecological
Areas." Ecological Engineering 69: 46-54.
the surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and
Behavior 33 (1): 54–77. • Ulrich RS. 1986. Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscapes.
Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 29-44.
143 APPENDIX
transferred to i-Tree Canopy. Those canopy percentages information about the model, please consult the i-Tree
Methodology were matched by placing random points within the

i-Tree Canopy application. Benefit values were reported
Hydro v5.0 manual (http://www.itreetools.org).
To calculate ecosystem services for the study area, land
for each of the five listed air pollutants.
cover percentages derived for the project area and all
This section will discuss and define the methodologies Carbon Storage and Sequestration municipalities that were included in the project area
used for specific calculation referenced in the Plan: were used as inputs into the model. Precipitation data
The i-Tree Canopy v6.1 Model was used to quantify the from 2005-2012 was modeled within the i-Tree Hydro
value of ecosystem services for carbon storage and
i-Tree Canopy sequestration. i-Tree Canopy was designed to give users
to best represent the average conditions over an eight
year time period. Model simulations were run under a
Air Quality the ability to estimate tree canopy and other land cover Base Case as well as an Alternate Case. The Alternative
types within any selected geography. The model uses Case set tree canopy equal to 0 percent and assumed
The i-Tree Canopy v6.1 Model was used to quantify the estimated canopy percentage and reports carbon that impervious and vegetation cover would increase
the value of ecosystem services for air quality. i-Tree storage and sequestration rates and monetary values. based on the removal of tree canopy. Impervious surface
Canopy was designed to give users the ability to Methods on deriving storage and sequestration were was increased 0.8 percent based on a percentage of the
estimate tree canopy and other land cover types within drawn from academic research (Nowak et al. 2013). amount of impervious surface under tree canopy and
any selected geography. The model uses the estimated
To calculate ecosystem services for the study area, the rest was added to the vegetation cover class. This
canopy percentage and reports air pollutant removal
canopy percentage metrics from Urban Tree Canopy process was completed to assess the runoff reduction
rates and monetary values for carbon monoxide (CO),
land cover data performed during the assessment were volume associated with tree canopy since i-Tree Hydro
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
transferred to i-Tree Canopy. Those canopy percentages does not directly report the volume of runoff reduced
and particulate matter (PM) (Hirabayashi 2014).
were matched by placing random points within the by tree canopy. The volume (in cubic meters) was
Within the i-Tree Canopy application, the U.S. EPA’s i-Tree Canopy application. Benefit values were reported converted to gallons to retrieve the overall volume of
BenMAP Model estimates the incidence of adverse health for carbon storage and sequestration. runoff avoided by having the current tree canopy.
effects and monetary values resulting from changes in
Through model simulation, it was determined that tree
air pollutants (Hirabayashi 2014; US EPA 2012). Different
pollutant removal values were used for urban and rural
i-Tree Hydro canopy decreases the runoff volume in the project area
by 15,001,357 gallons per year using precipitation data
areas. In i-Tree Canopy, the air pollutant amount annually The i-Tree Hydro v5.0 Model was used to quantify the
from 2005-2012. This equates to approximately 5,408
removed by trees and the associated monetary value value of ecosystem services for stormwater runoff.
gallons per acre of tree canopy (15,001,357 gals/2,774
can be calculated with tree cover in areas of interest i-Tree Hydro was designed for users interested in
acres).
using BenMAP multipliers for each county in the United analysis of vegetation and impervious cover effects on
States. urban hydrology. To place a monetary value on stormwater reduction,
the cost to treat a gallon of storm/waste water was
To calculate ecosystem services for the study area, This most recent version (v5.0) allows users to report
given by the local partners. This value was $0.0118 per
canopy percentage metrics from Urban Tree Canopy hydrological data on the city level rather than just a
gallon. Tree canopy was estimated to contribute roughly
land cover data performed during the assessment were watershed scale giving users more flexibility. For more
$177,016 to avoid runoff annually to the project area.
APPENDIX 144
145 APPENDIX
Funding
ADDITIONAL FUNDING NEEDED EACH YEAR TO ACHIEVE UFSP GOALS (includes annual 3% increase for inflation)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2033 2038 NOTES
Recommendation is to move to 8-year rotation for all trees.
A phased approach is preferred: Move from 14-year to 10-year for trees > 9” DBH, then
Rotational Pruning down to 8-year rotation for trees > 9” DBH then eventually 8 years for all trees.
Phase 1 - move from 15 year to 10 year rotation for public trees >9" DBH NA $55,000 $56,650 $58,350 $60,100 $61,903 $63,760 $65,673 $67,643 $69,672 $80,769 $93,634
Phase 2 - move from 10 year to 8 year rotation for public trees >9" DBH NA NA NA $50,000 $51,500 $53,045 $54,636 $56,275 $57,964 $59,703 $69,212 $80,235
Phase 3 - 8 year prune rotation for all public trees NA NA NA NA NA NA $78,000 $80,340 $82,750 $85,233 $98,808 $114,546
Subtotal $0 $55,000 $56,650 $108,350 $111,600 $114,948 $196,396 $202,288 $208,357 $214,608 $248,789 $288,415
Average # non-ash tree removals is expected to increase due to senescence /public safety
Removals (Non-Ash) concerns for silver maples and impacts due to climate change
Phase 1 - Add'l 50 tree removals/year $30,250 $31,158 $32,092 $33,055 $34,047 $35,068 $36,120 $37,204 $38,320 $39,469 $45,756 $53,044
Phase 2 - Add'l 100 tree removals/year NA NA NA $60,500 $62,315 $64,184 $66,110 $68,093 $70,136 $72,240 $83,746 $97,085
Phase 3 - Add'l 100 tree removals/year NA NA NA NA NA NA $60,500 $62,315 $64,184 $66,110 $76,640 $88,846
Subtotal $30,250 $31,158 $32,092 $93,555 $96,362 $99,252 $162,730 $167,612 $172,640 $177,820 $206,142 $238,975
Traffic control and towing costs are not currently budgeted and must come out of pruning
Traffic Control and Towing and removal budgets; funding request based upon average from past 5 years.
Current level of service unfunded $22,500 $23,175 $23,870 $24,586 $25,324 $26,084 $26,866 $27,672 $28,502 $29,357 $34,033 $35,054
Phase 1 - increases due to higher # prunes/removals NA $11,250 $11,588 $11,935 $12,293 $12,662 $13,042 $13,433 $13,836 $14,251 $16,521 $17,017
Phase 2 - increases due to higher # prunes/removals NA NA NA $8,500 $8,755 $9,018 $9,288 $9,567 $9,854 $10,149 $11,766 $12,119
Phase 3 - increases due to higher # prunes/removals NA NA NA NA NA NA $40,000 $41,200 $42,436 $43,709 $50,671 $52,191
Subtotal $22,500 $34,425 $35,458 $45,021 $46,372 $47,763 $89,196 $91,872 $94,628 $97,467 $112,991 $116,381
Recommendation is to facilitate and subsidize a private tree planting initiative for20 years
using same guidelines as 2018 Boulder Tree Sale. Phased approach from 150 to 350
trees/year, 500 trees/year then 750 trees/year. Subsidy is $20/tree. Cost could be reduced
Tree Planting - Facilitate / Subsidize for Private Property if subsidy is via private donations. Subsidy not adjusted for inflation.
Phase 1 - subsidy for 350 trees $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000
Phase 2 - subsidy for 500 trees NA NA NA $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Phase 3 - subsidy for 750 trees NA NA NA NA NA NA $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Subtotal $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Staffing
Phase 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Phase 2 - coincides with pruning /removal increases NA NA NA $70,000 $72,100 $74,263 $76,491 $78,786 $81,149 $83,584 $96,896 $99,803
Phase 3 - coincides with pruning /removal increases NA NA NA NA NA NA $70,000 $72,100 $74,263 $76,491 $88,674 $91,334
Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $72,100 $74,263 $146,491 $150,886 $155,412 $160,075 $185,570 $191,137
TOTAL - Additional Funding Needed $59,750 $127,583 $131,200 $326,926 $336,434 $346,227 $609,814 $627,658 $646,038 $664,969 $768,492 $849,908
APPENDIX 146
Emerald Ash Borer - Parks & Recreation CIP Funding

2014 (from
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Forestry Ops 2015 (actual) 2016 (actual) 2017 (actual) NOTES
(estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated)
Budget)
Planned Assumes 600 trees planted / year starting in 2019; planting
Tree Planting prior to EAB $100,000 $73,385 $40,683 $72,833 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 funding from multiple sources including EAB CIP, Forestry Ops
detection and Mitigation
Treating 1339 public ash trees on 3-year rotation with Tree-age;
Pesticide Apps $25,406 $56,000 $45,504 $23,226 $50,876 $45,000 $25,000 $45,000 $45,000 $25,000 $45,000 $45,000 $25,000 $45,000 $45,000
# trees and cost varies annually depending upon cycle year
Total cost to remove approx 4500 untreated ash is $1.64
Tree Removal $17,484 $20,000 $72,461 $113,791 $115,000 $125,000 $145,000 $130,000 $130,000 $150,000 $135,000 $52,500 $50,000 $20,000 $20,000 million; total removal cost 2014-2028 = $1.3 million because
some trees will be removed with in-house crew
Forestry Ops
Tree Watering $14,100 $19,800 $16,159 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 Costs may fluctuate depending upon weather conditions
budget
Forestry Ops
Wood Debris $13,125 $31,805 $0 $70,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $80,000 $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 fluctuates based upon # of ash trees removed
budget
$10,000
Spoils Pile
Not tracked $0 (Forestry Ops $0 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 fluctuates based upon # of trees planted
(screening/disposal)
budget)
Education / Outreach Not tracked Not tracked Not tracked Not tracked $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Miscellaneous
Not tracked Not tracked $2,723 $2,432 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
supplies
Biocontrols USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS USDA APHIS
TOTAL SPENT $42,890 $203,225 $245,678 $196,291 $373,709 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $375,000 $297,500 $272,500 $272,500
$246,675 $373,709
($220,000 ($350,000 +
Budgeted $0 $230,000 $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $375,000 $300,000 $275,000 $275,000
+$26,675 $23,709
carryover) carryover)
147 APPENDIX
Calculating Individual
Public Survey
Tree Services
Communities can calculate the services of their urban
forest by using a complete inventory (or sample data)
Survey Regression Analysis
in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service i-Tree Linear regression models were built to determine survey
software tools. This state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed respondent values towards Boulder Forestry activities
software suite considers regional environmental data and topics. A model comparison approach was used to
and costs to quantify the ecosystem services unique to identify key indicators for 2 topics:
a given urban forest resource.
1. Knowledge and feelings about Boulder Forestry
Individuals can calculate the services of trees to their and Boulder Forestry activities
property by using the National Tree Benefit Calculator
2. Factors which influence a person’s willingness
(www.treebenefits.com/calculator) or with i-Tree
and degree of participation in a potential tree
Design. www.itreetools.org/design).
stewardship program
For the first topic, a model comparison approach was used
to identify key indicators for respondents’ knowledge
and feelings about Boulder Forestry and their activities.
First, a single response variable was created by averaging
responses to two questions: Q8, ‘How familiar are you
with the Boulder Forestry responsibilities below?’,
and Q11C, how well respondents agreed or disagreed
with ‘Boulder Forestry’s policies reflect the values of
the Boulder Community’ to create a single new metric
called ‘Knowledge.’ All possible explanatory variables
were then defined, including the demographic battery
from the end of the survey, as well as other values and
attitudes around the urban forest.
A linear regression model was created with every
combination of six or fewer variables. This resulted in
more than 35,000 potential models. Each model was
then ranked based on its performance and complexity. If
APPENDIX 148
any two models had the same performance, the one with between the urban forest and neighborhood quality, The most likely response is to not participate (2), which
fewer explanatory variables was deemed preferable. and feelings about Boulder Forestry’s current activities. indicates a bit of an uphill battle to get residents to
This ranking was quantified using Akaike’s information These explanatory variables were included given their participate in a tree stewardship program. Comments
criterion (AIC). insight into respondents’ feelings about how much threat from the ‘other’ response category in the long-form
Boulder’s urban forest is under (and therefore Because survey shed some light on this reluctance. Many
The resulting best-fit model had only two explanatory
of the increased number of variables the number of indicated that age and health issues are a barrier to
variables; ‘TimeRecycled’ and ‘FocusGroup’, which
combinations that could be explored was reduced, which increased participation, as well as time limitations and
correspond to Q17A and Q30. Additionally, all of the
created a logistic regression model for all combinations a lack of specific information on specific trees.
top-performing models contain these two explanatory
of five or fewer explanatory variables. This resulted in
variables, and in every model these two indicators For those willing to engage in some level of tree
over 16,000 models. For Q15, the same approach was
have the strongest explanatory effect. When examined stewardship, the results indicate that the best models
taken, with the same explanatory variables. Because
more closely, both of these predictors have a significant all identify:
responses to Q15 have multiple levels, a multinomial
positive relationship with the variable Knowledge. In
other words, the more times per year a person recycles,
logistic regression was used. Again, a regression was • Participating in a focus group
compared for every combination of five or fewer
the more likely they are to be knowledgeable and
explanatory variables, producing 16,000 models. For • The knowledge variable developed above, and
agree with Boulder Forestry activities. Similarly, those
willing to participate in a focus group about urban
Q15, explanatory variables were added to the model and • Feeling at home (Q18)
ranked on its probability that it explains respondents’
forest issues are more likely to be knowledgeable and As the key explanatory variables. This is not surprising
level of participation to the question. These levels of
agree with Boulder Forestry activities. This is supported given that those who are more willing to educate
participation are:
by research that shows that current environmental themselves about Boulder Forestry activities, who
behavior is associated with a higher level of knowledge 1. No response agree with them, and who are willing to participate in
about environmental issues*. Given the high rate a focus group, are more likely to ‘help out’ through tree
2. None of them. This is the responsibility of
of recycling in Boulder, this may be a good start for stewardship. Similarly, Feeling at home, which is linked
Boulder Forestry and should be covered by
targeted marketing outreach. to attachment to one’s community, has been linked to
current taxes
an increased likelihood of environment action (*). Given
For the second topic, two questions were asked: 1)
3. I would like to help out but am unable/it’s not the priority in the 2015 BVCP over quality of life and
What factors indicate a willingness to participate in a
feasible to do so sense of place, as well as links above between trees and
potential tree stewardship program Q14, and 2) To what
neighborhood quality, it would be prudent to link Boulder
degree would respondents be willing to participate (i.e. 4. I would be willing to occasionally water a tree
Forestry activities to supporting and enhancing the
level of tree stewardship) Q15. For both questions a outside my business/residence/workplace
quality and sense of place for residents’ neighborhoods
similar approach was used as for the above analysis.
5. I would be willing to water and maintain a tree as one aspect of the marketing and outreach campaign.
The results for Q14 showed that the explanatory outside my business/residence/workplace This is particularly true given the emotional and personal
variables included the demographic variables, the new connection many residents expressed to trees in the
6. I would participate in tree planting
knowledge metric, and questions 3, 7, and 11, which Tree Story outreach and comments in the survey.
asked about threats to the urban forest, associations 7. I would participate in youth education.
149 APPENDIX
Survey Graphs
Long-Form Survey Questions
The following charts represent th responses to the
2Forks long-form survey questions. Charts were created
only from questions with easily graphed responses.
Some questions, such as open response questions, were
not charted. Thus, some questions do not have a chart.
APPENDIX 150
151 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 152
153 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 154
155 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 156
157 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 158
159 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 160
Short-Form Survey Questions

The following charts represent th responses to the 2Forks
short-form survey questions. Charts were created only
from questions with easily graphed responses. Some
questions, such as open response questions, were not
charted. Thus, some questions do not have a chart.
161 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 162
163 APPENDIX
Table of Figures
Table 1: Land Cover Classes 2, 45 Map 1: Land Cover 2, 46
Table 2: Benchmark Values 4 Map 2: Canopy in Boulder and Open Spaces and Mountain Parks 21
Table 3: Boulder’s Population 20 Map 3: Canopy Cover by Maintenance District 46
Table 4: Ecosystem Services From Tree Canopy 47 Map 4: Forest Fragmentation 48
Table 5: Forest Fragmentation 48 Map 5: Priority Planting 50
Table 6: Priority Planting Sites 50
Table 7: Replacement Value of Top 5 Species 51
Table 8: Operating Forestry Budget (2017) 79 Figure 1: Cooling Effect of Tree Shade (Balogun et al., 2014) 18
Table 9: Average tree care costs (2012-2016) 81 Figure 2: Impact of Trees and Vegetation (Akbari, 2002) 18
Table 10: Boulder’s Urban Forest Budget in Comparison with Other Communities 82 Figure 3: High Detail Forest Fragmentation 48
Table 11: Funding Scenarios 84 Figure 4: High Detail Priority Planting 50
Chart 1: Land Cover 2, 45

Chart 2: Rent vs Own 20
Chart 3: Municipal Compensation Requirements 43
Chart 4: Public vs Private Trees 44
Chart 5: Comparison Community Canopy Cover 49
Chart 6: Age Distribution of Boulder's Public Trees 52
Chart 7: Annual Services From Prevalent Public Tree Species 53
Chart 8: Return on Investment for Public Trees 54
Chart 9: Overall Condition of Public Trees 54
Chart 10: History of Tree Planting & Removal – Boulder Forestry 58
Chart 11¬: Ash as % of Public Trees 67
Chart 12: Approximate Public Service Requests Per Year 77
Chart 13: Municipal Budget 80
Chart 14: Survey Respondent Demographics 99
Chart 15: Survey Respondent Associations and Values 100
APPENDIX 164
Natural Area Tree Canopy
Dictionary • A defined area where native trees and vegetation

are allowed to grow and reproduce naturally with
• The layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees
that cover the ground when viewed from above.
little or no management except for control of
Tree in Proximity to Trails/Facilities
Arboriculture undesirable and invasive species.
• The science, art, technology, and business of tree Private Tree • A tree that, as the result of size and location,
has the potential to impact or interfere with the
care.
• A tree located on private property, including use, safety, and/or condition of a defined trail,
Community Urban Forest residential and commercial parcels. structure, or facility (e.g., picnic table, bench,
parking area, etc.)
• The collection of publicly owned trees within an Public Tree
urban area, including street trees and trees in Urban Forest
parks and other public facilities. • A tree located in the public ROW, city park, and/
or city facility. • The collection of privately owned and publicly
Heritage Tree owned trees and woody shrubs that grow within
Right Tree Right Place
an urban area.
• A large, individual tree with unique value, which is • The practice of installing the optimal species
considered irreplaceable due to age, size, rarity, Urban Forestry
for a particular planting site. Considerations
aesthetic, botanical, ecological, and/or historical
value.
include existing and planned utilities and other • The cultivation and management of native or
infrastructure, planter size, soil characteristics, introduced trees and related vegetation in urban
Inventoried Trees water needs as well as the intended role and areas for their present and potential contribution
characteristics of the species. to the economic, physiological, sociological, and
• Includes all public trees collected in the inventory ecological well-being of urban society.
as well as trees that have since been collected by Significant Tree
city staff.
• A healthy evergreen or deciduous tree of specific
Life-Cycle Analysis size as defined by policy and/or regulation.
• Life Cycle Assessment is a systematic inventory Structural and Training Pruning

and analysis of the environmental effect that
is caused by a product or process starting from • Pruning to develop a sound and desirable scaffold
branch structure in a tree and to reduce the
the extraction of raw materials, production, use,
likelihood of branch failure.
through to the waste management.
165 APPENDIX
Soil Volume and Tree

Stature
Above: General relationship between soil volume requirements and

mature tree size (James Urban, various sources, 1992).
Above: Tree growth is limited by soil volume. Larger stature trees require larger
volumes of uncompacted soil to reach mature size and canopy spread (Casey Trees,
2008).
APPENDIX 166
Alternative Planter
Design
Above: Stormwater tree pits are designed to

Above: Bioswales are landscaped drainage areas with gently sloped sides designed to collect runoff from streets, parking lots, and
provide temporary storage while runoff infiltrates the soil. They reduce off-site runoff other impervious areas. Stormwater is directed
and trap pollutants and silt. into scuppers that flow into below-grade planters
that then allow stormwater to infiltrate soils to
supplement irrigation.
167 APPENDIX
Above: Structural soil is a highly porous, engineered aggregate mix,

designed for use under asphalt and concrete as a load-bearing and leveling Above: Suspended sidewalks use pillars or structured cell systems to
layer. The created spaces allow for water infiltration and storage, in support reinforced concrete, increasing the volume of uncompacted soil in
addition to root growth. subsurface planting areas and enhancing both root growth and stormwater
storage.
APPENDIX 168
Above: Permeable pavements allow stormwater and oxygen to infiltrate the surface, promoting
tree health and groundwater recharge.
169 APPENDIX
Standard Tree Planting

