The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-08-2023 Sustainability Board Agenda & Packet MaterialsA.Call to Order - 6:00 PM This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1-650-479-3208 Access code: 2558 043 9899 B.Disclosures C.Changes to the Agenda D.Approval of Minutes D.1 Approve the January 11, 2023 Sustainability Board Meeting Minutes (Chipouras) E.Public Comments This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Sustainability Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil THE SUSTAINABILITY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA SB AGENDA Wednesday, March 8, 2023 General information about the Sustainability Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository. If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Jon Henderson, jon.henderson@bozeman.net 1 and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page. F.Special Presentations F.1 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan - Introduction (Henderson) G.FYI/Discussion G.1 Food System Stakeholder and Priority Mapping Work Session #2 (Meyer) H.Adjournment This board generally meets on the second Wednesday of the month 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 (TDD 406-582-2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Sustainability Board FROM:Ali Chipouras, Sustainability Program Specialist Natalie Meyer, Sustainability Program Manager Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director SUBJECT:Approve the January 11, 2023 Sustainability Board Meeting Minutes MEETING DATE:March 8, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Approve the January 11, 2023 Sustainability Board Meeting Minutes STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:In accordance with Commission Resolution 5323 and the City of Bozeman's Citizen Advisory Board Manual, all Boards must have minutes taken and approved. Prepared minutes will be provided for approval by the board at the next scheduled meeting. Staff will make any corrections identified to the minutes before submitting them to the City Clerk's Office. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Attachments: Minutes for the Sustainability Advisory Board 01-11-2023 .pdf Report compiled on: March 3, 2023 3 Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 1/11/2023 Page 1 of 3 THE SUSTAINBILITY CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES 1/11/2023 General information about the Sustainability Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository. A) 00:00:28 Call to Order - 6:00 PM Present: Isabel Shaida, Lumay Murphy, Matt Thompson, Emma Bode, Rebecca Kurnick, Douglas Fischer Absent: Kristin Blackler, Terry Cunningham B) 00:03:13 Disclosures • There were no disclosures. C) 00:03:24 Changes to the Agenda • There were no changes to the agenda. D) 00:03:37 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approve the December 14, 2022, Sustainability Board Meeting Minutes 12-14-22 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes.pdf 00:04:44 Motion to amend D) Approval of Minutes Rebecca Kurnick: Motion Isabel Shaida: 2nd 00:04:44 Vote on the Motion to amend D) Approval of Minutes The Motion carried 5 - 0. Approve: Isabel Shaida Matt Thompson Emma Bode Rebecca Kurnick 4 Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 1/11/2023 Page 2 of 3 Douglas Fischer Disapprove: None E) 00:04:51 Public Comments • There were no public comments. F) 00:05:40 Special Presentations F.1 00:13:33 Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation Plan Presentation • Park Planning and Development Manager Addi Jadin provided a special presentation on the Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation (PRAT) Plan that is currently in development and how it relates to the Bozeman Climate Plan. The PRAT Plan will be brought to the City Commission for review and adoption in April 2023. G) 00:38:28 FYI/Discussion • Rebecca Kurnick provided an FYI that she compiled a list of local food system stakeholders to share with city staff for interview consideration as part of the Food System Priority Mapping Project. She read the list of stakeholders to the board. • Isabel Shaida provided an FYI that on January 20th a coalition of Montana individuals, families, and organizations will be gathering in the state capitol in Helena for a climate advocacy day entitled Protect Our Home Montanans for a Livable Climate. G.1 00:43:18 2022 Citizen Advisory Board Ethics Trainings • Deputy City Clerk Taylor Chambers led the advisory board through the annual city ethics training. G.2 01:18:06 Sustainability Board Work Plan Review Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board 2022-2023 Work Plan Review - January 2023.pdf • Strategic Services Director Jon Henderson led the advisory board through a work session on the 2022-2023 Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board Work Plan. The board asked staff questions and provided guidance on the work plan. Public Comment: Mary Wictor H) 02:28:25 Adjournment This board generally meets on the second Wednesday of the month 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. 5 Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 1/11/2023 Page 3 of 3 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Sustainability Board FROM:Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director SUBJECT:Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan - Introduction MEETING DATE:March 8, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan - Introduction STRATEGIC PLAN:6.6 Habitat: Work with partner organizations to identify at-risk, environmentally sensitive parcels contribute to water quality, wildlife corridors, and wildlife habitat. BACKGROUND:On April 16, 2018 the City Commission approved Resolution 4852 adopting the City of Bozeman Strategic Plan. Section 6.6 of the Strategic Plan calls for working with partner organizations to identify at-risk, environmentally sensitive parcels that contribute to water quality, wildlife corridors, and wildlife habitat. On December 21, 2021 the City Commission approved Resolution 5368 adopting the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan as a City Commission priority for 2022-2023. On March 9, 2022 the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board approved a Work Plan identifying the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan as a priority item. The Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan is a comprehensive study to evaluate habitat and corridors between urban and natural areas throughout the valley before critical opportunities are lost to development. Furthermore, the value of existing agricultural lands will be considered as it relates to the overall economic, cultural, and environmental vitality of the region. Linkages and important wildlife habitat needed for all phases of species’ lifecycle will be inventoried and evaluated in an effort to identify critical corridors, including recommendations to protect sensitive lands in these areas. Beginning in 2021, extensive effort was made to build a working group of government agencies and non-profit organizations to an ensure a regional approach. Committed partners include: Animal Welfare Institute City of Belgrade City of Bozeman Craighead Institute 7 Gallatin County Gallatin Valley Land Trust Gallatin Watershed Council Gallatin Wildlife Association Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Montana Freshwater Partners Sacajawea Audubon Society Sierra Club U.S. Forest Service Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative The Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan helps accomplish many objectives in the Bozeman Climate Plan, including action item 6.P.1 - Protect Local Wetlands for Flood Resilience and Water Quality, and item 6.P.3 - Enhance Greenspace and Carbon Sequestration for New Development, among other action items. Final products including GIS layers and specific policy and program recommendations will serve a number of audiences including public officials, citizens, developers, and other agencies in a way that informs decisions about land use and management within the Gallatin Valley. Extensive work is underway to conduct public engagement, perform literature review, hold constituent interviews, offer a statistically valid community survey, and develop spatial models to inform potential recommendations. The attached materials, in addition to the project website, provide a summary of actions taken to date. Jon Henderson, City of Bozeman Strategic Services Director, will provide a brief introduction to inform the Board on important background information in anticipation of review of the draft plan in July of 2023 and a subsequent formal recommendation to the Bozeman City Commission with acceptance of the plan tentatively scheduled for December of 2023. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:All funds necessary to complete this effort are included in the FY23 approved budget for the Strategic Services Department, in addition to individual donations provided by partner organizations. Attachments: Sensitive Lands Summary.pdf Request for Proposals.pdf Logan Simpson Proposal.pdf Scope of Work.pdf Community Engagement Plan.pdf 8 Literature Review.pdf Constituent Interview Summary.pdf Survey Report.pdf Model Fact Sheet.pdf Report compiled on: March 3, 2023 9 Sensitive Lands Study Residents of the Gallatin Valley are dedicated to securing the long-term ecological health of the entire region. A strong connection between clean water, abundant wildlife, and agricultural heritage has provided a high quality of life for generations. While the area continues to experience unprecedented growth, a regional approach to protecting sensitive lands must be taken to provide adequate habitat for the future. Significant efforts have been made by many agencies and individuals to cultivate a strong environmental ethic while promoting sustainable businesses and lifestyles. The City of Bozeman recently adopted a long-range growth policy and a climate plan that work together to support a more resilient community. Well-planned, walkable neighborhoods, combined with support for local food systems, and conserving water resources highlight the relationship between nature and the built environment. Sensitive lands include riparian and wildlife corridors, in addition to stands of specimen trees, wetlands, and other natural features needed to support a healthy environment. A comprehensive study is needed to further evaluate habitat corridors between urban and natural areas throughout the valley before critical connections are lost to development. Linkages will be inventoried and evaluated in an effort to identify critical corridors, including recommendations to protect sensitive lands in these areas. Collaboration between partners and stakeholders throughout the region will be important in leveraging the incredible talent and diversity of such a wide range of experts needed to fully understand the issues. Rapid changes to land use combined with the impacts of climate change will lead to irreversible damage to water quality, vulnerable species, and the local economy. Investing in the protection of sensitive lands provides critical connections for wildlife and natural systems as the population expands, while preserving local values for generations to come. Sensitive lands exist at the intersection of land use and climate change 10 Partnerships include: Animal Welfare Institute City of Bozeman Craighead Institute Gallatin County Gallatin Watershed Council Gallatin Wildlife Association Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Montana Freshwater Partners Sacajawea Audubon Society Sierra Club U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service Wildlife Conservation Society Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative 11 Page 1 of 13 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN CITY OF BOZEMAN Bozeman, MT City of Bozeman PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 March 2022 12 Page 2 of 13 NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City of Bozeman (City), is seeking a request for proposals (hereafter collectively referred to as “proposals” or “responses”) from firms qualified to provide professional services resulting in the development of a comprehensive plan, including the development of spatial tools to share current data, and specific recommendations to build policy, programs, and partnerships resulting in the protection of sensitive lands. Copies of the request for qualifications and request for proposals are available on the City’s website at https://www.bozeman.net/government/city-clerk/bids-rfps-rfqs. All proposals must be provided as a single, searchable PDF document file and be submitted digitally as an email attachment to the RFP recipient email address below. Respondents are advised that