Detail (Placeholder)
Right: Standard Detail

of Tree Protection
Measures
APPENDIX 170
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TITLE: 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
PRESENTERS:
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation
Brenda Richey, Business Services Manager, Parks and Recreation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The April Capital Improvement Program (CIP) “First Touch” memo included a variety of
information related to the background, process, methodology and guiding principles
associated with the annual CIP development and specifically PRAB’s role in reviewing
and approving the CIP. The memo also outlined the current year’s approved CIP projects
that are in progress. The purpose of this agenda item is the “Second Touch” to provide a
formal discussion item for the Parks and Recreation Department (department) to
communicate its proposed 2019-2024 CIP projects and consider questions and feedback
from the PRAB to inform the final projects that will be proposed in June for
consideration of approval. This memo outlines the project types, funding amounts and
current funding status to achieve the goals of the CIP. At this time, the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) will have an opportunity to ask questions and
provide comments on the draft CIP. The PRAB’s input is essential throughout the capital
budget process, as PRAB’s role is to provide a formal recommendation of the CIP,
including the appropriation of the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (Fund 230). All
capital projects are included for information, regardless of funding source, to ensure the
PRAB understands the department’s comprehensive capital investment plan.
IMPACTS
Fiscal: $5.25 million recommended for 2019 with the 2019-2024 CIP projecting an
investment of $29.7M throughout the six-year program. This equates to average annual
CIP funding just under $5M and reflects the total uses of funds projected for 2019 in the
Lottery (Fund 2100), .25 Cent Sales Tax (Fund 2180) and Permanent Parks and
Recreation (Fund 3300).
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
With the adoption of the BPR Master Plan in 2014, the department has completed
rigorous public involvement over the past few years to complete multiple plans and
1
studies outlining capital needs. The project needs have directly informed the department’s
CIP and continue to be discussed with the community as projects are developed.
Additionally, a PRAB public hearing is scheduled June 25, 2018. At that time, the public
will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2019- 2024 CIP. The public will
also have an opportunity to comment during the Planning Board’s CIP review in July and
City Council’s discussions and review of the 2019 recommended budget during future
public hearings.
BACKGROUND
Capital Projects
As outlined in the April memo, CIP projects are defined as any major project with a cost
greater than $50,000 for purchase or construction, or major replacement of physical
assets. Once approved for funding, CIP projects are potentially subject to a public
planning and review process or Community and Environmental Assessment Process
(CEAP) review that evaluates consistency with applicable policies and any potential
impacts to a variety of review criteria. This process includes review and approval by
PRAB. The five primary CIP categories include the following:
• Capital Maintenance
o Renovate, repair, or replace an existing asset
o Enhancement results in a durable, long lasting asset, with an extended
useful life of at least five years
• Capital Enhancement
o Expansion or significant improvement of an existing asset
o Repair damage to existing infrastructure
o Enhancement results in a durable, long lasting asset, with a useful life of at
least 15 years
• Capital Planning Studies
• Land and Asset Acquisition
• New Capital Project
o Construction or acquisition of a new asset
o Expanded square footage of an existing asset with associated new use
o Project results in a durable, long lasting asset, with a useful life of at least
15 years
Capital Funding
The department’s CIP is funded primarily from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund
(Fund 3300), .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (Fund 2180) and Lottery Fund (Fund 2110).
Additional sources of funding that have limitations on the type of capital investment that
funding can be spent on and are not managed exclusively by the department include the
Capital Development Fund (Fund 2100), Boulder Junction Improvement Fund (Fund
3500) and past Capital Improvement Bond or Tax Funding.
As indicated in the April PRAB CIP item, 2018 sales tax revenues to the city have not
increased compared to previous years, creating a projected General Fund shortfall of $4M
in ongoing expenses versus ongoing revenues. The shortfall applies to 2018 and has a
2
compounding effect on future years. The Parks and Recreation .25 cent sales tax is also
impacted in this revenue situation as its sole source of revenue is sales tax.
The Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (Perm Parks Fund) is funded specially from
property and development excise taxes. By city charter, this fund is dedicated to the
purposes of acquiring land and renovating or improving existing park and recreation
assets. It may not be used to fund daily operations or routine maintenance. Due to
increasing assessed property values, the outlook on this fund is currently positive (while
still sensitive to economic conditions).
Equitable Distribution
In planning and developing the CIP, the department strives to provide equitable
distribution of improvements throughout the city, both geographically and socio-
economically. In planning projects and identifying needs, the department reviews all
asset management information to prioritize the critical deficiencies and engages staff as
well as the PRAB to understand the capital priorities that exist throughout the
community. The planned six-year CIP for 2019-2024 includes a variety of projects
throughout Boulder’s many subcommunities and even emphasizes development of assets
within areas not currently serviced as park amenities. Attachment A – 2019-2024 CIP
Project Map, provides a visual representation of the many project locations to understand
the service reach of the planned improvements.
ANALYSIS
The current budget (and the department’s planning) reflects a conservative economic
reality not predicted to shift anytime soon. With maintenance backlog estimated at over
$16 million on approximately $215 million in assets, the department faces difficult trade-
off decisions in managing and operating its facilities and in the provision of its programs.
City guidelines regarding capital improvement prioritize the maintenance of current
assets over the development of new facilities, and through the Master Planning process,
the community has indicated strong support for this concept. The department must focus
on maintaining and improving all deteriorating assets. Simultaneously the department
must respond to the community’s shifting values related to new facilities by providing
adequate facilities to meet those needs and by making them accessible to the entire
community.
To mitigate the impacts of limited funding, staff is:

• Evaluating service levels to identify opportunities for efficiencies.
• Working collaboratively with Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) to prioritize
funding for deferred, major and ongoing facility maintenance.
• Deferring low priority improvements and new capital projects that cannot be
sustainably maintained by the operation.
• Completing projects to achieve energy and operational efficiencies at recreation
facilities and in park infrastructure.
• Developing long-term partnerships and non-traditional funding sources to support
desired new facilities and enhancements to existing facilities.
3
In alignment with the master plan and Capital Investment Strategy, (Attachment B –
Capital Investment Strategy) and considering the fiscally constrained scenario, the
department’s 2019-2023 CIP is primarily focused on “Taking Care of What We Have”
and prioritizes majority of funding within the capital maintenance category (see Figure
1).
Figure 1: 2019 Capital Project Categories
Staff have identified options for reducing spending strategically as a standard practice for
this fiscal environment and especially as it applies to the CIP. As indicated in Figures 2
and 3, for both 2019 as well as the full 6-year CIP staff have performed careful analysis
and projections for all funds that make up the department CIP and adjusted the spending
accordingly to remain within funding projections while still maintaining a healthy fund
balance for reserves. Over half of the CIP is now funded exclusively out of the Permanent
Parks and Recreation fund while the remaining is funded appropriately out of the .25
4
Cent Sales Tax and Lottery Fund. Staff will continue to monitor and adjust spending as
necessary with new fund projections and revenue information are available
Figure 2: 2019 BPR CIP Funding Sources
The
Figure 3: 2019-2023 BPR CIP Funding Sources
department’s capital projects are outlined in Attachment C - 2019-2024 Draft CIP. In

the six-year plan, the department continues to focus primarily on taking care of existing
assets that provide core services to the community, while partnering as possible to
leverage capital funding, to achieve master plan goals including:
5
• Community Health and Wellness – Parks and facilities are being improved with
capital maintenance and enhancements to the three recreation centers and many
outdoor facilities such as courts, playgrounds and ballfields. The amenities are
critical to the department’s core services and investments are outlined in recent
plans and studies.
• Taking Care of Existing Facilities - through implementation of the Asset
Management Software, improvements to Chautauqua Park, Boulder Reservoir
South Shore and Columbia Cemetery along with smaller renovation and
refurbishment (R&R) projects across the system will extend the useful life of
priority facilities and increase the condition of many assets.
• Building Community Relationships – The department continues to address the
Emerald Ash Borer epidemic in Boulder and maintain as much tree canopy as
possible. With help from the Tree Trust, developed by the PLAY Boulder
Foundation, staff are making progress in fighting the pest and planting
replacement trees through capital funding.
• Youth Activity and Engagement - Many youth sports facilities and play areas
will be enhanced and renovated through the 2019 projects that will continue to
allow the department to focus on youth and provide opportunities for children in
the community.
2019 Capital Project Priorities (described in greater detail in Attachment B)

• East Boulder Community Center Facility and Aquatics Enhancements
• Columbia Cemetery Capital Maintenance
• Urban Forestry Management
• Flatirons Golf Course Enhancements
• Chautauqua Park Playground Renovation
• Parking Lot Maintenance and Renovation
• Valmont City Park Phase 2 Design
Operating and Maintenance Impacts

The department prioritizes capital projects based upon maintaining existing assets and
decreasing the maintenance backlog of the department’s portfolio of parks and facilities.
Therefore, most projects included in the department’s Capital Improvement Program will
not have an impact on maintenance costs due to replacement of aging infrastructure and
efficiencies associated with new and improved facilities and systems. However, as the
department fulfills commitments relative to long-term planning needs such as the future
phases of Valmont City Park, Boulder Junction Park or Violet Neighborhood Park in the
future, the department will need to carefully design enhancements in sensitivity to the
department’s O&M funding and not overburden funds with maintenance of these new
facilities.
Unfunded Projects and Emerging Needs

In the long-term, additional funding will need to be secured to develop any new major
facilities as well as improve service standards for maintenance operations and to fund
deferred maintenance. The master plan includes a list of priority items to complete based
on various funding levels Staff continues to evaluate deferred maintenance needs,
6
including park sites and recreation facility needs and have implemented an Asset
Management Plan (AMP) to assist in capital planning and day-to-day operations. The
current maintenance and facility improvements backlog, including major repairs and
replacements, is significant. The department anticipates that this backlog will continue
until funding levels reach appropriate amounts to accommodate life-cycle projections for
the department’s assets.
Key Unfunded Projects Include:

• Boulder Reservoir South Shore enhancements to accommodate increased use and
visitation as well as basic amenities to support the regional destination as outlined in
the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and currently evaluated through the Site and
Management Plan.
• The Recreation Facility Strategic Plan projected a total of $4.5 million in deferred
maintenance and an additional $3 million over the next ten years in the three
recreation centers.
• Meeting energy compliance required by the Building Performance Ordinance.
• Increased capacity and additional facilities for youth and adult sports fields.
• Expansion and enhancement of recreation centers and aquatics facilities that
accommodate increased demand for lap swimming, fitness equipment and multi-use
classroom space that could be expanded.
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD

• Does the PRAB have questions or comments related to the current funding status
and/or sources of funding for the department’s draft CIP?
• Does the PRAB have questions regarding the selection and determination of projects
for the draft 2019-2024 CIP project list?
• Does the PRAB have questions regarding the location and equitable distribution of
projects for the draft 2019-2024 CIP project list?
NEXT STEPS
Important milestones for the CIP process are included below.
2019-2024 CIP Process Time Line (Projected)

Item Date
PRAB Draft CIP Discussion Item June 4
PRAB Approval/Recommendation of CIP (Action) June 25
Planning Board / City Council CIP Tour July 16
Planning Board Hearing July 19
Council Study Session Aug 14
Attachments:
A. 2019-2024 CIP Project Map
B. Capital Investment Strategy
C. 2019-2024 Draft CIP
7
City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Project Category
2019-2024 Capital Improvement Projects

Capital Enhancement
´
Capital Maintenance
New Infrastructure
0 0.5 1 2
Miles Planning Study
Boulder Reservoir South Shore

Construction: 2019
Eaton Neighborhood Park Improvements

Design: 2022
Construction: 2023
Violet Park Improvements
Design: 2022
Construction: 2023
Wonderland Lake Park

Irrigation Renovation
Construction: 2019
Parkside Park
Playground Renovation
Construction: 2024
Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr Park

Plaform & Tennis Court Maintenance
Construction: 2019
Valmont City Park Phase 2

Design: 2019
Construction: 2021
Boulder Junction Park
Design: 2019
North Boulder Park

Construction: 2022
Flatirons Golf Course

Enhancements
Design: 2019
Columbia Cemetery Construction: 2020
Capital Maintenance Scott Carpenter Pool
Construction: 2019 Renovation
Construction: 2019
Beach Park
Irrigation Renovation
Chautauqua Park Construction: 2018
Construction: 2019
Parking Lot
Capital Maintenance
Construction: 2019
Martin Park
Construction: 2023 East Boulder Community Park
Construction: 2020
East Boulder Community Ctr.

City-wide Projects Leisure Pool Renovation &
Operations Facilities Enhancements Facility Repairs
Planning: 2018 Design: 2019
Construction: 2024 Construction: 2020
Athletic Field Improvements

Construction: 2021
Harlow Platts Community Park
Disc Golf Renovation
Urban Forest Management Construction: 2018
Construction: 2019-2024
Forestry Emergency Response Plan Harlow Platts Community Park

Planning: 2019 Playground Renovation
Construction: 2021
BPR Master Plan Update
Planning: 2020 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Boulder Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program 2019-2024
Run Date: 5/15/2018 9:59:12 AM
Estimated Total 2019 2020 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Projected 2023 Projected 2024 Projected Unfunded
Cost Recommended Amount
PARKS & RECREATION Department Total $ 5,255,000 $ 6,378,000 $ 5,030,000 $ 3,760,000 $ 4,450,000 $ 4,912,000 $ -
CIP-CAPITAL ENHANCEMENT Subtotal $ 1,427,000 $ 2,528,000 $ 3,928,000 $ 1,098,000 $ 2,428,000 $ 2,428,000 $ -
Aquatic Facility Enhancements $ 150,000 $ 2,100,000 $ - $ 510,000 $ - $ - $ -
(5152185510)
Based on recommendations of the 2015 Boulder Aquatics Feasibility Plan, this project provides implementation of priority indoor and outdoor pool enhancements for Boulder's aquatics
programs. In 2018, all of the indoor hot tubs will be repaired to meet lifecycle preventative maintenance. The East Boulder Community Center pools will be improved in partnership with
Facilities and Asset Management funding necessary repairs in 2020. In 2022, improvements will be made to the outdoor Spruce Pool and the indoor South Boulder Recreation Center pool to
provide water play features for children and youth.
Capital Infrastructure $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ -
Enhancements (515218CINF)
This project will provide capital funding to implement enhancements at parks and facilites throughout the system. Currently undeveloped park sites such as Violet Park in north Boulder and
Eaton Park in Gunbarrel have planned amenities that need to be implemented to meet service levels of surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, this project will provide implementation of
planned amenities at developed park sites that haven't been constructed such as restrooms, ballfields, additional sport courts and play areas. The Recreation Facilty Needs Assessment
completed in 2019 will also outline future priorities that will be funded through this project that will enhance the existing recreation facilities.
Capital Infrastructure $ 575,000 $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ -

Enhancements (515330CINF)
This project will provide capital funding to implement enhancements at parks and facilites throughout the system. Currently undeveloped park sites such as Violet Park in north Boulder and
Eaton Park in Gunbarrel have planned amenities that need to be implemented to meet service levels of surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, this project will provide implementation of
planned amenities at developed park sites that haven't been constructed such as restrooms, ballfields, additional sport courts and play areas. The Recreation Facilty Needs Assessment
completed in 2019 will also outline future priorities that will be funded through this project that will enhance the existing recreation facilities.
General Park Improvements $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ -

(5152112110)
Boulder's park system is foundational to the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department. Upon completion of the department's master plan in 2014, the department committed to ongoing
park system renovations/repairs based on priority needs and asset management for all outdoor facilities. This combines individual funding for playgrounds, parking lots, shelters, courts and
ADA. The specific system that will be renovated will be decided on an annual basis through an asset management program and communicated to the public. Projects are necessary to comply
with goals and commitments identified in the department’s master plan. The department evaluates and prioritizes needs based on criteria including safety and code compliance, age of the
equipment, location in the city, and opportunities for efficiencies, collaboration or partnerships with other departments or the surrounding neighborhood.
Operations Facilities Capital Enhac $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ -

(515330OPFA)
This project will provide funding to implement key recommendations of the operations facility assessment to improve existing facilities as well as increasing facilities for space needs related to
production areas, material storage, office space and equipment staging.
Valmont City Park - Phase 2 $ 274,000 $ - $ 3,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -

(5153303500)
This project provides for the development of the next major phase of Valmont City Park, primarily south of Valmont Road. The Concept Plan for the park was updated in 2015 with community
support and outlining all the major amenities and phases to be built in the future. The next phase will likely include an adventure playground, small water feature for children, community
garden, skateboard elements and shelter pavilions. Additional parking and opportunities for enhancement to the existing disc golf course will also be explored as part of Phase 2. Final plans
will be completed in 2019 to determine amenities for development as well as available funding. This project also allows for increased park service to the surrounding areas of east Boulder as
well as the entire Boulder community.
CIP-CAPITAL MAINTENANCE Subtotal $ 3,778,000 $ 3,570,000 $ 1,102,000 $ 2,662,000 $ 2,022,000 $ 2,484,000 $ -

Athletic Field Improvements $ - $ - $ 130,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000 $ -
(5153302060)
Run Date: 5/15/2018 9:59:12 AM
As recommended in the department's master plan and the subsequent Athletic Field Study, staff will improve existing athletic fields and sports complexes through annual capital maintenance
and renovations. Most of the improvements relate to irrigation and turf renovation, replacement of sports field amenities and improving fields. The department conducted feasibility studies and
intends to design and construct priority field improvements at locations determined through the athletic field study. Specific park sites could include Stazio Complex, Foothills Community Park,
Pleasantview Sports Complex, East Boulder Community Park or Harlow Platts Park.
This project allows the department to focus on youth engagement and activity as indicated in the department's master plan and Athletic Field Study by providing appropriate facilities and
opportunities for youth sports. Additionally, this project will provide efficiency and improvement in maintenance and operations in order to allow the department more flexibility in maintenance
of athletic fields throughout the community.
Boulder Reservoir South Shore $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ 650,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ -

(5153305020)
Implementing the 2012 Master Plan and recent facility assessments, this project will continue the implementation of key improvements to the south shore recreation area and redevelopment of
the visitor services center to provide restrooms, administrative offices, concessions area and various visitor amenities to the beach area. Funding is planned through 2023 to continue key
enhancement priorities that will be determined through a site management plan that is currently underway and will be complete in 2019. Potential projects include trail connections, pavilions,
docks, facility upgrades and parking lot renovations.
Columbia Cemetery Capital $ 106,000 $ 32,000 $ - $ 40,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ -

Maintenan (515330CCCM)
The cemetery is a designated landmark and requires ongoing maintenance to meet the preservation requirements associated with all the infrastructure ranging from headstones, markers,
ornamental fencing and grounds maintenance. This project will provide necessary funding to complete projects as well as local match for leveraging state grant funds.
Flatiron Golf Course Repairs $ 260,000 $ 2,300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ -

(5153304150)
The Flatirons Golf Course is the only public course in Boulder and provides a highly desired recreation amenity while also contributing to funding sources through revenue generation. The golf
course has many planned enhancements to ensure playability and provide necessary visitor amenities. This project will provide dredging of existing irrigation ponds within the course in 2019
and 2024 and design and construction of a new pro shop, clubhouse and staff office to replace the former events center that was demolished as a result of the 2013 flood.
Neighborhood and Com Park Cap $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ -
Maint (515330NHCP)
This annual funding provides the annual asset maintenance throughout the system as well as a complete renovation of one neighborhood park annually to meet the goals outlined wihtin the
BPR Master Plan and Capital Investment Strategy. The renovations typically include playground replacement, irrigation renovation, forestry maintenance, ADA compliance and shelter repairs.
Parking Lot Capital Maintenance $ 840,000 $ 266,000 $ - $ - $ 318,000 $ 350,000 $ -

(515218PKLT)
BPR manages approximately 20 different parking lots across the system with a current replacement value of $5.5M. Current backlog of maintenance is estimated at $2M which increases
annually due to the deterioration of asphalt in poor condition. This project provides critical funding to renovate and renew existing parking lots to ensure safety of visitors and access to a variety
of parks and recreation facilities. Individual parking lot repairs are prioritized through the department's asset management system and identified for construction efficiencies based on locations.
Play Court Capital Maintenance $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ -

(515218PLCT)
BPR owns and manages a variety of play courts ranging from basketball, tennis, platform tennis and handball. The department asset management system outlines which courts are in need of
repairs and the department uses this funding to provide capital maintenance each year to the highest priority courts including crack filling, striping, painting and replacement of hardware and
infrastructure associated with the courts.
Recreation Facility Repairs $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ -

(5152186150)
Run Date: 5/15/2018 9:59:12 AM
The department's master plan indicates several key themes that relate to health and wellness, youth activity, community engagement and asset management. To continue supporting these key
themes, the department will be providing repairs, renovations and upgrades to recreation centers. In 2016, the department completed a strategic plan for all recreation centers that illustrates
implementation priority for critical projects. Based upon the outcomes and strategies of the Recreation Facility Strategic Plan, this project will fund the initial implementation projects outlined
within the plan. This project is combined with funding from the Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) Division of Public Works that partners in the management of the facilities.
Urban Forest Management $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ -

(5152183100)
Trees are important assets to the community and provide many benefits to Boulder. In September 2013, Forestry staff discovered an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation within the city. The
subsequent delimitation survey showed that EAB was well established within a corridor in central Boulder. Over the next 15 years, EAB management, including tree removal, tree replacement,
wood disposal and pesticide treatments will have a significant direct budgetary impact to the city and private residents. The loss of tree canopy will have considerable economic, social, and
environmental impacts for decades. In September of 2015, an Information Item detailing the Emerald Ash Borer management plan was presented to City Council.
As a result of the recent discovery of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), a response plan has been developed to slow the spread of the pest and maintain a safe community from the potential
hazards of multiple dead and dying trees within the urban core of the community. This project will provide funding to educate the community on safe EAB treatment, hire contractors for
removal and replacement of the trees affected by the EAB to re-establish streetscapes and park areas that contribute to many of the sustainability goals of the city. This project will include
renovation of parking areas, streetscapes, park areas and other sites to remove and replace the trees. The recent Urban Forest Strategic Plan outlined the need to increase annual tree
plantings from 400 to 600 to maintain the existing canopy given the decline from EAB. This project provides plantings across the city on locations throughout Parks and Recreation properties.
CIP-CAPITAL PLANNING STUDIES Subtotal $ 50,000 $ 280,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Forestry Emergency Response Plan $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

(515330UFPP)
A key implementation priority in the Urban Forest Strategic Plan, this will provide funding for a comprehensive plan that identifies planting priorities for the urban forest annual planting initiatives
as well as specific response protocol for emergency related events including drought, wind storms, major precipitation events and other threats to the forest canopy. The city manages over 50K
trees with an assessed value of $110M annually in benefits to Boulder. This plan will ensure the maintenance and protection of the canopy and priorities for the replacement plantings. Boulder
is susceptible to a variety of weather events that impact the forest including flood, fire, wind and snow. Each of these events require quick response to ensure public safety as well as limiting
disturbance to trees.
Master Plan Update $ - $ 280,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

(515218MPUP)
This project will provide funding for consultants and staff to complete a 5-year update to the department's master plan to ensure alignment of departmental programs, services and facilities to
meet the needs and goals of the community. This project will likely include an updated community survey and outreach to all members of the community to analyze the mission and offerings of
the department. A comprehensive historic and cultural plan will be completed in conjunction with this master plan update to provide for goals and recommendations to ensure the sustainability
of the departments' historic and cultural assets over time.
Total $ 5,255,000 $ 6,378,000 $ 5,030,000 $ 3,760,000 $ 4,450,000 $ 4,912,000 $ -

Attachment C
Boulder P&R 100+ Years of Excellence BPR Planning Process & Results
In 2014 the City Council adopted the Boulder Parks and Recreation Master
A B C D E Plan and guiding principles. This plan reflected over two years of public
Monarch Rd
input as to the future of the urban park system. The master plan identified a
clear vision, mission and six core themes to implement the community
1
16 Mineral Rd
1
vision. In addition to the BPRD Master Plan the department has undertaken
a number of site plan studies that were identified in the master planning
71st St
10
process required to meet future park and recreation needs or address
current deficiencies. These plans have been summarized in the Capital
Olde Stage Rd
Investment Strategic Plan.
Lookout Rd
1
NT
TME 6
I N VES 16-202
L 0
2 2 C A PITA PLAN 2
Lee BPR TEGIC
A
wy
STR
Hil
H
lD
r
al
on
ag
Spine Rd
28
Di
th
S
Yarmouth Ave t 43
8 23
24
a
Violet Ave
55th St
63rd St
Jay Rd
The 1910 Plan for Boulder by
47th St
Linde
57th St
the Olmsted Brothers above
19th St
n Dr
established parks and open 7 Tea

m
Legend
ent
4-Mile Creek estm 201
6
W l Inv
3 on 3 e Ca
pita Jan
uary
space as community priority. Kalmia Ave derl

c an
d
Independence Rd
Pre
pared
for th
The 2016 Capital Strategy Map b Cr

ee Map ID L O CA T IO N
75th St
k
d
Iris Ave 1 Boulder Reser v oir
20
Folsom St
to the right builds on this 100
61st St
Foothills Pkwy
30th St
28th St
2 F latir ons G olf Cour se

3
t Rd V almont City P ar k
Valmon
year legacy to invest capital in 13
h 4 P ear l Str eet Mall
Broadway
9th St
e f Valmont Rd
5 Civ ic Ar ea P ar k
close to home parks, greenways ood D

r 6 6 Staz io Ath letic F ields
Capital Investment Strategy
63rd St
Edgew 7 P leasant V iew F ileds
8 Balsam Ave
and major attraction sites for 3 8 Satelitte Ath letic F ields
g
CIS Three Top Projects
Sunshi Goose Creek
ne Cany
on Dr 9 25 9 Map leton Sp or ts P ar k
y
future generations. Pine
12
St
Pea
rl Pkw 10
11
Tom W atson P ar k
Sc ott Car p enter P ool
55th St
Mapleton Ave Spru ce St 12 Sp r uc e P ool
4 4 Waln
ut St
13
14
Nor th Boulder Rec Center
South Boulder Rec Center
4 The Capital Investment Strategy provides a
Scott Carpenter Pool $8M
Canyon Blvd
The department has $75 million i Pearl
S t
15 East Boulder Rec Center
development framework plan with specific,
17th St
16 Coot L ak e Av
Arapahoe
to invest over the next 10 years 21 5 18 17 Columb ia Cemeter y
implementable urban park design and
Boulder Creek
2
18 Andr ew s Ar b or etum The project calls for a new 50-meter
in capital projects. This includes State Hwy
119 University Ave 11 19 Har b ec k House
20 Haw th or n Com G ar dens development recommendations for the 10-lane pool would be built for $8 million
$8.9 million for the Civic Area,
Colorado Av
17 College Ave e 21 Haer ting Sc ulp tur e G ar den
Fo
enhancement of Boulder’s urban park system. The and an outdoor water park to the site for
o
j
22 Hic k or y Community G ar den
thi
$3.3 million for Boulder Junction 8

30th St
28th St
lls
19 23 Ar ea I I I
9th St
$5.3 million.
Pk
24 V iolet P ar k
strategy addresses the need to invest up to $40
wy
that is committed. In addition d

22 25 Boulder J unc tion Rail P laz a
k
25 Boulder J uncBaseline
tion P arRdk
million in existing assets as well as $24 million in
R Baseline Rd Baseline Rd
aff
the department is projecting an Fla
gst
addition of $50 million from backlog or enhancements and the desire to invest
76th St
55th St
5 5 Boulder Reservoir $3M

ek
Park Assets an additional $60 million in new facilities as

re
Cherryvale Rd
dedicated park funding and

kC
Bro
8
un
15 (over 20 years)
The project calls for a new bathhouse and
ad
Sk
approximately $3-5 million from identified in the department’s Master Plan over the
wa
8
y
Major Capital administration building, upgrades to

DET funding. 1
Table Mesa Dr
South Boulder Rd
Investments next ten years.
south shore amenities and repairs to boat
.
8 Viele Channel
Nature Areas within house and maintenance building.
This strategy includes three areas of focus that
Gil
las
10 minute walk of
pie
ek
builds on the vision and values set by the master

er Cre
D
Parks (1/2 mile)

r
Bear
Bould
Cree
14
k
Parks
plan desired to be achieved over the next 10 years
South
6 US 6
8 Hw
y3
6 through strategic investments in the CIP process.
r
Community Areas Maintained by Parks

nbria
Natural Lands The plan includes a long-term investment strategy Valmont City Park South $4M
Gree
a YSI /Housing Partner Sites

Schools
all Rd
Marshand
as well as an action-oriented implementation Phase one includes completion of disc
Open Space Mountain Parks
A B C D
County Open Space strategy that includes both public and private golf course, nature playground, picnic
Main Creeks
City Limit sector investment and partnership opportunities. area and shelters.
Bike and Ped Trails
Capital Investment Strategy Map Designated Bike Route

February 2016 On Street Bike Lane
Paved Shoulder
Prepared by the Capital Investment Team

BPR CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 2016-2026
March 2016
Financial Background Farnsworth 10-Year Investment Strategy
In 2011 the community voted to extend the .25 Sales Tax that funded urban
park and recreation facilities and programs. This extension provides an
additional $2.2 million in funding available in 2016. In 2011 the community Major Facility CRV FCI 90% Standard 80% Standard Savings Backlog
also passed a 3-year bond that provided approximately $9 million in urban EBRC $18,907,343 0.10 $3,079,892 $3,146,599 $66,707 $1,962,118
park upgrades to existing facilities. In 2014 citizens approved ballot NBRC $21,337,047 0.06 $5,166,970 $5,428,246 $261,276 $1,377,900
proposition 2-A that included $8.7 million for the Civic Area improvements, SBRC $9,376,617 0.13 $1,642,329 $1,876,919 $234,590 $1,181,104
Res-Admin $1,500,000 0.31 $837,779 $1,062,297 $224,518 $471,729
$5 million for Boulder Creek Path improvements and $1 for Chautauqua
Res-Boat House $800,000 0.14 $129,476 $135,551 $6,075 $109,738
Park improvements. The department’s 6-year Capital Investment Plan
Res-Maint $750,000 0.19 $258,080 $305,886 $47,806 $144,623
(2017-2022 CIP) proposes a total of $40 million in investment in assets. In Totals $52,671,007 0.10 $11,114,526 $11,955,498 $840,972 $5,247,212
addition Facility and Asset Management (FAM) proposes to invest $2.7
million in major recreation facilities repairs during the same time period. Difference between maintaining facility at 90% over 80% condition saves
This represents an annual investment in assets of approximately $7.1 $840,972 and provides higher quality facilities with higher customer satisfaction.
million or $2 million more than outlined in the fiscally constrained budget
of the master plan. This level of investment will maintain existing facilities
as well as begin to make the level of investments in key aging facilities
required to maintain public service levels. It does not address the full action Why Have High Standards?
or vision strategies desired by the community.
One of the principles of asset management is establishing
benchmark standards for each asset to achieve community
desired conditions. The city has hired Farnsworth Ltd. to
Asset Management Systems (AMS) evaluate current condition of major buldings including the
The facilities portfolio is typically the most valuable asset that public park and recreation organizations manage and often are three recreation centers and to develop a 10-year
considered critical to the execution of the organization’s mission. Updating facilities management practices to reflect sustainability preventative maintenance work plan for each building. The
and asset management principles for these facilities requires the application of complex, interconnected, and comprehensive chart at the right illustrates the life cycle curve on building
facility management practices to the asset portfolio. This includes ;
maintenance to extend the overall life of a facility. The table
1. Determining the total cost of ownership for the asset portfolio.
above illustrates the investment required over 10-years to
2. Developing systems and staff knowledge to support agency implementation of life cycle management.
3. Approval of a capital investment strategy for the agency that focuses on the organization’s mission and is financially sustainable. maintain facilities at 80 percent versus 90 percent condition.
This effort will take time and resources; it will require the department to prioritize asset management initiatives as a primary By maintaining facilities at a higher standard the city can
responsibility of our staff, park board, and community. This commitment to the asset management practices uses the simple increase customer satisfaction while spending less over
process below, combined with long range capital investment planning. time.
Taking Care of Aging Assets

Work Completed Next Steps
While the majority of Boulder Park and Recreation assets are
in good to excellent condition approximatively 10 percent
of existing assets have a poor or worse rating greater with
The department has already begun to address the first three questions an FCI of .30 or greater. Many of these assets have not been
above. It has inventoried all major assets department wide, calculated a upgraded for a number of years with some aging
portfolio and established a baseline Facility Condition Index (FCI) from
infrastructure over 60 years old. Investments in these aging
which to measure the condition of our portfolio:
assets is a high priority of the department and includes
Current Replacement Value = $215 Million
renovations of the Civic Area with 2-A funding that will be
Facility Condition Index = .11
Operation & Maintenance - 4% annually of CRV estimated at constructed in 2016-2018. In addition the department has
$8.9 Million prioritized Scott Carpenter Pool and the Boulder Reservoir
Preventative Maintenance (PM) plus Regular & Recurring for complete renovations in the next few years. While these
Maintenance (RR) –2% per year of CRV estimated at $4.4 Million improvements and enhancements will dramatically lower
Deferred Maintenance (DM) - items that have not been repaired our overall FCI there still remains a number of historic assets
or replaced based on industry standards estimated at $24 in need of ongoing repair or replacement.
Million.
Mission Statement Community Health & Wellness Goals Building Community

BPRD will promote the health and well-being of the entire Boulder communi- Taking Care of What We Have Youth Engagement
ty by collaboratively providing high-quality parks, facilities and programs. Financial Sustainability Organizational Readiness
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Matters from the Department
DATE: June 4, 2018
A. Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project Update (Attached

Document)
B. Asset Management Program (AMP) Team Overview
The department’s Master Plan, accepted by City Council, outlines six primary themes intended
to shape strategies for future action and decision making. Two themes, “Taking Care of What
We Have” and “Financial Sustainability,” informed the vision for an Asset Management
Program (AMP) represented by a living document that memorializes the department’s
commitment to maximizing the enjoyment and value of the city’s parks and recreation system for
its residents.
The AMP planning process began in late 2016 with the creation of an Asset Management
Program Matrix Team (AMP Team) consisting of subject matter experts in parks planning, park
operations, business services and GIS/technology and assisted by mentors established in
department management. The AMP Team began its work by building on existing department
research on asset management methodologies and best practices. Existing research was melded
with extensive study of industry best practices as well as a thorough review of actual department
decision-making processes and investment strategies. The initial document delivery includes a
step-by-step approach to asset management policies, procedures and processes outlined in a
linear system across five chapters including an AMP Introduction, Asset Inventory, Condition
Assessments, Asset Criticality, and Asset Cost discussions. A sixth chapter will be developed
outlining processes for department decision making.
The goal of the AMP to foster proactive, versus reactive, approaches to asset management while
improving the quality of the department’s offerings by informing department budget processes,
aligning work to level of service requirements, and providing an objective and transparent
decision-making process that is guided by data about department assets.
At the June 4th PRAB meeting, the AMP Matrix team will present an overview of the draft AMP
document (Attachment B) that outlines the linear system proposed for department asset
management including recent 2018 case studies of CIP requests that have been evaluated using
the policies and procedures defined by the AMP.
Questions for PRAB
1. Does the PRAB have any questions about the AMP process overview presented at the meeting
or about the AMP document provided at the link above?
2. Does the PRAB have any feedback or recommendations regarding the AMP process or about
future asset management decision making processes?
C. Budget Update (verbal)

CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TITLE: Staff briefing and PRAB feedback regarding the Foothills Parkway
Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass project
PRESENTER/S:
Brian Wiltshire, Project Manager
Noreen Walsh, Senior Transportation Planner
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed Foothills Parkway bicycle and pedestrian underpass, with a design life of 75 years,
will replace the existing overpass bridge with a grade separated crossing south of Colorado
Avenue designed for all ages and abilities with less steep grades. The existing bridge, carrying
approximately 485 bicyclists and pedestrians daily, is nearing the end of its design life requiring
increasing capital maintenance, has steep ramp slopes (up to 10% in some locations) and is not
meeting ADA and other bicycle facility guidelines. This project supports the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) goal of providing transportation options for all ages and abilities as well as
supports the highest transportation budgeting priority to invest in maintaining the transportation
infrastructure in good condition.
The bridge is located within and adjacent to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
right-of-way, Park East Park, private residential properties, Wellman Ditch, Bear Canyon Creek
Greenway, City of Boulder open space and University of Colorado property. It is an important
connection between neighborhoods, CU, area schools, Park East Park and Central Boulder.
A recent transportation data collection effort in April 2017 counted a total of 440 bicyclists and
45 pedestrians in the AM (7-9am), Noon (11:30am-1pm) and PM (4-6pm) peak hours. The
underpass is used for both east-west and north-south travel patterns.
This $4.4 million project received a federal transportation grant through the 2016-2021
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process which is managed by the Denver Regional
Council of Governments. The City of Boulder is providing the $1.2 million local match from
city transportation funds for the $3.2 million grant. In addition to the bridge removal and
underpass construction, the project will include connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, wayfinding and other signage features, bicycle parking and landscaping.
1
The project was recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council for TIP
grant application submittal and was awarded funds in 2016. Planning and design began in mid-
2017 with an interdepartmental staff team including Parks and Recreation Department staff.
Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2019 and take one year to complete.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
A community engagement plan was developed for this project and has Involve and Consult goals
as defined by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Those levels of
public participation have goals of providing the public with information about the project
problem, alternatives, opportunities and solutions and obtaining public feedback on alternatives,
analysis and project decisions. There were several tools used to engage the community including
three public meetings, online project information and comment forms and in-person meetings
with Center for People with Disabilities, Community Cycles and the Wellman Ditch. The
community was notified in several ways including postal mailings, emails and on-site signage.
Growing Up Boulder (GUB) implemented an outreach event with youth living at the City of
Boulder Madison housing property at 35th and Colorado to gain their insights on user needs,
alignment preferences and ideas for aesthetics.
Input provided to date included preferences on alignment and reasons for preference including
travel needs and directness of travel, cost and construction duration and abilities to access the
adjacent natural environment. There were suggestions for the design including lighting, public
art and landscaping and questions about need and ability to be open during flooding events.
UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVES:
The project team reviewed five underpass alignment alternatives in its conceptual design phase
and Community and Environmental Assessment Program (CEAP) process. All alternatives
would provide a 16 foot-wide, grade-separated path crossing of Foothills Parkway, south of
Colorado Avenue. The alignments offer different options for meeting the bicycling and walking
travel patterns, multiple master plan goals, floodplain designations and minimizing adjacent
property impacts including Park East Park. Each alternative will result in tree removals in the
Foothills Parkway medians and along the east and west sides of Foothills Parkway. A total of 18
median trees will be removed in any of the alternatives and the project team is working with
Parks and Recreation staff to find locations for transplanting as they are suitable due to their age,
size and condition. The medians are being temporarily removed during construction to
continuously maintain the four vehicle lanes which carry 44,000 vehicles per day along this
section of state highway. The project will plant new trees in the restored medians at the
completion of the project as well as new trees in the project area to replace the other trees being
removed on the east and west sides of the underpass project area. The number of trees to be
removed in addition to the median trees ranges from 3-22 trees depending on the alternative.
The alternatives include:
2
Alternative 1a/1b – Box Underpass at Existing Alignment
1a 1b
This alternative locates the underpass in a box culvert structure within the existing -alignment of
the overpass bridge and would be approximately 145 feet long. There would be no change to the
existing travel patterns. The “a” entry ramp is a connection to the Foothills Path by a loop ramp.
The “b” connection is through a new bridge/path over Wellman Ditch. The Park East Park will
be adjacent to the construction; permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the
south side of the park, terraced walls and a railing between the basketball court and the west side
approach ramp. This alternative is estimated to be within the project budget and the construction
duration is 12 months.
Alternative 2a/2b – Bridge Underpass shared with Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment
2a 2b
This alternative locates the underpass within a shared bridge with Wellman Ditch which is near
the alignment of the existing overpass bridge so there would be no changes to the general east-
west and north-south travel patterns. The underpass would be approximately 160 feet in length.
Within this alignment alternative there are the same two options for the entry/exit paths on the
east side as in Alternative 1a/1b. The Park East Park will be adjacent to the construction;
permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the south side of the park, wall
terraces and a railing between the basketball court and the west side approach ramp. This
alternative is over the project budget and is anticipated to take 18 months to construct.
3
Alternative 3 – Bridge Underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek
This alternative would provide a bridge
underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek
which runs diagonally underneath Foothills
Parkway, north of the existing overpass bridge.
This underpass would be approximately 145
feet in length and would have additional travel
time for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are
using the current overpass bridge for east-west
travel. There are no anticipated impacts to Park
East Park with this alternative but there would be a change to the CU property as the path would
run along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek which diagonally bisects the CU property and impacts
to the median trees and on the east and west sides of the project area. This alternative is over the
project budget and is anticipated to take 18 months to construct.
Alternative 4 – Box Underpass north of Bear Canyon Creek

This alternative would provide a box culvert
underpass just south of Colorado Avenue. The
length of the underpass would be
approximately 150 feet long. This alternative
would have additional travel time for the
bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the
current overpass bridge for east-west travel.
There are no anticipated impacts to Park East
Park with this alternative but there would be a
change to the CU property as the path would run along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek which
diagonally bisects the CU property. This alternative is within the project budget and is
anticipated to take 12 months to construct.
Alternative 5
This alternative would provide a box culvert
underpass south of Bear Canyon Creek and
would be approximately 115 feet long. This
alternative would have additional travel time
for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are using
the current overpass bridge for east-west travel.
There are no anticipated impacts to Park East
Park. This alternative is within the project
budget and is anticipated to take 12 months to
construct.
4
Additional information for each of the options is included in the CEAP document in Attachment
A.
CEAP REVIEW and RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE:
The Community and Environmental Assessment Process assesses potential impacts to inform the
selection and refinement of a preferred project alternative. Of the 14 total categories of impacts,
most of the objectives were not getting affected by the project alternatives. Positive impacts
identified included improved transportation mobility for such special populations as persons with
disabilities, seniors, youth, neighbors and other sensitive populations by providing a design that
is useable people of all ages and abilities which may also lead to an increased usage of pedestrian
and bicycling travel. Another positive impact from this project and any alternative is an
improvement to the aesthetics of the site open and scenic vistas open to public view by removing
the existing bridge. The new underpass is anticipated to require less capital maintenance and
ongoing snow and ice removal maintenance compared to the existing bridge.
Negative impacts include impacts to the trees in the Foothills Parkway median and on the east
and west sides of the underpass. The project team is working with Parks and Recreation staff to
find locations for transplanting and will be planting new trees in the medians and the project area
to mitigate the effects of the tree removals of the total 34 trees being removed with the
recommended alternative 1b.
The project team reviewed community feedback and looked at a set of special considerations
including user experience, impacts to Park East Park, trees, and properties, cost and construction
duration when determining the alternative to proceed with design and construction. Alternative
1b is being recommended because it improves mobility for all ages and abilities, maintains the
neighborhood access for the various bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns and provides a more
direct crossing connections than those with the ramp loops. Alternative 1b is within the project
budget and has a shorter construction duration in comparison to those with longer durations.
This alternative also will provide access to the Wellman Ditch company to maintain its ditch
which is also an improvement from existing conditions. This alternative supports public input
which preferred this option as well as the reasons participants indicated for choosing a preferred
option support including costs, shorter construction period, directness of travel and connections
to natural features.
The graphic below has been included to show a more close-up view of the underpass alternative
and the adjacent Park East Park and what the changes will look like. The project team will
continue to work with Parks and Recreation Department staff through final design and
construction to ensure that the design complements and supports the adjacent park.
5
Rendering of proposed Foothills Underpass Alternative 1b, looking east from existing multi-use path
adjacent to Park East Park.
CONSTRUCTION:
The project is expected to begin in early 2019 and take one year to complete. Park East Park
will remain open during construction as well as access to the park. It is anticipated that the
existing overpass bridge will be removed during the construction period due to its proximity to
the new underpass and a bicycle and pedestrian crossing detour will be in place. The project
team can provide on-site information signage about the project construction timeline and the
pedestrian and bicycle detour.
BOARD FEEDBACK:
The project team would appreciate PRAB feedback on the project related to the following
questions:
x Does the recommended project alternative balances all the needs of the selection factors?
x Are there questions about project impacts to the park during construction?
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project CEAP
6
City of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process
May 2018
Table of Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3
Description and location of project ............................................................................................. 3
Background purpose and need ................................................................................................... 4
Description of project alternatives .............................................................................................. 5
Preferred project alternative ..................................................................................................... 17
Public input to date .................................................................................................................... 17
Project Contacts ......................................................................................................................... 17
Goals Assessment ................................................................................................................ 18
Impact Assessment .............................................................................................................. 21
Checklist Table ........................................................................................................................... 22
Checklist Questions .................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................... 36
City of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process
1. Description and location of the project:
There is an existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge on Foothills Parkway/SH 157, just

south of Colorado Avenue, that is an important connection between neighborhoods, CU,
area schools, Park East park and Central Boulder. The bridge is located within and
adjacent to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way, Park East
park, private residential properties, Wellman Ditch, Bear Canyon Creek Greenway, City
of Boulder open space and University of Colorado property.
This project would remove the existing overpass bridge and construct a
bicycle/pedestrian underpass, providing a grade separated crossing of Foothills Parkway
meeting current transportation and ADA guidelines and standards. The project will also
include connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, wayfinding and other
signage features, bicycle parking and public art.
2. Background, purpose and need for the project:

The existing overpass bridge on Foothills Parkway/SH 157 was constructed in 1978 and
is nearing the end of its 50-year design life. The bridge deck surface condition continues
to deteriorate, and the bridge superstructure is also aging which is contributing to
increasing maintenance costs. The bridge has steep approach grades (up to 10% at
locations) and does not meet Americans with Disabilities (ADA) design guidelines and
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bicycle
design guidelines.
Existing in-pavement bicycle counters show an average of 478 daily users at the existing
overpass in 2014, although there is a range of daily counts as ridership varies as it relates
to factors such as weather. As shown below, a recent transportation data collection effort
in April 2017 counted a total of 440 bicyclists and 45 pedestrians in the AM (7-9am),
Noon (11:30am-1pm) and PM (4-6pm) peak hours. The underpass is used for both east-
west and north-south travel patterns and a predominant movement pattern was not
observed in the data collection.
In 2014, the city submitted an application for, and was awarded, federal transportation
grant funds, to replace the existing overpass bridge with an underpass. The underpass is
a more cost effective solution than a new overpass bridge due to height clearance
requirements. An overpass bridge typically requires a 25-foot clearance to allow trucks
and buses to safely pass beneath it, where an underpass typically requires lowering an
average of 15-feet to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. The ADA design
guidelines require the steepness of the approaches of either option to have a grade of 5
percent or less. Given the height difference between the overpass bridge and the
underpass, both approach ramps would be 400 feet longer for the overpass bridge than
the underpass, which would have undesirable cost and aesthetic impacts.
The proposed underpass, with a design life of 75 years, will provide a grade separated
crossing of Foothills Parkway connecting the Bear Canyon Creek Greenway, Foothills
Parkway and Centennial Trail multi-use paths and will be designed to meet current
bicycling, walking and ADA design guidelines.
The highest budgeting priority, identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan
(TMP), is to invest in maintaining the transportation infrastructure in good condition.
The project will provide a grade separated crossing of Foothills Parkway for pedestrians
and bicyclists that is consistent with existing predominant and expected future travel
patterns as well as provide a crossing designed for all ages and abilities with less steep
grades and other ADA design guideline conditions.
3. Description of project alternatives:
The project team has reviewed five underpass alignment alternatives in its conceptual
planning and design phase and alternative description page and perspective images are
included following this section. All alternatives would provide a 16 foot-wide, grade-
separated path crossing of Foothills Parkway, south of Colorado Avenue. Constraints
and challenges being addressed as part of the project design include the proximity to Park
East Park, Wellman Ditch and its location within three different floodplains. The
alignments offer different options for meeting the bicycling and walking travel patterns,
multiple master plan goals, floodplain designations and minimizing adjacent property
impacts including Park East Park. Each alternative will result in tree removals in the
Foothills Parkway medians and along the east and west sides of Foothills Parkway. A
total of 18 median trees will be removed in any of the alternatives and the project team is
working with Parks and Recreation staff to find locations for transplanting as they are
suitable due to their size and condition. The medians are being removed during
construction to maintain the four vehicle lanes which carry 44,000 vehicles along this
section of state highway. The Alternatives include:
Alternative 1a/1b – Box Underpass at Existing Alignment

This alternative would locate the underpass in a box culvert structure within the existing
alignment of the overpass bridge so there would be no change to the general east-west
and north-south travel patterns. The 1a underpass would be approximately 145 feet long
and the 1b underpass would be approximately 120 feet long. Within this alignment
alternative there are two options for the entry/exit paths on the east side. The “a” entry
ramps the connection to the Foothills Path by a loop ramp. The “b” connection is
through a new bridge/path over Wellman Ditch. The west side approach is a straight
alignment with walls on both sides of the approach path and a longer ADA compliant
route provided to the south. The Park East Park will be adjacent to the construction;
permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the south side of the park,
wall terraces and a railing between the basketball court and the west side approach ramp.
It is anticipated that between 34 and 40 trees would need to be removed for these
alternatives. Of that total, 18 trees are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be
relocated to other locations in the city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. For Alternative
1a there are 22 trees on the west and east sides of the project area. For Alternative 1b
there are 16 trees on the west and east sides of the project area. Additional information
regarding the type, size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP
Appendix A. This alternative is estimated to be within the project budget and the
construction duration is 12 months. This alternative will require a bicycle and pedestrian
detour during the time the underpass is under construction and the existing overpass
bridge is removed, which is anticipated to be 9 months.
Alternative 2a/2b – Bridge Underpass shared with Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment
This alternative would locate the underpass within a shared bridge with Wellman Ditch
which is near the alignment of the existing overpass bridge so there would be no changes
to the general east-west and north-south travel patterns. The underpass length for 2a and
2b would be approximately 160 feet long. Within this alignment alternative there are the
same two options for the entry/exit paths on the east side as in Alternative 1. The “a”
entry ramps the connection to the Foothills Path by a loop ramp. The “b” connection is
through a new bridge/path over Wellman Ditch. The west side approach is a straight
alignment with walls on both sides of the approach path and a longer ADA compliant
route provided to the south. The Park East Park will be adjacent to the construction;
permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the south side of the park,
wall terraces and a railing between the basketball court and the west side approach ramp.
It is anticipated that between 38 and 41 trees would need to be removed for this
alternative. Of that total, 18 trees are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be
relocated to other locations in the city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. For alternative
2a there are 23 trees on the west and east sides of the project. For alternative 2b, there
are 20 trees on the east side of the project. Additional information regarding the species,
size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP Appendix A. This
alternative is estimated to be more than the project budget and is anticipated to take 18
months to construct with a similar impact to bicyclists and pedestrians as Alternative
1a/1b described above.
Alternative 3 – Bridge Underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek

This alternative would provide a bridge underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek which
runs diagonally underneath Foothills Parkway, north of the existing overpass bridge.
This underpass would be approximately 145 feet in length and would run along the bank
of the Bear Canyon Creek to the southeast. This alternative would have additional travel
time for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the current overpass bridge for east-
west travel. There are no anticipated impacts to Park East Park with this alternative but
there would be a change to the CU property as the path would run along the bank of Bear
Canyon Creek which diagonally bisects the CU property. It is anticipated that this
alignment has a total of 21 trees that would need to be removed. Of that total, 18 trees
are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be relocated to other locations in the
city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. There are 3 trees on the west and east sides of the
project area that are anticipated to be removed. Additional information regarding the
species, size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP Appendix A.
The estimated cost of this alternative is more than the project budget and is anticipated to
take 18 months to construct. The existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge can remain
until after the underpass is completed so there would not be a detour for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Alternative 4 – Box Underpass north of Bear Canyon Creek would provide a box culvert
underpass just south of Colorado Avenue. The length of the underpass would be
approximately 150 feet long. This alternative would have additional travel time for the
bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the current overpass bridge for east-west travel.
There are no anticipated impacts to Park East Park with this alternative but there would
be a change to the CU property as the path would run along the bank of Bear Canyon
Creek which diagonally bisects the CU property. It is anticipated that this alignment has
a total of 21 trees that would need to be removed. Of that total, 18 trees are in the
Foothills Parkway medians and these will be relocated to other locations in the city,
possibly along Foothills Parkway. There are 3 trees on the west and east sides of the
The estimated cost of this alternative is within the project budget and is anticipated to
take 12 months to construct. The existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge can remain
until after the underpass is completed so there would not be a detour for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Alternative 5 would provide a box culvert underpass south of Bear Canyon Creek.
The underpass length would be approximately 115 feet long. This alternative would have
additional travel time for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the current overpass
bridge for east-west travel and more circuitous accesses. There are no anticipated
impacts to Park East Park or other adjacent properties. It is anticipated that this
alignment has a total of 21 trees that would need to be removed. Of that total, 18 trees
are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be relocated to other locations in the
city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. There are 3 trees on the west and east sides of the
This alternative is within the project budget and is anticipated to take 12 months to
construct. The existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge can remain until after the
underpass is completed so there would not be a detour for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Each alternative was reviewed through the CEAP factors but most of the factors did not
show a differentiation between the alternatives. A summary of the project issues in Table
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Alternative 1a & 1b
Alternative 1a & 1b - Box Underpass at Existing

Alignment
This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills Parkway near
the alignment of the existing overpass. There are two options for the east side
connection: a loop ramp or a bridge over the Wellman Ditch.
Co
University of
lor
ad Colorado Option 1a
oA West side approach:
ve • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path
• Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided
East side approach:

• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp
Underpass
• 6LPLODUOHQJWKWRPRVWRIWKHDOWHUQDWLYHV·DERXWWKHOHQJWKRIKDOIRIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG
• Walls on both sides of path
k wy
hills P 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWVRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO3DWK
Park East Foot - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
Park - Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction.
User experience Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
OSMP
Option 1b
West side approach:
• Same as 1a
East side approach:

• Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path
Underpass:
• Shorter length than most of the alternatives (120’)
1a
- Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction.
Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining walls
N Park East Park for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run through the park
impacts south of the basketball court.
Floodplain 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ
Option 1a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an easement or

property acquisition may be needed on private property.
Property impacts Option 1b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be installed
along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be impacted
permanently.
Option 1a impacts 16 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park that would
need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian elm, blue spruce,
American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade elm. Impacts on the east side
are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple and Russian olive. 17 trees
ZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOO
be relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.
Tree impacts Option 1b impacts 10 trees on the west of the project within Park East Park that would
need to be removed and are comprised of Siberian elm, blue spruce, elm, cottonwood,
1a goldenrain, western catalpa and crack willow. Impacts on the east side are 6 trees,
comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple and Russian olive. Impacts 1 tree on the
west side which is CU property which is a ponderosa pine. 17 trees will be impacted due to
WKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOOEHUHORFDWHGDWYDULRXV
locations along Foothills Parkway.
Construction • 12 months
duration and • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3 months
• Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street level
impacts
Example of what the east side of the underpass approach could look like
Cost estimation $$
May 3, 2018
Alternative 2a & 2b
Alternative 2a & 2b - Bridge Underpass shared with

Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment
This alternative includes a bridge underpass on Foothills Parkway near the
alignment of the existing overpass. There are two options for the East side
Co
University of
lor Colorado
ad
oA Option 2a
ve West side approach:
• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path
East side approach:

• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial
Path
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp
Underpass:
Pkwy • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’)
Park East hills • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other
Foot
Park 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO
OSMP Path
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W
User experience direction. Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians
in the N-S direction.
Option 2b
West side approach:
• Same as 2a
East side approach:

• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial
Path
Bridge:
2a • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’)
• Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other
N - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path

direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians
The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining
Park East Park walls for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run
impacts through the park south of the basketball court.
:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQWZKLFKZRXOGUHTXLUHFORVLQJWKH
Floodplain underpass 1-3 days in an average year
Option 2a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an

easement or property acquisition may be needed on private property.
Property impacts Option 2b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be
installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be
impacted permanently.
Option 2a impacts 17 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park
that would need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian
2a elm, blue spruce, American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade
elm. Impacts on the east side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry,
Tree impacts VLOYHUPDSOHDQG5XVVLDQROLYHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXU
along Foothills Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations
along Foothills Parkway.
Option 2b impacts are similar to Option 2a.

• 18 months
Construction • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3
duration and months
• Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street
impacts level
Example of what the east side of the underpass approach could look like Cost estimation $$$$
May 3, 2018
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 - Bridge Underpass Shared with

Bear Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a bridge underpass on Foothills Parkway just
south of Colorado Avenue. The alignment runs along the bank of the
Co
University of Bear Canyon Creek to the southeast.
lor Colorado
ad
ve • Bridge and straight alignment with wall on one wide of path
• Connection to Colorado Avenue
East side approach:

• Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado Avenue
• Foothills Path connects south over underpass path
Bridge:
User experience
• Similar length to most of the alternatives (145’)—about the length of
kwy KDOIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG
Park East hills P • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other
Foot
Park 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK)RRWKLOOV3DWK
OSMP - Out of direction for east-west travel
- Travel time of 1.9 minutes for bicyclists and 9.7 minutes for
pedestrians in the E-W direction. Travel time of 0.9 minutes for
bicyclists and 4.5 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
Park East Park

No Impacts
impacts
:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQWZKLFKZRXOGUHTXLUH
closing the underpass 1-3 days in an average year. Alternative
Floodplain KDVWKHSRWHQWLDOWRLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQZKHQXSVWUHDP
improvements are made which isn’t currently planned in the next 10-
20 years
CU property impacts may include an easement for the path that runs
Property impacts along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek.
N Alternative 3 impacts 2 trees on the west side which is CU property,

both are ponderosa pine trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree,
Tree impacts which is a native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will be impacted due to
WKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOOEH
relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.
• Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane
duration and closures for 2-3 months
impacts • Existing overpass will remain open during construction
Cost estimation $$$$
Example of what the east side of the underpass approach could look like
May 3, 2018
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 - Box Underpass North of Bear

Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills
Parkway just south of Colorado Avenue. The alignment runs along
Co
University of the bank of the Bear Canyon Creek to the southeast.
lor Colorado
ad
ve • Bridge and straight alignment
• Connection to Colorado Avenue
East side approach:

Underpass:
User experience
• Similar length to most of the alternatives (150’)—about the length of
kwy KDOIRIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG
Park East hills P • Walls on both sides of path
Foot
Park 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK)RRWKLOOV3DWK
OSMP - Out of direction for east-west travel
bicyclists and 4.1 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction
Park East Park
No impacts
impacts
CU property impacts may include an easement for the path that runs
Property impacts along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek
Alternative 4 impacts 2 trees on the west side which is CU property,

both are ponderosa pine trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree,
Tree impacts which is a native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will be impacted due to
WKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOOEH
N relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.
Cost estimation $$
Example of what the both sides of the underpass could look like
May 3, 2018
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 - Box Underpass South of Bear

Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills
Parkway just south of the existing Bear Canyon Creek culvert.
Co
University of West side approach:
lor
ad Colorado • Bridge and straight alignment
oA
ve • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route
also provided
East side approach:

User experience
Underpass:
hills Pkwy
Park East Foot 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK)RRWKLOOV3DWK
Park - Out of direction for east-west travel
OSMP
bicyclists and 7.6 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
Park East Park

No Impacts
impacts
Property impacts All on city owned property.
Alternative 5 impacts 2 trees on the east side, a Russian olive and

willow. Impacts on the west side are 2 cracked willow trees. 17 trees
Tree impacts ZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\
The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along
Foothills Parkway.
N Construction •12 months

Cost estimation $$
Example of what the west side of the underpass approach could look like
May 3, 2018
Characteristics of Conceptual Alternatives
Alternative 3 - Bridge Alternative 4 - Box Alternative 5 - Box
Alternative 1a & 1b - Box Underpass at Existing Alternative 2a & 2b - Bridge Underpass shared
Underpass Shared with Bear Underpass North of Bear Underpass South of Bear
Alignment with Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment
Canyon Creek Canyon Creek Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a box culvert This alternative includes a This alternative includes This alternative includes a This alternative includes
underpass under Foothills Parkway bridge underpass on Foothills a bridge underpass on box culvert underpass under a box culvert underpass
near the alignment of the existing Parkway near the alignment of Foothills Parkway just south Foothills Parkway just south under Foothills Parkway
overpass. There are two options for the existing overpass. There are of Colorado Avenue. The of Colorado Avenue. The just south of the existing
the east side connection: a loop two options for the East side alignment runs along the alignment runs along the Bear Canyon Creek
ramp or a bridge over the Wellman connection: a loop ramp or a bank of the Bear Canyon bank of the Bear Canyon culvert.
Ditch. bridge over the Wellman Ditch. Creek to the southeast. Creek to the southeast.
Option 1a Option 2a West side approach: West side approach: West side approach:
West side approach: West side approach: • Bridge and straight alignment with wall on one • Bridge and straight alignment • Bridge and straight alignment
Project • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path wide of path • Connection to Colorado Avenue • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-
Factors • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided • Connection to Colorado Avenue compliant route also provided
East side approach:
East side approach: East side approach: East side approach: • Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at East side approach:
• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial • Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado Colorado Avenue • Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp Path Avenue • Foothills Path connects south over underpass Avenue
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp • Foothills Path connects south over underpass path • Foothills Path connects south over underpass
Underpass path path
• Similar length to most of the alternatives (145’) - about the length of half of a Underpass: Underpass:
IRRWEDOOÀHOG • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’) Bridge: • Similar length to most of the alternatives Underpass:
• Walls on both sides of path • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other • Similar length to most of the alternatives (145’)— (150’)—about the length of half of a football • Shorter length than most of the alternatives
DERXWWKHOHQJWKRIKDOIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG ÀHOG (115’)
3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWVRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the • Walls on both sides of path • Walls on both sides of path
Path Path other
- Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPS 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPS
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W - Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPS with Foothills Path with Foothills Path
direction. Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians in direction. Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians with Foothills Path - Out of direction for east-west travel - Out of direction for east-west travel
the N-S direction. in the N-S direction. - Out of direction for east-west travel
- Travel time of 1.9 minutes for bicyclists and 9.7 - Travel time of 1.3 minutes for bicyclists and 7.3
Option 1b Option 2b - Travel time of 1.9 minutes for bicyclists and 9.7 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction. minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction.
West side approach: West side approach: minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction. Travel time of 0.8 minutes for bicyclists and 4.1 Travel time of 1.4 minutes for bicyclists and 7.6
• Same as 1a • Same as 2a Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.5 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
East side approach: East side approach:
• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial
• Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path Path
User Underpass:
• Shorter length than most of the alternatives (120’) Bridge:
experience • Walls on both sides of path • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’)
• Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path
direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians in - Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W
the N-S direction. direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians
Park East The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining
walls for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run through walls for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run No Impacts No impacts No Impacts
Park impacts the park south of the basketball court. through the park south of the basketball court.
:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQW
which would require closing the underpass
:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQWZKLFKZRXOGUHTXLUHFORVLQJWKH 1-3 days in an average year. Alternative 3 has
Floodplain 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ
underpass 1-3 days in an average year WKHSRWHQWLDOWRLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQZKHQ
upstream improvements are made which isn’t
currently planned in the next 10-20 years
Option 1a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an easement Option 2a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an
or property acquisition may be needed on private property. easement or property acquisition may be needed on private property.
Property CU property impacts may include an easement CU property impacts may include an easement
for the path that runs along the bank of Bear for the path that runs along the bank of Bear All on city owned property.
Option 1b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be Option 2b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be
impacts Canyon Creek. Canyon Creek
installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be
impacted permanently. impacted permanently.
Option 1a impacts 16 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park that Option 2a impacts 17 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park Alternative 3 impacts 2 trees on the west side Alternative 4 impacts 2 trees on the west side Alternative 5 impacts 2 trees on the east side,
would need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian elm, blue that would need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian which is CU property, both are ponderosa pine which is CU property, both are ponderosa a Russian olive and willow. Impacts on the west
spruce, American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade elm. Impacts elm, blue spruce, American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree, which is a pine trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree, side are 2 cracked willow trees. 17 trees will be
on the east side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple elm. Impacts on the east side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will be impacted which is a native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will LPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV
DQG5XVVLDQROLYHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV VLOYHUPDSOHDQG5XVVLDQROLYHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀF GXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\ EHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at
Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along Foothills detour along Foothills Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various The impacted trees will be relocated at various Foothills Parkway. The impacted trees will be various locations along Foothills Parkway.
Parkway. locations along Foothills Parkway. locations along Foothills Parkway. relocated at various locations along Foothills
Tree impacts Parkway.
Option 1b impacts 10 trees on the west of the project within Park East Park that Option 2b impacts are similar to Option 2a.
would need to be removed and are comprised of Siberian elm, blue spruce, elm,
cottonwood, goldenrain, western catalpa and crack willow. Impacts on the east
side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple and Russian
olive. Impacts 1 tree on the west side which is CU property which is a ponderosa
SLQHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KH
impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.
• 12 months
• 12 months • 18 months • 18 months •12 months
Construction • Foothills Parkway remains open with
• Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3 • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3 • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional
occasional night time lane closures for 2-3
duration and months months night time lane closures for 2-3 months night time lane closures for 2-3 months
months
• Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street • Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street • Existing overpass will remain open during • Existing overpass will remain open during
impacts • Existing overpass will remain open during
level level construction construction
construction
Cost $$
estimation
$$$$ $$$$ $$ $$
1 are the special considerations that were used when determining the recommended
project alternative. They include:
o User experience;
o Floodplain impacts;
o Property impacts;
o Park East park impacts
o Tree impacts
o Construction duration and impacts
o Cost Estimation
May 3, 2018
Recommended Alternative -1b
Following the consideration of community feedback and technical evaluation of the alternatives’ characteristics, the
recommended alternative is 1b. This alternative will: Alternative 1b - Box Underpass at Existing Alignment
• Improve mobility for all ages and abilities This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills Parkway near
• Reduce the crossing time (compared to existing bridge and the other alternatives) the alignment of the existing overpass. There are two options for the east side
• Provide a more direct crossing connection compared to other alternatives (does not require entry ramp loops
and steep grades), Option 1b
West side approach:
• Maintain the neighborhood access for the various bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path
• Provide access to the Wellman Ditch company for maintenance, which is also an improvement from existing
conditions East side approach:
• Be constructed within the project budget and with a shorter construction duration compared to the other User experience • Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path
alternatives. Underpass:
Participants in the public process generally favored alternative 1b, and its features of being within the project budget, • Walls on both sides of path
shorter construction period, directness of travel and connections to natural features. - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians in the
N-S direction.
The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining walls
University of Park East Park
for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run through the
Colorado impacts park south of the basketball court.
Co
lor 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ
ad Floodplain
oA
ve
Option 1b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be
Property impacts installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be
impacted permanently.
Option 1b would require the removal of approximately 20 trees on the east side of
the project and are largely undesirable tree species including crack willow, Siberian
Tree impacts HOPDQGJUHHQDVKWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV
Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along Foothills
Parkway.
k wy
Park East hills P • 12 months
Foot Construction
Park • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3
duration and months
OSMP impacts • Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street level
Cost estimation $$
1b
N
4. Preferred project alternative:
The project team recommends Alternative 1b because it improves mobility for all ages
and abilities and maintains the neighborhood access for the various bicycle and
pedestrian travel patterns. Alternative 1b provides a more direct crossing connection as it
does not require the entry ramp loops and steep grades of Alternative 5. Alternative 1b is
within the project budget and has a shorter construction duration in comparison to the
other alternatives. This alternative also will provide access to the Wellman Ditch
company to maintain its ditch which is also an improvement from existing conditions.
This alternative supports public input which preferred this option as well as supports
other factors such as within project budget, shorter construction period, directness of
travel and connections to natural features.
5. Public input to date:

A community engagement plan was developed for this project and has Involve and
Consult goals as defined by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2).
Those levels of public participation have goals of providing the public with information
about the project problem, alternatives, opportunities and solutions and obtaining public
feedback on alternatives, analysis and project decisions. There were several tools used to
engage the community including three public meetings and online project information
and comment forms. The community was notified in several ways including postal
mailings, emails and on-site signage. Growing Up Boulder (GUB) implemented an
outreach event with youth living at the City of Boulder Madison housing property at 35th
and Colorado to gain their insights on user needs, alignment preferences and ideas for
aesthetics.
Input provided to date included preferences on alignment and reasons for preference
including travel needs and directness of travel, cost and construction duration and
abilities to access the adjacent natural environment. There were suggestions for the
design including lighting, public art and landscaping and questions about need and ability
to be open during flooding events.
6. Project Contacts:
Staff project manager:
Brian Wiltshire, Public Works-Transportation Division, 303-441-4162
wiltshireb@bouldercolorado.gov
Project Planner
Noreen Walsh, Public Works-Transportation Division, 303-441-4301
walshn@bouldercolorado.gov
Other consultants or relevant contacts:

Civil Engineering and Design
Project Manager
Chau Nguyen, HDR
Chau.Nguyen@hdrinc.com
Goals Assessment:
1. Using the BVCP and department master plans, describe the primary city goals and benefits that the
project will help to achieve:
a. Community Sustainability Goals – How does the project improve the quality of economic,
environmental and social health with future generations in mind?
This project works to achieve the city’s environmental sustainability goals by providing a universal
design for a grade separated pedestrian and bicyclist crossing of Foothills Parkway meeting current
bicycle and pedestrian facility and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) design guidelines. The BVCP
and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) call for a multimodal transportation system with accessible and
safe travel options and connections. By improving this crossing location for pedestrians and bicyclists
of all ages and abilities there may be an increase in overall usage and movement towards modal shift
goals identified in the TMP. The environmental sustainability goal is also implemented by reviewing
the project alternatives through the city’s CEAP process and identifying impacts on identified
environmental, economic and community sustainability factors and how they can be mitigated.
This project helps to achieve economic sustainability goals by providing a safe crossing for all ages and
abilities of persons walking and bicycling by helping them to get to and from their homes, employment
and other activities. CU is a key stakeholder in this process as an adjacent property owner to the
project and some of the specific alternatives being considered.
This project helps to achieve its social sustainability goals by improving the transportation options for
all members of the community walking and bicycling with a grade separated crossing of Foothills
Parkway designed to meet current guidelines and standards.
b. BVCP Goals related to:

Intergovernmental Cooperation and Growth Management:
BVCP Policy 1.05 “Coordination with University of Colorado” has been practiced during the project’s
conceptual planning and design and will continue through construction as needed.
Community Design/Built Environment - Boulder’s compact, interconnected urban form helps ensure
the community’s environmental health, social equity and economic vitality. It also supports cost-
effective infrastructure and facility investments, a high level of multimodal mobility and easy access to
employment, recreation, shopping and other amenities, as well as a strong image of Boulder as a
distinct community. The Built Environment policies help shape the form and quality of future growth in
addition to protecting historic and environmental resources and preserving established neighborhood
character.
The project improvements are in support of this goal. It is replacing an overpass bicycle and
pedestrian bridge that is nearing the end of its 50-year design life which has increasing annual
maintenance needs. The underpass will continue to provide a connection to the adjacent bicycle and
pedestrian facility network meeting current design standards resulting in a facility for all ages and
abilities of community members walking and bicycling. The alternatives being considered take into
account the existing surrounding uses and will have urban treatments and landscaping elements to
complement and enhance the facility and surrounding area. The city’s Arts and Cultural Resources staff
are implementing a process to select an artist to design urban design and art/aesthetic improvements
which will contribute to the character area.
Natural Setting - Boulder’s natural setting defines its size and shape -The two most important factors
that shape the City of Boulder are its mountain backdrop and surrounding open space and rural lands.
These natural features form a clearly defined edge that separates the urban area from the open
countryside. Creeks and constructed irrigation ditches have also shaped the layout of the city. Irrigation
ditches are an important link between natural features and Boulder’s rural and agricultural areas
This project removes the overpass bridge which will allow more open views of the mountain backdrop
and surrounding area.
Public Realm - The public realm provides key functions and strongly influences character and aesthetics.
The design of the public realm plays a major role in defining the character, identity and aesthetic quality
of the city overall and individual neighborhoods. This project is supporting mobility functions connecting
residents and visitors to the adjacent or nearby destinations. The alternatives being considered take into
account the existing surrounding uses and will have urban design treatments and landscaping elements
to complement and enhance the facility and surrounding area.
To view this section of the BVCP, please go to: https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/BVCP_2015_Update_12.6.2017_FOR_WEB-1-201712061956.pdf
Natural Environment; Energy, Climate and Waste – The policies in this section of the BVCP support
goals related to the conservation and preservation of land, water, air resources and pollution
prevention and climate change and resilience including “Protecting native ecosystems and biodiversity;
enhancing urban environmental quality; protecting geologic resources & reducing risks from natural
hazards; and, sustaining & improving water and air quality”.
The project improvements of an underpass and multi-use path connections designed for all ages and
abilities of pedestrians and bicyclists can shift the modal choice from single occupant trips to walking
and bicycling thereby reducing vehicle miles of travel and associated greenhouse gas emissions. This
shift can reduce mobile source emissions of pollutants supporting air quality and energy and climate
goals. Each of the alternatives were reviewed for anticipated impacts to existing trees and this
information as well as proposed mitigation is included A2 of the checklist.
Economy The policies in this section of the BVCP support the following goals related to maintaining a
sustainable and resilient economy: Strategic redevelopment & sustainable employment; Diverse
economic base; Quality of life; Sustainable & resilient business practices; and Job opportunities,
education & training. This project supports the quality of life that is important to its residents,
employees, businesses and visitors including a complete multimodal transportation system and
connection to nearby schools, University of Colorado and other employment opportunities nearby in
central and east boulder.
Transportation the BVCP policies and TMP support the maintenance and development of a balanced
transportation system that supports all modes of travel, making the system more efficient in carrying
travelers while maintaining its infrastructure in good condition and continuing to shift trips away from
the single-occupant vehicle. This project fulfills these goals by replacing an existing bicycle and
pedestrian bridge at the end of its service life and not meeting current design standards with a grade
separated crossing meeting current design standards and open to use by all members of the community.
Housing The project will provide a safe crossing of Foothills Parkway designed for all ages and
abilities of users that will connect nearby residents to their employment and other destinations which
potentially leads to a decrease in overall housing costs. The outreach event implemented by Growing
Up Boulder did identify that some of the existing residents who do not currently use bridge would be
more inclined to use the future underpass.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link.
Social Concerns and Human Services/Community Well-Being & Safety

The project will be designed for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities following the ADA
design guidelines and AASHTO bicycle facility guidelines documents. Urban design, landscaping and
lighting treatments intend to support the comfort, safety and experience of the users.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link
Agriculture and Food

Section 9.01 Support for Agriculture discusses the protection of ditches as a way to support sustainable
water usage. Two of the alternatives are adjacent or within the Wellman Ditch and there have been
discussions with the Wellman Ditch company to preserve their existing water conveyance levels and to
consider improvements to their ability to access the ditch for maintenance.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link
Local Governance & Community Engagement

These policies reflect the Boulder community’s strong values in maintaining a high level of awareness,
communication and public participation in local government and building civic and community
capacity.
The community engagement plan developed for this project has Involve and Consult commitments as
defined by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Those levels of public
participation have goals of providing the public with information about the project problem,
alternatives, opportunities and solutions and obtaining public feedback on alternatives, analysis and
project decisions. The project team has utilized multiple engagement tools including community
meetings, on-site meetings with targeted audiences such as the Center for People with Disabilities,
online comment forms, email, youth organization events (through Growing Up Boulder), and signage.
The project team is following the recently accepted Public Participation Framework for the City of
Boulder which includes the 9 steps to community engagement to ensure that the engagement is
addressing those milestones.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link.
c. Describe any regional goals (potential benefits or impacts to regional systems or plans?)
The nearby University of Colorado east campus is located north and west of this project. The CU
Boulder East Campus Master Plan and East Campus connections plan envisions that area as a well-
connected and useable area by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. This project helps to fulfill
their vision of mobility and accessibility for all CU Boulder faculty, staff, and visitors with an improved
grade separated crossing and a multi-use path connecting the underpass with Colorado Avenue on the
west side of Foothills Parkway.
2. Is this project referenced in a master plan, subcommunity or area plan? If so, what is the context in
terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc.? If not, why not?
This project supports the TMP’s goal of options for all Boulder residents and employees, including
older adults and people with disabilities, and budget priority of maintaining its infrastructure in good
condition by replacing a functionally substandard bridge at the end of its service life and a grade
separated crossing meeting current design standards for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and
abilities.
3. Will this project be in conflict with the goals or policies in any departmental master plan and what are
the trade-offs among city policies and goals in the proposed project alternative? (e.g. higher financial
investment to gain better long-term services or fewer environmental impacts)
This project will not be in conflict with the goals and policies of other city department master plans and
goals.
4. List other city projects in the project area that are listed in a departmental master plan or the CIP.
There are not any other city projects identified in the CIP that are in the project area.
5. What are the major city, state, and federal standards that will apply to the proposed project? How will
the project exceed city, state, or federal standards and regulations (e.g. environmental, health, safety, or
transportation standards)?
The project will comply with all required city, state and federal permits and meet the city and national
standards (ADA and AASHTO) for the development of pedestrian and bikeway facilities.
6. Are there cumulative impacts to any resources from this and other projects that need to be recognized
and mitigated?
There are none identified at this time.
Impact Assessment:
1. Using the attached checklist, identify the potential short or long-term impacts of the project alternatives.
Use +, - or 0 in the checklist table to indicate impacts, benefits and no changes for each alternative.
+ indicates a positive effect or improved condition
- indicates a negative effect or impact
0 indicates no effect
Categories on the Checklist Table indicating positive or negative impacts (+ or –) should answer the Checklist
Questions following the table in full.
Checklist
+ Positive effect
- Negative effect
0 No effect
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass, south of
underpass with Wellman Canal

underpass at Current Location
Alter. 3-Bridge underpass with
underpass near Colorado Ave

Colorado Avenue
Alter. 5 – Box culvert near

Alter. 1a/1b– Box culvert
Alter. 4 – Box culvert

Alter. 2a/2b – Bridge
Bear Canyon Creek
Bear Canyon Creek

A. Natural Areas or Features
1. Disturbance to species, communities, habitat, or ecosystems due to:
- - - - -
a. Construction activities
0/- 0/- - - -
b. Native vegetation removal
0 0 0 0 0
c. Human or domestic animal encroachment
0 0 0 0 0
d. Chemicals (including petroleum products, fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides)
0 0 - 0 0
e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise
from use activities)
0/- 0/- - - -
f. Habitat removal
0 0 0 0 0
g. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site
landscaping
0 0 0 0 0
h. Changes to groundwater or surface runoff
0 0 0 0 0
i. Wind erosion
- - - - -
2. Loss of mature trees or significant plants?
B. Riparian Areas/Floodplains
0 0 0 0 0
1. Encroachment upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood
zones?
0/- 0/- - - -
2. Disturbance to or fragmentation of a riparian corridor?
C. Wetlands
0 0 0 0 0
1. Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site?


Colorado Avenue


Bear Canyon Creek
Bear Canyon Creek

D. Geology and Soils
0 0 0 0 0
1. a. Impacts to unique geologic or physical features?
0 0 0 0 0
b. Geologic development constraints?
0 0 0 0 0
c. Substantial changes in topography?
+ + + + +
d. Changes in soil or fill material on the site?
0 0 0 0 0
e. Phasing of earth work?
E. Water Quality
1. Impacts to water quality from any of the following?

0 0 0 0 0
a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction
activities
0 0 0 0 0
b. Change in hardscape
0 0 0 0 0
c. Change in site ground features
+ + + + +
d. Change in storm drainage
0 0 0 0 0
e. Change in vegetation
- - - 0 -
f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic
0 0 0 0 0
g. Pollutants
0 0 0 0 0
2. Exposure of groundwater contamination from excavation or
pumping?
F. Air Quality
+ + + + +
1. Short or long term impacts to air quality (CO2 emissions,
pollutants)?
+ + + + +
a. From mobile sources?
0 0 0 0 0
b. From stationary sources?
G. Resource Conservation
0 0 0 0 0
1. Changes in water use?
+ + + + +


Colorado Avenue


Bear Canyon Creek
Bear Canyon Creek

2. Increases or decreases in energy use?
0 0 0 0 0
3. Generation of excess waste?
H. Cultural/Historic Resources
0 0 0 0 0
1. a. Impacts to a prehistoric or archaeological site?
0 0 0 0 0
b. Impacts to a building or structure over fifty years of age?
c. Impacts to a historic feature of the site? 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0
d. Impacts to significant agricultural land?
I. Visual Quality
+ + + + +
1. a. Effects on scenic vistas or public views?
+ + + + +
b. Effects on the aesthetics of a site open to public view?
0 0 0 0 0
c. Effects on views to unique geologic or physical features?
0 0 0 0 0
d. Changes in lighting?
J. Safety
0 0 0 0 0
1. Health hazards, odors, or radon?
0 0 0 0 0
2. Disposal of hazardous materials?
0 0 0 0 0
3. Site hazards?
K. Physiological Well-being
+ + + + +
1. Exposure to excessive noise?
0 0 0 0 0
2. Excessive light or glare?
0 0 0 0 0
3. Increase in vibrations?
L. Services
1. Additional need for:

0 0 0 0 0
a. Water or sanitary sewer services?
- - - - -
b. Storm sewer/Flood control features?


Colorado Avenue


Bear Canyon Creek
Bear Canyon Creek

0 0 0 0 0
c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes?
0 0 0 0 0
d. Police services?
0 0 0 0 0
e. Fire protection services?
0 0 0 0 0
f. Recreation or parks facilities?
0 0 0 0 0
g. Library services?
0 0 0 0 0
h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation?
0 0 0 0 0
i. Parking?
0 0 0 0 0
j. Affordable housing?
0 0 0 0 0
k. Open space/urban open land?
0 0 0 0 0
l. Power or energy use?
0 0 0 0 0
m. Telecommunications?
0 0 0 0 0
n. Health care/social services?
0 0 0 0 0
o. Trash removal or recycling services?
M. Special Populations
1. Effects on:
+ + + + +
a. Persons with disabilities?
+ + + + +
b. Senior population?
+ + + + +
c. Children or youth?
+ + + + +
d. Restricted income persons?
+ + + + +
e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other
immigrants)?
+ + + + +
f Neighborhoods
+ + + + +
g. Sensitive populations located near the project (e.g. schools,
hospitals, nursing homes)?


Colorado Avenue


Bear Canyon Creek
Bear Canyon Creek

N. Economy
0 0 0 0 0
1. Utilization of existing infrastructure?
+ + + + +
2. Effect on operating expenses?
+ + + + +
3. Effect on economic activity?
0 0 0 0 0
4. Impacts to businesses, employment, retail sales or city revenue?
Checklist Questions
Note: The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. Only those questions indicated on the
checklist are to be answered in full.
A. Natural Areas and Features

1. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant: species, plant communities, wildlife
habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed below. (Significant species include any
species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state, county
lists.)
a. Construction activities
Work that may impact Bear Canyon Creek or Wellman Canal and the associated
floodplains, high hazard zone and/or conveyance zone would require authorization under
the Army Corps of Engineers 404 wetlands permit, a City of Boulder wetland permit and a
Floodplain Development permit. We are not anticipating species or habitat impacts based
upon the initial site environmental assessment that has been conducted.
b. Native Vegetation removal
Alternatives 1b and 2b result in vegetation removal along the north side of the Wellman
Ditch and impacts ornamental trees and grasses in the park. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 result in
vegetation removal within the COB open space parcel as well as impacting grasses in the
CU owned parcel.
Alternatives 1a and 2a are anticipated to not have an impact on native vegetation removal.
The project will look to replant any landscaping that would be temporarily impacted.
c. Human or domestic animal encroachment
d. Chemicals to be stored or used on the site (including petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides)
e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use activities)
Noise impacts from the operation of the underpass are not anticipated, but human
presence could deter wildlife. Since Alternative 3 would place users adjacent to Bear
Canyon Creek where it crosses beneath Foothills Parkway, there could be deer and small
mammal animals deterred from crossing here, or at a minimum alter their behavior to be
active when human presence is low. This alternative is not being recommended so it has
not been further studied for mitigation opportunities.
f. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping

All alternatives result in some habitat removal. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 remove habitat that
is part of an undeveloped open space parcel. Alts 1b and 2b remove riparian vegetation
along the Wellman Ditch, which may affect animals moving along this corridor.
The project anticipates mitigating this impact by replacing the habitat with new plantings.
g. Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surface runoff (storm

drainage, natural stream) on the site
h. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either short term (construction-related)
or long term
i. Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site
2. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant plants.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that
is relevant to the project:
x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts.
x A habitat assessment of the site, including: 1. a list of plant and animal species and plant
communities of special concern found on the site; 2. a wildlife habitat evaluation of the site.
x Maps of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County
Environmental Conservation Area, or critical wildlife habitat.
All alternatives will result in the removal of 18 trees which are in the Foothills Parkway
medians. The medians are being removed during construction to maintain the four vehicle
lanes which carry 44,000 vehicles along this section of state highway. The project team is
working with Parks and Recreation staff to find locations for transplanting as they are
suitable for this due to their size and condition. The project will plant new trees in the
medians and the project area to mitigate the effects of the tree removals and will follow city
guidelines and coordinate with forestry and landscape architect staff on tree species
selection.
The total number of additional trees vary between the 5 alternatives. For Alternative 1a there
are 22 trees on the west and east sides of the project area. For Alternative 1b there are 16
trees on the west and east sides of the project area. For Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 there are 3
additional trees on the west and east sides of the project area.
Additional information regarding the species type, size and condition of these trees can be
found in the CEAP Appendix A.
B. Riparian Areas and Floodplains
1. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard
flood zones.
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are within one or more 100-year flood zones.

A City of Boulder Floodplain Development Permit will be obtained for any of the options
prior to construction and the result will not create a negative effect on the existing
floodplains.
2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a riparian corridor:
(This includes impacts to the existing channel of flow, streambanks, adjacent riparian zone extending
50 ft. out from each bank, and any existing drainage from the site to a creek or stream.)
The map below shows the location of the alternatives and adjacent Wellman Ditch and Bear Canyon
Creek.
Alternatives 1b and 2b remove riparian vegetation along the Wellman Ditch. Alternatives 3,
4 and 5 will have impacts to the Bear Canyon Creek corridor.
The project will mitigate this impact with new plantings.
C. Wetlands
1. Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that may result from the project.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that
is relevant to the project:
Below is a map showing the location of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify both those
wetlands and buffer areas which are jurisdictional under city code (on the wetlands map in our
ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal criteria (definitional).
Alternatives 1, 2 and 5 will not be impacting identified wetlands or inner wetland buffer
areas.
Alternatives 3 and 4 may result in permanent impacts to wetland vegetation. No permanent
impacts are anticipated because these wetlands are under jurisdiction of the City of Boulder
and the project will restore impacted areas to pre-existing or better conditions as required by
any permitting.
D. Geology and Soils

1. Describe any:
a. impacts to unique geologic or physical features;
b. geologic development constraints or effects to earth conditions or landslide, erosion, or
subsidence;
c. substantial changes in topography; or
d. changes in soil or fill material on the site
that may result from the project.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:
x A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features, or hazardous soil or
geologic conditions on the site.
All alternatives will reduce the above ground topography due to the bridge removal. All
alternatives will have changes to the below ground topography which changes the surface
topography with the addition of retaining walls. Some of the retaining walls will be terraced to
reduce the height effect. The overall facility footprint will be reduced.
E. Water Quality
1. Describe any impacts to water quality that may result from any of the following:
a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities that will be involved with the
project;
b. Changes in the amount of hardscape (paving, cement, brick, or buildings) in the project area;
c. Permanent changes in site ground features such as paved areas or changes in topography;
d. Changes in the storm drainage from the site after project completion;
All alternatives will add water quality features to treat runoff from the roadway. This is to
meet a ditch company requirement for storm drainage water quality for roadway drainage
entering the ditch.
e. Change in vegetation; - See below

f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic; - See below
g. Potential pollution sources during and after construction (may include temporary or permanent
use or storage of petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides).
2. Describe any pumping of groundwater that may be anticipated either during construction or as a
result of the project. If excavation or pumping is planned, what is known about groundwater
contamination in the surrounding area (1/4 mile in all directions from the project) and the direction
of groundwater flow?
Project construction will require clearing, excavation, and grading work. During construction
the surface water runoff will be treated by installing Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
according to the Colorado Stormwater Discharge Permit. The project will provide water
quality improvements that reach beyond the project limits by adding a water quality device to
the Foothills Parkway stormwater pipe which captures stormwater along Foothills Parkway.
Project improvements will cause an increase in the amount of impervious surface material due
to the additional concrete for underpass, access ramps, and path connections. Project final
design will seek to minimize the amount of contiguous hardscape in the project area and will
seek opportunities to incorporate native/drought resistant xeriscape landscaping to allow for
water filtration.
F. Air Quality
1. Describe potential short or long term impacts to air quality resulting from this project. Distinguish
between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and stationary sources (APEN, HAPS).
Emissions from construction equipment would have a short term effect on air quality during
construction. The effects of the emissions would be negligible because of the small number of
short term emission sources.
There may also be some long-term improvements to air quality from mobile sources if the
underpass project leads to increased use of walking and bicycling.
G. Resource Conservation
1. Describe potential changes in water use that may result from the project.
a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the facility.
b. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site (Xeriscape landscaping, efficient irrigation
system).
2. Describe potential increases or decreases in energy use that may result from the project.
a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project or how energy conservation measures
will be incorporated into the building design.
b. Describe plans for using renewable energy sources on the project or how renewable energy
sources will be incorporated into the building design?
c. Describe how the project will be built to LEED standards.
All Alternatives would install some landscaping that would require some irrigation. The
project will look to minimize the impacts with selection of low water landscaping.
All alternatives will provide lighting within the underpass which will have a slight increase in
energy use. The project will look to minimize the impact with use of high efficiency lighting.
H. Cultural/Historic Resources
1. Describe any impacts to:
a. a prehistoric or historic archaeological site;
b. a building or structure over fifty years of age;
c. a historic feature of the site such as an irrigation ditch; or
d. significant agricultural lands
that may result from the project.
I. Visual Quality
1. Describe any effects on:

a. scenic vistas or views open to the public;
All alternatives will remove the existing overpass which would open the view of the Flatirons
and mountains to the west to drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and park users at or near the
project area. Some community members who use the existing bridge have expressed
disappointment that their view of the mountains from the bridge will be eliminated.
The project will include urban design and possibly public art which will enhance the aesthetics
and experience for underpass users which may mitigate some of the impact that some of the
community members expressed from the bridge removal.
b. the aesthetics of a site open to public view; or
All alternatives will remove the existing overpass which would open the view of the Flatirons
and mountains to the west to drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and park users at or near the
project area.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would add a new path in undeveloped land.
Alternatives 1a/b and 2a/b will change the views and aesthetics of Park East Park with walls,
railing, fences. The project will include landscaping and design that is complementary to the
park and will work with Parks Project Management staff on the landscaping design plans
including walls, railing and fence details.
c. view corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features

that may result from the project
J. Safety
1. Describe any additional health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon that may result from
the project.
2. Describe measures for the disposal of hazardous materials.
3. Describe any additional hazards that may result from the project. (Including risk of explosion or the
release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts
during or after site construction through management of hazardous materials or application of safety
precautions.
K. Physiological Well-being
1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise, light or glare caused by any phase
of the project (construction or operations).
All alternatives eliminate the overpass, reducing exposure to traffic noise for trail users.
2. Describe any increase in vibrations or odor that may result from the project.
L. Services
1. Describe any increased need for the following services as a result of the project:
a. Water or sanitary sewer services

b. Storm sewer / Flood control features
c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes
This project will add storm sewer infrastructure and a sump pump which will require some
ongoing maintenance that is not required today. The net impact is a decrease in ongoing
maintenance because this underpass will have less snow and ice removal when compared to
the existing overpass bridge.
d. Police services
e. Fire protection
f. Recreation or parks facilities
g. Libraries
h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation
i. Parking
j. Affordable housing
k. Open space/urban open land
l. Power or energy use
m. Telecommunications
n. Health care/social services
o. Trash removal or recycling services
2. Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or department master
plans as a result of this project. (e.g. budget, available parking, planned use of the site, public
access, automobile/pedestrian conflicts, views)
M. Special Populations
1. Describe any effects the project may have on the following special populations:
a. Persons with disabilities

b. Senior population
c. Children or Youth
d. Restricted income persons
e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other immigrants)
f. Sensitive Populations located near the project (e.g. adjacent neighborhoods or property owners,
schools, hospitals, nursing homes)

x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impact.
x A description of how the proposed project would benefit special populations.
All Alternatives will be designed to serve people of all ages and abilities. Access to the bicycle
and pedestrian system will be improved for all because the facility will be open to all users at no
cost. The project design will meet all current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) design
guidelines.
N. Economic Vitality
1. Describe how the project will enhance economic activity in the city or region or generate economic
opportunities?
2. Describe any potential impacts to:
a. businesses in the vicinity of the project (ROW, access or parking),
b. employment,
c. retail sales or city revenue
and how they might be mitigated.
All Alternatives would result in a path system that would be easier to maintain versus the
existing conditions.
Appendix A
Tree information
"MUFSOBUJWFB
BOUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϭĂdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŶĐŚĞƐͿ ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϳϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ 'ƌĞĞŶƐŚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŚŽŬĞĐŚĞƌƌǇ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϰϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϮϯϵ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϳϱϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϴϱϰ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϵ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϳϭϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϯϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϱϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϮϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϰϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϲϬϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϳϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϬ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƵƌKĂŬ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϭϱϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϭ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWFC
BOUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϭďdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŶĐŚĞƐͿŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŚŽŬĞĐŚĞƌƌǇ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϰϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϯϰϬ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϮϯϵ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϬ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϭϱϯ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϳ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϯϰϭ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϯϵϮϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯϬ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƌĂĐŬtŝůůŽǁ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϭϱϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϭ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWFB
"OUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϮĂdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϳϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ 'ƌĞĞŶƐŚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŚŽŬĞĐŚĞƌƌǇ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϰϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϭϮϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϯϬϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϳϱϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϴϱϰ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϵ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϳϭϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϵϮϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϯϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϱϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϮϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϰϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϲϬϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϳϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϬ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƵƌKĂŬ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWFC
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϮďdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϭϮϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϯϬϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϳϱϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϴϱϰ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϵ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϳϭϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϯϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϱϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϮϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϰϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϲϬϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϳϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϬ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƵƌKĂŬ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϭϱϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϭ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWF
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϯdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϯϰϬ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϯ :^ϮϬϭϱϬϯϮϬϭϭϱϲϯϴ ϭϰϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯϱ 'ŽŽĚ ^ĂĨĞƚǇWƌƵŶĞ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWF
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϰdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϯϰϬ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϰ :^ϮϬϭϱϬϯϮϬϭϭϱϲϯϴ ϭϰϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯϱ 'ŽŽĚ ^ĂĨĞƚǇWƌƵŶĞ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWF
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϱdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŶĐŚĞƐͿ ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϯϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϵ WŽŽƌ ^ĂĨĞƚǇWƌƵŶĞ tŝůůŽǁƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϱ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϯϮϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯϴ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ ƌĂĐŬtŝůůŽǁ
ϱ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϴ &Ăŝƌ ^ĂĨĞƚǇWƌƵŶĞ ƌĂĐŬtŝůůŽǁ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞǇůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,ǇďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌǇWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Asset Management Program
City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation Department
May 15, 2018
April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 What Is an Asset Management Program?
1.2 Why Create an Asset Management Program?
1.3 Key Principles of BPRD Asset Management
1.4 AMP Planning and Development Process
1.5 Living Document
Chapter 2: Asset Inventory

2.1 Overview
2.2 What Is an Asset?
2.3 Asset Category vs Feature Class– What’s the difference?
2.4 Asset Inventory Fields of Information
2.5 Park System Asset Classification
2.6 Specialized Facilities Asset Classification – Coming in 2019
Chapter 3: Condition Assessment

3.1 Overview
3.2 What Is a Condition Assessment?
3.3 Why Conduct a Condition Assessment?
3.4 When and How?
3.5 Condition Assessment Scoring
3.6 Condition Assessment Case Study #1: Park East Basketball Court
3.7 Condition Assessment Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf
3.8 Condition Assessment Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
Chapter 4: Criticality Assessment Process

4.1 Overview
4.2 Asset Criticality Score:
4.3 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball Court
4.4 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf
4.5 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
4.6 Criticality and Condition Comparison Chart
4.7 Criticality Logistics
Chapter 5: Asset Costs

5.1 Overview
5.2 Asset Cost Structure
5.3 Asset Cost Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball Court
5.4 Asset Cost Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf
5.5 Asset Cost Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
5.6 Asset Cost Logistics
Chapter 6: Data-Driven Decision Making

Coming First Quarter 2018
Appendices:
A.1 Annual Report – Coming 2018
A.2 Financial Reporting Protocol – Coming 2018
A.3 Asset and Feature Class Process & Data Guides – In Progress
A.5.Art
A.5.Buildings
A.5.Cemetery
A.5.Courts READY for review
A.5.Equipment
A.5.Fences & Barriers
A.5.Furniture
A.5.Horticulture READY for review
A.5.Irrigation
A.5.Lighting Fixtures
A.5.Natural Lands
A.5.Park Sites
A.5.Park Structures
A.5.Parking Lots
A.5.Paths & Plazas – aka Bike and Pedestrian Off Street Network
A.5.Playgrounds READY for review
A.5.Pools
A.5.Signs
A.5.Trees
A.5.Turf & Athletic Fields
A.5.Waste
Figures, Tables and Diagrams

Figure 1.3.1: Asset Life Cycle
Figure 1.4.1: Chapters of the AMP
Figure 2.3.1: Asset Types as they relate to GIS Feature Classes
Figure 2.5.1: Park System Asset Classification – Diagram View
Figure 2.5.2: Park System Asset Classification – Sample Park Layout
Table 3.5.1: Condition Rating Examples
Table 3.6.1: Park East Basketball Court Condition Assessment Example
Table 3.7.1: Tom Watson Park Turf Condition Assessment Example
Table 3.8.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Condition Assessment Example
Figure 4.1.1: Asset Criticality Score Composition
Table 4.3.1: Park East Park Basketball Court Criticality Scoring
Table 4.4.1: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf Criticality Scoring
Table 4.5.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Criticality Scoring
Figure 4.6.1: Criticality and Condition Chart
Table 5.2.1: Conceptual Asset Cost Structure
Table 5.3.1: Park East Basketball Court
Table 5.4.1: Tom Watson Turf
Table 5.5.1: Eben G. Fine Shelter
Executive Summary
The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) manages a park system of over 1,800 acres of
parkland comprising approximately 100 individual park properties with a combined value of roughly
$215 million in park facilities. This inventory includes a wide array of recreation facilities, park types and
park features including 3 recreation centers, 2 outdoor pools, the Flatirons Golf Course, the Boulder
Reservoir, the Valmont Bike Park, over 350 acres of managed turf and irrigated park lands, 15 miles of
multi-use greenway paths, 50,000 urban trees, 43 athletic fields, 40 playgrounds, 36 park shelters, 40
tennis courts and 47 courts used for other types of play, a significant inventory of land managed as
“natural lands, and the Pearl Street Mall.
The 2014 BPRD Master Plan, adopted by city council, uses six primary themes intended to shape
strategies for future action and decision making. Two themes, “Taking Care of What We Have” and
“Financial Sustainability,” informed the vision for an Asset Management Program (AMP) represented by
this living document that memorializes the department’s commitment to maximizing the enjoyment and
value of the city’s parks and recreation system for its residents.
The primary purpose of the AMP is to promote effective use of financial and physical resources by
developing a proactive and systematic approach to managing BPRD’s inventory of assets. Such assets
include primary park-related infrastructure such as courts, playgrounds and picnic/shade structures, as
well as secondary assets such as park furniture, lighting, trails and trees. Similarly, BPRD also tracks a
large inventory of building and facility-related assets for properties like recreation centers and aquatic
facilities. It is important to note that at this time, the AMP addresses only assets directly operated or
managed by BPRD. In many cases, BPRD has a close working relationship with the city’s Facilities and
Asset Management Division (FAM) regarding buildings or facilities, such as recreation centers, where
building systems are maintained by FAM, but where BPRD operates internal components such as pools,
courts, etc. In such cases, the AMP addresses these BPRD-operated assets but does not address assets
under FAM’s jurisdiction. BPRD will be working with FAM in future years to better clarify roles between
departments and to determine possibilities for a more closely coordinated asset management program
for assets with split operational responsibilities.
The following document presents an overview of BPRD’s AMP in a format intended for implementation
across all staff levels while also being suitable for public and decision-maker review. Goals of this
document include:
• Establishing an accurate inventory framework for capturing information about park assets
maintained by BPRD;
• Defining the process for conducting Condition Assessments on park assets;
• Identifying benchmarks for industry accepted cyclical maintenance needs with the goal of
maximizing the useful life of assets;
• Understanding the various levels of asset and property use to better manage the lifecycle of an
asset and prioritize maintenance and replacement actions;
• Forecasting operating and capital budgeting processes for assets including renovation and
replacement needs;
• Establishing levels of work needed to maintain adequate levels of service by individual asset and
by property;
• Understanding the probability and consequence of failure of each asset so the City can manage
high risk assets before failure and minimize the City’s overall risk profile;
• Establishing procedures to update the AMP to ensure that the program and its processes remain
functional and relevant to the evolving needs of the department; and
• Establishing transparency in BPRD decision making.
Critical to the success of the AMP is the mindset that the AMP represents a “living document” that will
be reviewed on a three-year cycle for relevance and accuracy. Additional reviews of the AMP should be
considered with future implementation of asset management software or department strategy updates
(i.e. master plan or budget policy). The three-year cyclical reviews will be conducted based on industry
standards for asset management, condition assessments, costs, and system wide changes. Likewise, the
AMP is meant to inform, and be informed by, asset management software selected for use by BPRD.
Though the AMP and software technology should function independently of one another, the AMP will
seek to work seamlessly with the technological resources available to maximize the relevance and
effectiveness of both the guiding AMP document and the technical systems used by BPRD to manage
information.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 What is an Asset Management Program?
An Asset Management Program is summarized by a long-range planning document that provides a
framework for understanding the assets an organization owns, services it provides, risks it assumes, and
financial investments it requires. An AMP can help an organization move from reactive to proactive
management of its physical and financial resources. This transition requires answers to the following
questions:
• What is an asset? What is not an asset?

• Which assets need to be managed?
• What is the condition of each asset?
• What maintenance and capital work is required? When and how much?
• When should an asset be retired or taken out of service?
• Which assets are critical to the organization’s operation?
• What levels of service must be provided?
• Are the current maintenance practices sufficient to sustain an adequate level of service?
• How should the assets be managed to provide services in the most efficient way?
• How much funding is necessary to sustain the desired level of service?
• Are there adequate resources to provide the services?
• How can the asset data and maintenance system be updated to better facilitate maintenance
practices?
• How can the organization make data-driven decisions for the future?
1.2 Why create an Asset Management Program?

An AMP is a tool that assists in the provision of safe and reliable public infrastructure. It also improves
the quality of an organization’s offerings by informing department budget processes, aligning work to
level of service requirements, and providing an objective and transparent decision-making process that
is guided by data about the BPRD assets. Specific to BPRD, the purposes of the AMP are to:
• Provide an overview of asset management principals along with an easily understood set of
policies and procedures aimed at implementation of these principals;
• Document the department’s commitment to asset management;
• Document the department’s wide array of asset types and associated decision-making
considerations;
• Provide a baseline guide for asset management that will be modified over time to adapt to the
changing needs of the department.
BPRD recognizes that a lack of a comprehensive asset management program leads to inherent risks
including:
• Failure to invest in safe and reliable infrastructure at the most optimal times in the asset’s
lifecycle, thereby potentially compromising the safety and service delivery of the asset;
• Less than optimal planning for growth, maintenance and replacement of existing assets and the
development of new assets, impacting BPRD’s ability to meet expected levels of service;
• Conflicting work group investment priorities, issues with delivery of service coordination, and
inter-departmental inefficiencies; and
• Inconsistency of capital plans with the need identified in asset management plans, leading to
confusing and inconsistent decision-making processes.
1.3 Key Principles of BPRD Asset Management

To attain the goals of an asset management program, BPRD should ensure a complete lifecycle approach
to thinking about the department manages its assets. This perspective requires consideration of all
stages of an asset’s life cycle to understand the full scope of the work and costs associated with
management of the asset.
Figure 1.3.1: Asset Life Cycle
Plan / Acquire / Operate /

Recapitalize Dispose
Design Construct Maintain
In addition, the following principles are applied within the BPRD asset management system:
• Holistic – take a comprehensive approach that looks at the “big picture” of asset management
across the entire department. This includes exploring the functional interdependencies and
contributions of assets and understanding how each asset contributes to the success of the
department’s program.
• Systematic – take a methodical approach (i.e. formal, repeatable and consistent) to the
management of assets.
• Risk-based – manage risk associated with desired levels of asset service and balance priorities
based on risk and associated cost/benefit.
• Optimal – make asset investment decisions based on trade-offs between the competing factors
of service level (including asset performance), risk and cost.
• Sustainable – take a long-term, lifecycle-based approach to estimating asset investment and
activities.
• Aligned – ensure that the asset management program complements the strategic
objectives of BPRD, as well as other key business systems, policies and regulation.
1.4 AMP Planning and Development Process

Responsibility for managing the City’s parks and recreation system is spread across several work groups
within the Parks and Recreation Department including Planning, Operations and Maintenance,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Information Technology (IT), Forestry and Budget and
Finance. In late 2016, an Asset Management Matrix Team was formed consisting of experts in each
work group assisted by mentors established in upper management, as well as by the expert knowledge
of field, maintenance and operations staff.
The AMP Matrix Team was tasked with the preparation of a comprehensive framework for BPRD asset
management within a user-friendly document that can be easily implemented across all staff levels. The
AMP Matrix Team met with BPRD management monthly to provide updates on the AMP progress and
deliverables. Findings of the AMP were reviewed by BPRD management and provided to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) for review and comment.
The BPRD AMP only applies to the assets tracked, maintained, and purchased by BPRD. Assets that are
tracked and maintained by other department assets frameworks are excluded, even in the cases where
BPRD purchases those assets, i.e. computers, vehicles, etc.
This document includes a step-by-step approach to asset management, clearly defining key principles of
asset management and outlining a linear system for evaluation of an asset. Future chapters of the AMP
will provide an overview of BPRD decision making processes that will guide implementation and
investment plans.
Figure 1.4.1: Chapters of the AMP
Chapter 6:
Chap. 2: Asset Inventory = Categorizing Facts
Data-Driven
Chap. 3: Condition Assessments = Identifying Risk
Decision
Chap. 4: Asset Criticality = Priority to BPRD Making
Chap. 5: Asset Costs
(Coming in
2018)
1.5 Living Document

The findings of the team are included in the following document. This is a living document that
memorializes the AMP planning process and is intended to be updated to adapt to the evolving needs of
the department, to new advances in technology and asset management processes, and to represent the
goals and directives of the department.
This document should be updated every three years to ensure the viability of the Asset Management
Program. Unit costs should be updated to reflect market conditions and asset conditions should be
reevaluated to account for asset deterioration, replacement needs or when new construction results in
altered or new assets. BPRD must commit to continuous implementation of this program and continual
updates to the underlying data and information that is critical to the AMP’s on-going success.
Chapter 2: Asset Inventory
2.1 Overview
BPRD has an extensive inventory of assets across 100 developed parks and facilities accounting for over
1,800 acres of land. It is critical to the success of the AMP that information is collected that defines the
characteristics of each asset, of each park location, and of the parks and recreation system. This chapter
focuses on the collection of information defining what an asset is, what information is critical to collect
about an asset, how assets are grouped in categories, and how this vast amount of data is organized in a
GIS relational database. This information is the foundation of the AMP and is critical to the success of
the program.
2.2 What is an Asset?

Assets are physical features in the BPRD system that are owned and/or managed by BPRD. Assets are
critical to the function of parks and facilities with respect to department mission, safety, and desired
level of service requirements and have a value that requires the asset to be capitalized. Anything of
value that provides service potential or future economic benefits over a period greater than one year
and that has a cost which is not “immaterial” (typically defined as greater than $1,000) is considered an
asset and is thus tracked in the Asset Management database and software. Assets are typically fixed-in-
place infrastructure in parks or recreation facilities, but assets may also be equipment and park-specific
vehicles with significant value and life cycles such as mowers or treadmills. There are additional types of
assets that are maintained by other city departments within different asset management frameworks,
including technology, equipment, complex buildings and facilities, and vehicles; see Appendix A.5 for a
comprehensive list of assets that are tracked and maintained by BPRD.
Examples of assets are:

• Playground equipment
• Sheds and park shelters
• Tennis courts including all necessary components to make a functioning court
• Paths and plazas
• Irrigation systems
• Horticultural beds
• Components of recreation centers or aquatic facilities such as pool equipment, exercise
equipment and specialized sports or workout equipment
Assets are not:

• Individual components making up a larger piece of equipment or asset such as hardware,
fasteners and accessories
• Equipment that costs less than $1000 and/or has a life cycle of less than 1 year
2.3 Assets and Feature Classes – What’s the difference?

Throughout this document, the term ‘asset’ is used to describe individual physical features of a park,
property or facility. The sheer number of assets across the BPRD system requires a complex
organizational system, typically utilizing a GIS database in combination with asset management
software. In such systems, assets with similar characteristics are grouped together in GIS ‘feature
classes’ to simplify organization and management processes. ‘Feature classes’ are a database
classification for physical objects or ‘assets’. An individual feature class includes assets of different but
similar types. For example, the ‘Furniture’ feature class includes benches, tables, grills, and other park
infrastructure that are represented by points in GIS demarking their physical location. Similar assets
within a feature class all require tracking of similar characteristic information such as location,
manufacturer, model, install dates, etc. The following diagram illustrates how the court feature class
contains a variety of recreation areas that are designed for the play of specific sports.
Figure 2.3.1: Asset as they relate to GIS Feature Classes
Sand Volleyball
Courts
Basketball
Horsehoe Pits
Courts
"Court" Roller Sport

Tennis Courts
Rinks
Feature Class
2.4 Asset Inventory - Fields of Information

The asset inventory includes key characteristics about each individual asset such as location, materials,
dimensions, current replacement costs, age, lifecycle, and criticality to BPRD’s mission. These
characteristics inform decisions regarding asset maintenance and department-wide investment and help
set priorities according to the values outlined in the BPRD Master Plan. This information is typically
stored in the department’s GIS database and asset management software. The asset inventory is not a
static database but rather reflects BPRD’s best understanding of all the assets it maintains at any given
time. The BPRD asset inventory is continually being updated as information is gathered, as assets are
fixed or replaced, and as park redevelopment occurs.
Asset Inventory Information Stored in Feature Class Tables

The asset inventory tracks detailed information about an asset that further describes the asset’s
characteristics. When properly managed through GIS databases and asset management software, this
basic information can be queried or compiled through various reporting functions to allow for analysis of
an asset or comparison among asset types and locations. In general, the following information is
recorded for all assets in the inventory:
• A 10-digit identifier code unique for each asset

• Asset location
• Installation date
• Renovation or recapitalization date
• Ownership information
• Condition Score – see Chapter 3
• Criticality Score - see Chapter 4
• Current replacement cost
Where appropriate, additional information that identifies certain other key asset characteristics, such as
historical significance and revenue generation, is also included in the inventory. These important
characteristics are highlighted in the decision-making process to ensure consideration.
Feature Class Process and Data Guides

In addition to storage of information in GIS and asset management software, critical asset information is
provided in user friendly summaries in the Feature Class Process and Data Guides (feature class guides)
located in Appendix 5 of this AMP document. The feature class guides include a subject matter
overviews, discussions of specific asset types within the feature classes, condition assessment guides
specific to each feature class, work summaries and listings of common work tasks and events, a data
dictionary that discusses data and GIS protocol for the feature class, and a list of frequently asked
questions relevant to the feature class. The feature class guides can be used together as an overarching
guide for the department or they can be used independently as “how to” guides for staff specializing in
the management of specific types of assets and feature classes.
Inventory Organization
Asset inventory information is organized into two distinct categories: one for fixed assets in the park
system and one for assets maintained by BPRD in specialized facilities such as recreation and aquatic
centers.
Parks system assets are distinct components of the parks and natural lands system that are located
within clearly defined park or natural land properties and managed and/or operated primarily by BPRD.
It is important to note that in some cases, an asset exists within a location that is jointly managed by
BPRD and other entities, such as right of way areas managed in collaboration with Transportation or
athletic fields that are owned by the Boulder Valley School District but managed by BPRD. In these
cases, asset boundaries correspond to the areas managed and maintained by Parks and Recreation and
not to legal parcel ownership boundaries.
Specialized facilities assets include the department’s three recreation centers and two aquatic facilities.
The structures that house these facilities are largely maintained by the city’s Facilities and Asset
Management Division (FAM), though some fixed and non-fixed assets within the facilities, such as
workout equipment and pool mechanical systems, are owned and operated solely by BPRD. The AMP
focuses on the assets that are the responsibility of BPRD to manage. In addition to this document,
detailed information on BPRD-owned or operated buildings and facilities can be found in the 2015
Boulder Aquatic Feasibility Plan and the 2016 Facilities Strategic Plan. As noted, BPRD will be working
with FAM in future years to better clarify roles between departments and to determine possibilities for a
more closely coordinated asset management program for assets with split operational responsibilities.
2.5 Park System Asset Classification

A hierarchy of assets and distinct management areas has been created to establish relationships
between assets (i.e. parent-child) and to provide a framework for summarizing data in reports. This
hierarchy applies only to the organizational structure of asset information and has no basis on criticality,
or importance, of an asset. Asset criticality is further discussed in Chapter 4.
A Group of Related Assets refers to a collection of assets that are part of a larger park facility. For
example, a baseball field includes a Group of Related Assets such as athletic turf, concession stands,
dugouts as well as many secondary assets such as bleachers and athletic field lighting. For Playgrounds,
the playground boundary includes all play surfaces as well as equipment features.
Asset Areas refer to assets that are mapped in GIS by their perimeter area and that, when combined,
make up 100% of the managed park site. In the case of playgrounds, unique surfacing types such as
poured-in-place rubber or sand are mapped by their perimeter polygon as unique asset areas. These
areas may include other related assets that are represented as point or line features (see below) within
the surrounding asset area. For example, a playground area may include swings, slides and spring
rockers. Every playground is made up of unique features and thus each major feature must be
inventoried for an understanding of each playground and what work must be done to take care of it.
Asset Lines and Points are mapped in GIS as point or linear features that may occur anywhere within the
park system. Sometimes these features are directly related to a specific asset area, such as baseball
diamond fencing or tennis court lights, and sometimes they are simply part of the general park
infrastructure, such as a bench or perimeter fence.
The following figures illustrate how assets are classified in a diagram view and in a conceptual park
layout view.
Figure 2.5.1: Park System Asset Classification – Diagram View
Figure 2.5.2: Park System Asset Classification – Sample Park Layout
2.6 Specialized Facilities Asset Classification – Coming in 2019
BPRD recognizes the need to develop a system of inventorying and classifying assets within and related
to specialized facilities such as recreation centers and aquatic facilities. Such a system requires in depth
coordination with the city’s Facilities and Asset Management Division due to the split responsibilities for
management and operation of these facilities. At the time of issuance of this AMP document, such
discussions are underway. Results of these discussions as well as processes for addressing assets within
specialized facilities will be included in later amendments to the AMP document.
Chapter 3: Condition Assessment
3.1 Overview
BPRD manages assets in various physical conditions and in various stages of the asset life cycle.
Responsible budgeting requires a throrough understanding of asset condition over time, including
budgeting for maintenance, repairs, upgrades and eventual asset replacement or removal. In turn, this
requires a rigorous and replicable process for asset inspection, determining asset condition and for
tracking changes in asset condition over time.
3.2 What Is a Condition Assessment?

A Condition Assesment is a detailed record and snapshot in time of the physical condition of an asset. It
is used to determine the maintenance needs of an asset and to evaluate the remaining useful life of the
asset. A Condition Assessment should not be confused with routine asset inspection. Condition
assessments conducted as part of the AMP process are used to determine overall asset condition on a
recurring basis, generally every one to three years. Routine asset inspections are conducted more
frequently to identify and address immediate safety issues and repair needs.
3.3 Why Conduct a Condition Assessment?

One of the key themes of the 2014 Parks and Recreation Master Plan was “Taking Care of What We
Have.” This AMP document supports that theme by providing a process for inventorying BPRD managed
assets, documenting their condition and planning for their life cycle.
An important part of the AMP process, a condition assessment documents the condition of an asset,
evaluates the asset’s predicted life expectancy, identifies short-term repair or maintenance work
needed to maintain asset functionality, and indentifies major recapitalization or repair work needed to
extend the useful life of an asset. It is important to note that manufacturer-determined asset life cycles
can be significantly impacted by asset use, environmental conditions, and adherence to maintenance
requirements. These factors in turn have a direct impact on department maintenance and asset
replacement budgets and can help to predict when major expenditures will be necessary.
As an example, an annual condition assessment of a recently installed tennis court might identify minor
cracking due to the seasonal freeze and thaw cycles of Colorado winters. The condition assessment
would note such cracking and inform a related work order to fill the cracks, protecting the court surface
from degradation and extending the life of the court. Funding for such work should come from annual
operating and maintenance budgets.
By comparison, a similar condition assessment on a court installed 15 years ago might note significant
wear on the court surface, poor condition of surrounding fencing and court nets, and significant
degradation of the court surface. This combination of poor condition and asset age might help to inform
a determination to recapitalize or replace the asset, funding for either of which would likely come from
capital budget requests instead of annual operating or maintenance budgets.
In either case, a funding determination would be made only after consideration the asset’s condition
against its criticality, or importance, to the BPRD system. In general, highly critical assets are prioritized
for funding, while a low criticality asset would likely not take funding precendent, or in some cases
should be decommissioned instead of funded for additional work. In depth information regarding
criticality can be found in Chapter 4 – Asset Criticality.
3.4 When and How?

Condition Assessments should be conducted on a regular basis and recurrance may vary between one to
three years based upon criticality and usage of an asset or of an overall park location. For instance, a
heavily visited park or frequently used asset, such as playground equipment, would require annual
inspection. On the contrary, a park with low visitor numbers or assets with minimal use or risk of failure
might only be inspected every few years. Regardless of the determined inspection interval, condition
assessments should be conducted on a regularly recurring basis to inform an accurate inventory and
condition summary from one inspection period to the next.
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning process begins in November of each year.
Therefore, any large project needs, such as playground replacement or parking lot repaving, need to be
identified in advance to the asset manager time to develop work budget and to incorporate any
significant funding requests into the CIP process.
Specific asset condition assessment frequencies and details are described in the Feature Class Process
and Data Guides in Appendix 5. In general, the following properties should have annual condition
assessments completed for all assets because each locations high criticality and high visitor use:
• Pearl Street Mall

• East Boulder Community Park
• Foothills Community Park
• Harlow Platts Community Park
• Boulder Reservoir Regional Park
• Scott Carpenter Park
• Valmont Bike Park
The following asset categories should also be subject to annual condition assessments based upon heavy
use, criticality and consequences of failure of an asset:
• Playgrounds and other play equipment

• Courts – tennis courts, basketball courts
• Parking lots
All other condition assessments should be conducted on a 2-3 year schedule as outlined in the Feature
Class Process and Data Guides.
3.5 Condition Assessment Scoring

In general, condition assessment scoring follows a very similar process across most assets. The scoring
process utilizes a pre-determined asset scorecard which simplifies asset inspections by providing a user-
friendly visual rating scale for each inspection topic. This approach also provides a level of consistency
among users and encourages objectivity in results. Visual evaulations correspond with a rating scale
ranging from serious to good condition. Findings of the condition assesment are entered into the
department’s asset management software where condition assessment ratings are translated into a
numeric score. Though the scoring process for each asset varies by the needs and components of the
asset, each results in an overall asset condition score that allows for comparison of assets across the
BPRD system.
For example, following the condition assessment methodology found in the feature class guides, a
basketball court would be inspected on a recurring basis for surface condition, condition of functional
components such as the basketball hoops/back boards, and paint and markings. The inspector would
assign a condition rating to each assessment category and enter the scores into the asset management
software. Per the figure below, low scores represent assets or components in serious or poor condition,
often with missing or broken pieces, evident safety concerns or conditions below the department’s
desired service level. On the other end of the scale, a high score represents an asset or component in
good or excellent condition. Each component score represents a given condition and component scores
are automatically weighted and tallied by the software to provide an overall asset condition score.
Condition ratings and visual descriptions of each rating are provided below:
Table 3.5.1: Condition Rating Examples
Condition Rating Description
Serious Very poor condition = missing components, immediate safety concern and must
be removed from public use until repaired.
Poor Fair condition = no safety concerns but condition is below our expectation or is
showing rapid deterioration.
Fair Decent condition = asset’s condition is what we would expect but requires
regular assessments to ensure proper maintenance.
Good Good condition = asset’s condition is better than our expectation.
Excellent Excellent condition = new asset.
Serious Condition - This play structure has
been vandalized and is missing parts. Exits
were boarded up to prevent falls but still
pose a safety concern. A ‘serious’ rating
would automatically trigger work orders
and may result in the closure of the asset
until repairs are made.
Poor Condition - The swing structure

needs to be completely painted. The
structure also exhibits significant
movement, indicating that it may be
reaching the end of its useful life.
Fair Condition - This climber requires

painting and replacement of some bars but
is otherwise functional and safe.
Good Condition - The structure is a few
years old but does not show significant
wear and poses no safety hazards.
Excellent Condition – This playground

equipment was recently installed and is in
like-new condition.
3.6 Condition Assessment Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball
Court
The Park East Park basketball court
was installed in 1974 and was fully
resurfaced and repainted in 2011.
Key components of the basketball
court requiring condition
assessment inspections and
documentation on a recurring basis
include the court surface, its
functional components including
the basketball hoops and
backboards, as well as the court’s
paint and markings.
As detailed in the Courts Feature

Class Process and Data Guide found
in the Appendix 5, a condition
assessment for such a court should be completed every three years. During the condition assessment
inspection, an inspector would review all aspects of the court, assigning a value rating ranging from
Serious to Excellent condition based upon the rating classification detailed in the feature class
document.
In the case of Park East Park’s basketball court, its recent renovation yeilds high ratings for all three
components. These ratings are translated by the asset management software into scores that are
weighted based upon their importance to the overall function of the asset. These scores total a
maximum of 100 points, or 100 percent, for each asset. The total asset score, in this case a score of 100,
the maximum possible, indicates that this asset is in good repair, is fully functional, and is at the highest
condition rating possible for an asset due to its recent renovation.
Table 3.6.1: Park East Basketball Court Condition Assessment Example
Feature or Characteristic Assessed Maximum Category Score

Score Rating
Surface 50 Excellent 1 50
Functional Components = basketball hoop & backboard 30 Excellent 2 30
Paint Markings 20 Excellent 3 20
Total Score 100 100
1
Excellent = 50, Good = 37.5, Fair = 25, Poor = 12.5, Serious = 0
2
3
Excellent = 20, Good = 15, Fair = 10, Poor = 5, Serious = 0
3.7 Condition Assessment Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive
Turf
Tom Watson Park was originally
constructed in the early 1970’s and
includes both active and passive turf
areas requiring recurring condition
assessments and responsive
maintenance work. As detailed in the
Turf Feature Class Process and Data
Guide found in Appendix 5, condition
assessments for turf areas should be
completed annually, or more frequently
for heavily used locations. Passive turf
areas are only inspected for general
coverage and turf health, while active
turf areas are also inspected for their
functional components as well as their
Clegg Score, a measure of hardness
used to determine proper surface density for sports applications as well as for safety.
In this example, the passive turf area at Tom Watson Park has not seen a major replacement since the
park’s construction. While the passive turf area is functional for passive recreation, it also includes a
number of bare spots, several areas of high soil compaction, and significant weed infestations including
dandelions and thistles. Per the Turf feature class guide, a visual inspection of the turf yields a rating of
“Fair”, or a score of 25 points. Because the passive turf areas are not inspected for functional
componenets or Clegg Score, the passive turf score is adjusted by a multiplier of two to ensure the
ability to compare all turf areas equally when additional points for functional compoments and Clegg
Score are factored in for active turf areas.
Table 3.7.1: Tom Watson Park Turf Condition Assessment Example

Score Rating
% Coverage = without bare spots and/or weeds 50 Fair 4 25
Active Turf Functional Components = Lines, Features Not Not Applicable Not
Applicable Applicable
Active Turf Clegg Score Not Not Applicable Not

Applicable Applicable
Total Score, for Passive Turf multiply by 2 100 50
4
3.8 Condition Assessment Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
The Eben G. Fine Park shelter was
constructed circa 1930 and is one
of BPRD’s most popular rental
shelters. In addition to its
potential for revenue generation,
the shelter is also a City of Boulder
historic landmark and has been
repaired and restored utilizing
grant funding. Each of these
factors should be noted in asset
management software to alert
users and staff that this particular
asset requires additional
consideration when making
decisions about work, maintenance
and its future.
Due to its frequent use and local importance, the individual components of the structure, including its
roof, walls, infrastructure such as electric and plumbing, and flooring surfaces are in varying conditions.
As outlined in the Shelters Feature Class Guide in Appendix 5, the shelters primary components are each
inspected and given a condition score. These scores are tallied against a total of 100 points to yield a
composite score for the asset.
Table 3.8.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Condition Assessment Example

Score Rating
Roof 30 Good5 22.5
Walls 30 Excellent5 30
Functional Infrastructure = Electric or Plumbing 24 Good6 18
Flooring and/or Surface 16 Good7 12
Total Score 100 82.5
In this case, a total score of 82.5 is an indication that the asset is in good overall condition, but that
routine maintenance work is likely needed to ensure its continued service and to maintain its condition
level.
5
6
7
Chapter 4: Asset Criticality
4.1 Overview:
Boulder Parks and Recreation’s mission statement is to “promote the health and well-being of the entire
community by collaboratively providing high-quality parks, facilities and programs.” To provide such a
high-quality portfolio of recreation properties and programs in a financially sustainable manner, it is vital
to understand the value of the different properties and their assets to the community. Asset criticality
attempts to establish a numeric score representative of an asset or facility’s criticality, or importance, to
the community and to the overall parks and recreation system.
This chapter explains BPRD’s process for prioritizing assets to make data-driven decisions using asset
criticality scoring. Criticality scores are used by BPRD to evaluate assets and facilities against one
another, helping to objectively develop investment strategies that incorporate preventative
maintenance, repairs, and replacement of assets within annual and long-term budgets and resource
constraints. The score must evolve with community and department priorities over time but should
only be modified under thorough review to support a level of stability within the asset scores for
effective long-term financial planning. 8
The intent behind the following scoring design is to ensure a well-maintained BPRD system that
embodies the priorities of the department and community. This chapter will address the asset criticality
structure, provide examples of the asset criticality structure using current BPRD assets, and the explore
the logistics around asset criticality development and tracking.
4.2 Asset Criticality Score:

The asset criticality score is based on a scale of 0 to 100 and is the average of two distinct sub-scores
that are vital to determining an asset’s value to the BPRD mission and Boulder community. The first
sub-score, called the “Property Score,” determines the importance of the property where the asset is
installed. The second sub-score, called the “Asset Score,” determines the value of the specific asset to
the property's operations. Each sub-score is comprised of individual attributes that are further
described below:
1. Property Score
Comprised of:
8
Asset Criticality will evolve over time as the department and community change, but in the immediate future
with the implementation BPR’s new asset management software, Beehive®, there could be immediate and more
systematic changes to occur in 2018.
a. Master Plan Designation Score: scored based on the property’s BPRD master plan category
Master Plan
Definition 9 Score
Designation Example Properties
City/Regional Parks Developed parks between 100 and 300 acres in size
and Recreation and generally a draw for both community members 30
Facilities and non-community members. Chautauqua Park
Properties that are uniquely different than
prototypical parks and include places like Pearl
Street Mall, Harbeck House, and the Columbia
Civic Space and
Cemetery. Additionally, this category contains 22.5
Natural Lands
properties that are designated natural lands that
provide eco-system services to the whole
community. Civic Park
Properties between 20 and 100 acres in size.
Community Park Generally a mix of natural and developed space for East Boulder 15
recreation. Community Park
Neighborhood Properties up to 20 acres in size, usually accessed
7.5
Parks by foot traffic. Martin Park
b. Property Usage Score: scored based on observed use as compared to property capacity
Property
Definition Score
Usage 10 Example Properties
Extremely High Over capacity 11 Eben G. Fine Park 40
Harlow Platts
High 68%-100% (top third of capacity) 32
Community Park
Medium 34-67% (middle third of capacity) Tantra Park 24
Washington School
Low 0-33% of capacity (bottom third of capacity) 16
Park
No Recreation Used for other purposes like transportation, natural
8
Usage lands, or greenspace without recreation design Area III
c. Audience Score: scored based on observed user groups who interact with the property
Example
Audience Definition Score
Properties
Everyone Everyone Pearl Street Mall 30
9
Reference pages 26-28 of BPR 2013 Master Plan for full definitions, text in this table was developed for
conceptual understanding.
10
Usage is defined as the property’s average number of users during peak season (June-August)
11
Capacity is defined as 50 users per acre and is collected by field technician observation
Large
Geographic Over 50% of users come from further than 1/2 Mile
24
and User- Radius and the property can support 3+ user groups Foothills
Group Reach Community Park
User Group Specific user group property that can support 1-2 user
18
Specific groups Flatirons Golf
Small
Over 50% of users come from less than 1/2 mile radius
Geographic 12
and the property supports less than 2 user groups
Reach Arrowood Park
The property is not designed or used for recreation, it
Maintenance
is likely a corridor for transportation or greenspace 6
Only
that isn’t for recreation. Whittier Row
2. Asset Score
Comprised of:
a. Asset Utility Score: scored based on the level of impact an asset has on the property’s
ability to function
Asset Utility Definition Example Assets Score
Property cannot operate without this asset in safe Pool at Scott
Essential 50
working condition (0-30% operable) Carpenter Park
Bleachers at
Property is severely limited without this asset in safe
High-Value Mapleton 40
working condition (31-60% operable)
Ballfields
Property is not operating at an ideal level without this Turf at Arrowood
Mid-Value 30
asset in safe working condition (61-90% Park
Property can operate for an extended period of time Tire Swing at Elks
Low-Value 20
without this asset in safe working condition (90% plus) Park
Property can operate without this asset (no impact on Bench at Parkside
No Value 10
operations) Park
b. Asset Usage Score: scored based on observed use of an asset

Asset Usage Definition Example Assets Score
Rocketship at
high volume, primarily active use with some passive
High Scott Carpenter 50
use
Park
Shelter at Palo
Medium moderate volume, passive and some active use 33.33
East Park
Bench at
Low Low volume, passive use 16.66
Arrowood Park
Diagram 4.1.1 shows how all the attributes and sub-scores work together to produce an asset criticality
score.
Figure 4.1.1: Asset Criticality Score Composition
Asset Criticality
Average of Property and Asset Scores, Max. 100 pts
Property Score Asset Score

Max. 100 pts Max. 100 pts
Master Plan Property

Audience Asset Usage Asset Utility
Designation Usage
Max. 30 pts Max. 40 pts Max. 30 pts Max. 50 pts Max. 50 pts
4.3 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball
Court
The first case study is the basketball court at Park East. Though not a large regional park, Park East Park
still draws users from a large geographic area. It is designated in the 2014 BPRD Master Plan as a
Neighborhood Park, larger and more heavily used than smaller parks but not as frequently utilized as
more popular community and regional parks. Within the park, the park’s basketball court is one of its
key features and is heavily used compared to the park’s other assets. Looking holistically at the entire
BPRD system, the scoring below demonstrates that the basketball court is popular and important to the
function of Park East Park, but in comparison to other parks, Park East, and therefore its basketball
court, is not as vital to the BPRD system, mission, and community as others. The resulting scoring still
highlights the basketball court as a relatively important asset in the system but might also indicate that
the department should consider funding of other priorities before considering this asset, especially
when considered along with the court’s high condition score detailed in Chapter 3.
Table 4.3.1: Park East Park Basketball Court Criticality Scoring
Attribute Categories Attributes of Park East Park Score

Audience Large Geographic 24
Master Plan Designation Neighborhood Park 7.5
Usage Medium 24
Property Score: Park East Park 55.5
Attribute Categories Attributes of Basketball Court Score

Asset Utility High-Value 40
Asset Usage High 50
Asset Score: Basketball Court 90
Asset Criticality Score: Basketball Court at Park East = (Property Score + Asset Score)/2 72.75
4.4 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive
Turf
The next example reviews passive turf at Tom Watson Park. Of the AMP’s three case study examples,
this asset’s criticality scores the lowest because the asset and property are both used less by the
community as compared to other assets and locations. This asset will be important to track due to its
deteriorating condition as highlighted in Chapter 3. Prior to allocating limited department funding
and/or staff resources for Tom Watson Park’s turf areas, the department should to take into
consideration this asset’s criticality compared to the broader BPRD system to determine if this asset
should be a priority for such allocation.
Table 4.4.1: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf Criticality Scoring
Attribute Categories Attributes of Tom Watson Park Score

Audience Large Geographic 24
Usage Medium 24
Property Score: Tom Watson Park 55.5
Attribute Categories Attributes of Passive Turf Score

Asset Usage Medium 33.33
Asset Score: Passive Turf 73.33
Asset Criticality Score: Passive Turf at Tom Watson = (Property Score + Asset Score)/2 63.415
4.5 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
The last example reviews the shelter at Eben G. Fine Park. The score for this asset is significantly higher
than previous examples (approximately 11 points) because the asset is not only deemed critical to the
park itself, but also because Eben G. Fine Park is a more critical property to the overall BPRD system,
mission, and community than Park East Park and Tom Watson Park. If these three case study example
assets were competing for the same dollars, considering the fiscal constraints and other system needs,
the Eben G. Fine shelter should be considered a higher priority for funding based on this model.
Table 4.5.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Criticality Scoring
Attribute Categories Attributes of Eben G. Fine Score

Audience Everyone 30
Usage Extremely High 40
Property Score: Park East 77.5
Attribute Categories Attributes of Shelter Score

Asset Usage High 50
Asset Score: Shelter 90
Asset Criticality Score: Shelter at Eben G. Fine = (Property Score + Asset Score)/2 83.75
In addition, it is important to note that the Eben G. Fine Park shelter is also a historic and revenue
generating asset, meaning that extra consideration should be given to the importance of this asset to
the department and city.
4.6 Criticality and Condition Comparison Chart
Objective, data driven asset management decision making can only be made after comparing an asset’s
condition against an asset’s criticality. In general, funding priorities should focus on highly critical assets
in less than ideal condition to bring the department’s overall asset inventory to a desired level of service.
For illustrative purposes, the graph below shows the comparison of an asset’s condition to its criticality
to the BPRD system and community. On this graph, criticality scoring is shown on the vertical “Y” axis
with low criticality at the bottom of the chart and a high score of “100” at the top of the chart. On the
“X” axis, condition scores range from 0, or poor, on the left side of the chart to 100, or excellent, on the
right side of the chart.
In general, the chart should be interpreted in quadrants. The top right quadrant, shown in green, as well
as the bottom right column in yellow, illustrate assets of various criticality to the department that are
also in relatively good condition, not likely requiring prioritization for immediate resource allocation.
Conversely, the bottom left quadrant of this chart, in red, represents assets in poor condition that are
not comparatively critical to the BPRD mission. This also means that assets in this quadrant likely should
not be prioritized and perhaps should be considered for removal or decommissioning. Focus should be
directed to assets falling in the top left quadrant of the graph. Such assets are highly critical to the
department, but are also in comparatively lesser condition. Funding and resource allocation should be
prioritized for these assets to prevent a disruption in service.
This tool will be further used and explained in Chapter 6 – Data Driven Decision Making, to understand
how all the information collected and maintained through chapters 1-5 of the AMP can be used
systematically to make resource decisions.
Figure 4.6.1 – Criticality and Condition Chart
4.7 Criticality Logistics:
The criticality scoring dataset will be maintained in the BPRD asset management software 12 and will be a
“living” dataset that can and should evolve over time. To date, the criticality scores have been
established either through official documentation, like the General Maintenance and Management Plan
(GMMP) and BPRD Master Plan, or through surveys of technical staff who routinely work at the different
properties. It is anticipated that criticality scoring will improve in consistency as properties and assets
are reviewed objectively following the procedures set forth in the AMP document.
12
BPR is scheduled to implement Beehive® in 2018 as BPR’s asset management software. While the software
could change in the future, the intent of the AMP is to be software agnostic.
Chapter 5: Asset Costs
5.1 Overview
This chapter addresses tracking, understanding, and utilizing asset cost data to develop, maintain,
operate, renew, and replace assets in a fiscally responsible manner. The major costs that BPRD tracks
will support the development of a Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) for each asset. The elements
that go into the TCFO include, planning and design, installation (labor & materials), operations,
maintenance, recapitalization 13, and removal costs. Additionally, key to this process is maximizing
automation of the tracking and projection of future cost components while maintaining a responsible
level of precision.
This chapter outlines a cost projection model that includes a mix of actual costs and predictive
assumptions. While some of the predictive assumptions will change overtime due to experience and
data collection, the goal is to keep the cost projection structure virtually untouched to support
consistency over the long term. BPRD will use tools like the asset management software or
manufacturer costing sheets to track true costs and help to annually review and update the predictive
assumptions in the cost model described below. The remainder of this chapter will address the asset
cost structure, review examples of the cost structure applied to a current BPRD assets and outline the
logistics around maintaining the cost estimating and tracking process. Like other chapters, this chapter
will provide an overview of the AMP cost structure while Appendix 2 provides in-depth specifics
including a chart of cost assumptions by feature class.
5.2 Asset Cost Structure:

The assumptions 14 supporting the asset cost structure for BPRD will be continually refined over time as
the department collects detailed cost information and analyzes it by specific feature classes. The goal is
for projected costs developed and maintained by BPRD to require minimal resources to maintain while
keeping the projections within an acceptable level of precision 15. With this goal in mind, the structure of
cost estimating is essentially a model that develops costs based on assumptions applied to confirmed
data like install costs (IC) 16 and current replacement costs (CRC) 17.
Each element of the TCFO is a specific assumption applied to a confirmed IC or CRC. For example, the
cost for maintenance of turf is assumed to be 5% of install cost adjusted for inflation over the life of the
turf. The assumption in this example is the 5% of install cost, which overtime will be refined as needed
based on true costs collected. Based on the asset-specific details provided in the feature class guides, all
or a select group of TCFO cost elements will be relevant depending on asset type, making it critical to
tailor the cost model by feature class and in some cases by specific asset. Additionally, some elements
13
Recapitalization efforts are major asset renewals, pending the size, complexity, special features, and cost of an
asset, it can have no recapitalization efforts in the case of a bench or an endless number in terms of historic assets.
14
Assumption are the factors BPR uses to establish different elements of asset costs
15
Precision of +/- of 10% in 2018; +/- of 8% by 2021; +/- of 6% by 2023; +/- of 5% or less by 2024 and beyond
16
Install Costs: Costs associated with an asset at the time of install, including labor and materials
17
Current Replacement Costs: Current cost estimate to replace an asset that include labor and materials. These
cost estimates are the result of either compounding Inflation of 3.22% since install or based on current year cost
estimations—source will be noted but goal is to have low data maintenance costs.
will be used differently depending on the feature class. For instance, recapitalization for historic registry
assets will be on-going instead of finite to ensure continued preservation of the asset. Likewise, assets
like a playground will incur maintenance costs but not operational costs.
Table 5.2.1, below, displays the concept behind the BPRD asset cost structure highlighting possible types
of assumptions that could be developed for an asset. The table is a hypothetical asset with a simple cost
to help show how the cost projections model works. Some basic example details were used including an
example installation cost from 2015, which means 3 years of inflation were used to develop the current
replacement cost (based on the 2018 publishing of this AMP document). Likewise, this example asset is
assumed to have a 10-year lifecycle—pertinent to costs like maintenance and operations. Note that all
costs in the AMP framework are rounded, but data collected in the asset management software will not
be rounded.
Table 5.2.1: Conceptual Asset Cost Structure
Example Asset Assumption Cost

$ 100
Install Cost (IC) (Labor + Materials) Most recent install financial data
(2015 cost)
Planning and Design 8% of Current Replacement Cost $ 8
Operations 5% of Install Cost * Lifecycle w/inflation $ 75
Maintenance 3% of Install Cost * Lifecycle w/inflation $ 45
Recapitalization 15% of Current Replacement Cost $ 17
Removal 30% of Current Replacement Cost $ 33
Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) Total of all cost elements $ 279
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 28
$ 110
Current Replacement Cost (CRC) IC adjusted for inflation
(2018 cost)
The following three tables demonstrate how the cost structure above translates into projected cost
estimates for the three assets used throughout this document to provide real-world examples of AMP
implementation. It is important to note throughout these examples how assumptions change between
feature class, and how some of the changing assumptions are based on specific asset characteristics like
historic registry designation.
In the first example, the Park East Park Basketball Court does not have operational or recapitalization
costs because the court doesn’t have lights and because BPRD doesn’t utilize referees or offer
programming at the court. This type of asset doesn’t typically undergo renewal efforts, but rather total
replacement. Because of these characteristics, the cost table below is basketball court-specific within
the comprehensive cost projection model. For reference, the Install Cost is based on actual cost
estimates developed in 2015.
5.3 Asset Cost Case Study #1 – Park East Park Basketball Court
Table 5.3.1: Park East Basketball Court
Lifecycle: 30yrs
Basketball Court Assumption Cost

$ 38,000
Install Cost (Labor + Materials) Most recent install financial data
(2015 cost)
Planning and Design 8% of CRC $ 3,840
Operations N/A $ -
Maintenance 3% of IC * 30 years w/inflation $ 59,161
Recapitalization N/A $ -
Removal 30% of CRC $ 14,400
Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) Total of all cost elements $ 115,401
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 3,847
$ 48,000
(2018 cost)
5.4 Asset Cost Case Study #2 – Tom Watson Park – Passive Turf
In the second case study, Tom Watson Park’s passive turf costs show similar characteristics to the Park
East Basketball Court example in that there are no operating and recapitalization costs. The key
comparison here is the relatively high cost required to take care of an asset that is lower in criticality
score and in an increasingly degrading condition. Further exploration of investment decision making
processes will be explored in chapter 6, though as a rule, deteriorating assets with low criticality, or in
low criticality locations, should be carefully considered as low priorities for investment, including
possible decommissioning or removal.
Table 5.4.1: Tom Watson Turf

Lifecycle: 50yrs
Turf (611,459 sq. ft.) Assumption Cost 2018
Install Cost (Labor + Materials) .50 * Square Foot $ 305,730
Planning and Design 8% of CRC $ 25,926
Operations N/A -
Maintenance 5% of IC * 50 years w/inflation $ 475,979
Recapitalization N/A -
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 18,097.13
$ 324,073
Current Replacement Cost (CRC) IC adjusted for inflation (.53/Sq.Ft.)
(2018 cost)
5.5 Asset Cost Case Study #3 – Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
The last example exhibits a cost model for Eben G. Fine Park’s shelter, a locally landmarked historic
asset. This example shows how certain characteristics can and should modify the assumptions within
the cost projection model. Note that because of its historic designation, the shelter requires more
maintenance than a standard, modern shelter because of requirements to maintain its historic
aesthetic. Furthermore, if BPRD had to replace the shelter, the design and installation costs for a
comparable structure would be higher than those of a standard park shelter. The Install Cost below is
from 1930 documentation on the shelter.
Table 5.5.1: Eben G. Fine Shelter

Lifecycle: Projected - 30yrs/ Current - 87
years
Shelter Assumption Cost 2018

$ 12,736
Install Cost (Labor + Materials) Most recent install financial data
(1930 cost)
Planning and Design 8% of CRC+ 2% Historic Adder $ 20,067
Operations 5% of IC * 87 years w/inflation $ 291,827
3% of IC * 87 years w/inflation + 2%
Maintenance $ 291,827
Additional Historic Cost
Recapitalization 45% of CRC (3 x of recap over life) $ 90,303
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 8,816
$ 200,673
(2018 cost)
5.6 Asset Cost Logistics:

Over the next five years, the cost projection model should undergo an annual review and assumptions,
installation costs, and current replacement costs should be modified based on best available
information collected through the asset management and financial tracking software. In addition to
these data collection tools, the cost projections should also be reviewed and supported by BPRD design
standards as they are developed. 18
In addition to using these sources to improve the assumptions in the cost projections model, BPRD will
also do analysis of costs when an asset is installed, review year-end maintenance and operations costs
per asset type, and review actual recapitalization/removal costs to understand the precision of the
model. Like the criticality process, this is a framework from which implementation plans will be further
developed and appended to this document in 2018.
18
BPRD design standards manual to contract in 2018 standardizing material types and costs for common
construction elements in the BPRD system such as furnishings, lights, paths, etc.
Chapter 6: Investment Strategy
(Coming in 2018/2019)
The first five chapters of the AMP outline processes and procedures for inventorying and evaluating
BPRD’s collection of assets with the goal of providing a foundation for objective, data-driven decision
making. These chapters will be issued in 2018 on a “testing” basis that both informs BPRD’s upcoming
2018 implementation of asset management software, as well as allowing time to test the AMP’s
recommended processes against actual 2018 CIP budget requests and real world department and user
needs.
As a follow-up to issuance of the first five chapters, the AMP Matrix Team is embarking on the
development of Chapter 6 – Investment Strategy with the aim of documenting existing BPRD resource
allocation decision making processes, and aligning those processes with this AMP document. Likewise,
the AMP Matrix Team will work to incorporate new information gathered or business processes
acquired from the asset management software implementation into the entire AMP document. A
revised version of the AMP document, including Chapter 6, is anticipated for issuance in early 2019.
Appendices
A.1 Annual Report – Coming 2018
Summary
The Annual Report appendix will provide a template for compilation of critical BPRD information related
to asset management including annual status updates of the condition and criticality of BPRD’s asset
inventory as well as overviews of resource allocation strategies. The annual report will seek to illustrate
long-term trends tracking the department’s progress related to asset condition and overall service level.
A.2 Financial Reporting – Coming 2018

Summary
Financial reports will evolve as the as the asset management software is deployed, but at minimum will
consist of annual spending that supports BPRD assets. Spending will be categorized into the following
actions: plan development, maintenance, operations, repairs, replacements, and new construction. This
reporting will enable the department to better plan for future costs, identify potential efficiency
opportunities, and support long-term strategic decisions for the funding of BPRD assets.
A.3 Asset and Feature Class Process & Data Guides
An overview of how information about different assets is captured and used can be found in the Asset
and Feature Class Process & Data Guides. Each data guide includes the following sections:
1. Definition and Asset Types included in each category

2. Frequently Asked Questions
3. Condition Assessment Process
4. Work Processes
5. Data Dictionary
Below is a list of the guides and a summary of the asset types and feature classes described in more
detail in each guide. The names are hyperlinks to the documents themselves.
Guide Name Description of Assets & Feature Classes Included Status
Curated and permanent or semi-permanent art installations

Art – with Arts & that are managed by Arts and Cultural Services. In Progress
Cultural Services
PARKS.Art point data in Boulder’s GIS system.
Structures housing Parks and Recreation uses and facilities as

Buildings – with FAM Template Only
managed by FAM and FAM’s asset management system
Cemetery Columbia Cemetery information In Progress
Areas of court assets that are used and designed for specific
activities such as tennis courts, sand volleyball courts, and
horseshoe pits. Features that are an integral part of the Ready for
Courts
function of the asset are recorded as part of the court asset. Review
PARKS.Courts polygon data in Boulder GIS system.
Non-fixed, high value assets located within parks and

Equipment Template Only
specialized facilities
Lines representing barriers of any type and including prairie

Fence & Barriers Template Only
dog barriers, boundary fencing, and retaining walls.
Points representing park infrastructure such as benches,

Furniture In Progress
tables, grills, fountains, etc.
Managed plant beds or planned rock beds that are not

intended to be paths and that include annual and/or
perennial plants, shrubs, trees, or a mixture of plant types Ready for
Horticulture
not including irrigated turf. Small pockets of natural areas Review
may be included where those pockets have limited value as a
natural ecosystem.
Irrigation Irrigation systems and sub-systems In Progress
Lighting Fixtures – Exterior lighting assets owned by Parks and Recreation and
In Progress
with FAM verified with FAM to prevent duplication
Areas within Parks and Recreation Park Sites that are

managed by the Natural Lands Team. Multiple GIS features
exist that help the in the management of these natural areas
Ready for
Natural Lands but that don’t directly represent “assets” to the department
Review
in the traditional sense. These include areas of invasive weed
species, wildlife and native plant observations, tree plantings,
and data related to prairie dog communities.
FOR REFERENCE ONLY. Areas that are managed by the

Department of Parks and Recreation. Park site polygons are
Park Sites In Progress
drawn according to the entire management area and not
based on parcel boundary.
Building footprint areas for structures that usually have a

roof and includes occupied buildings, park shelters, and
sheds. Other significant structures are included that may not
Park Structures In Progress
have a roof or walls but that do have complex plumbing or
electrical systems such as fuel stations or the splash pad on
the Pearl Street Mall.
Areas that are intended primarily for vehicles including

Parking Lots – with
access roads or driveways, boat parking, maintenance Template Only
Transportation
storage yards as well as traditional parking lots.
Areas that are intended primarily for people to walk or bike

Paths & Plazas – with on including traditional sidewalks but also stairs, ramps,
In Progress
Transportation docks, piers, bridges, etc. Path Features are divided when
surfacing material changes and/or path width changes.
FOR REFERENCE ONLY. Group of Playground sub-areas that

make up a planned playground area. Areas of playground
surfacing, and collection of features designed for play. Areas
are divided by type of surfacing. Points of specific and Ready for
Playgrounds
discrete features within a playground or playground type Review
assets outside of the playground. Includes traditional
playground features but also disc golf features, bike park
features, dog park features, etc.
Recreation Centers
Non-FAM managed assets located within recreation centers,
and Specialized Template Only
aquatic facilities or other specialized facilities
Facilities
Signs Points Template Only
FOR REFERENCE ONLY. Districts that assist in developing
management plans and communication of data regarding
Trees In Progress
Tree related issues that somewhat represents
‘neighborhoods’ within the city of Boulder.
Areas of regularly irrigated and mowed turf that includes

areas for both active and passive recreation and divided
according to design intentions and use. Actual field layouts
are mapped in an Athletic Field Feature Class for display
Turf & Athletic Fields purposes. In Progress
Athletic Fields - REFERENCE DATA ONLY - actual athletic field
layout to facilitate the field reservation process. These assets
are layered on top of Turf assets that represent the actual
extent of turf that is managed for active recreation.
Points representing waste collection features for all types of

Waste Template Only
waste – trash, recycling, and compost.

June 4 (May Meeting) Final Packet

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

June 4 (May Meeting) Final Packet

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

East Boulder Recreation Center, 660 Sioux Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

AGENDA Boulder Parks & Recreation

Tom Klenow (Chair)

A. PRAB Community Engagement Updates (verbal)

100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018

January 22 February 26 April 2 (rescheduled March meeting)

April 23 June 4 (rescheduled May meeting) June 25

• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)

100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018 - continued

October 22 November 26 December 17

100 Years of Excellence

100 Years of Excellence

100 Years of Excellence

FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

SUBJECT: Consent Agenda

DATE: June 4, 2018 (May Business Meeting)

A. Approval of Minutes from April 23, 2018

B. Parks and Recreation Development Update

Planning and Design

The key next steps include:

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Beehive Asset Management Software Implementation: The department has finalized a

• Planning Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Park Renovations Celebrations: A large number of community members attended

Tantra Park, May 4 Civic Area, May 6

Howard Heuston Park, May 12 Arapahoe Ridge ‘Rock’ Park, May 16

• Construction Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife Closures: Closures to protect sensitive nesting

• Urban Wildlife Management: Staff continues to participate on the city-wide Prairie

• Natural Lands Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

• Cyclocross in Urban Parks: The growing sport of cyclocross is resulting in tension in

• PRAB Summer Meeting Dates and Locations

• YSI Art Show

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update

Agenda Item 6: Action Item

Moreno presented this item to the Board.

Public participation was opened.

The Board made the following comments about this item:

Yugar made the following motion:

To approve the memorandum of understanding for operations and coordination of BVSD’s

The motion was seconded by Klenow.

The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Seymour absent.

B. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve an Amendment to the

Bowden and Williams presented this item to the Board.

Public participation was opened.

The Board had no comments about this item.

The motion was seconded by Kovarik.

The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Seymour absent.

Agenda Item 7: Discussion/Information Item

A. 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program

Haley presented this item to the Board

B. Amendment to the Contract for Concession Services at Flatirons Golf Course

Bowden presented this item to the Board

Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Department

Agenda Item 9: Matters from the Board

A. Board Liaison Discussion

Date _ Date

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_1__

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_2__

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_3__

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_4__

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_5__

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_6__

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_7__

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_PAGE_8__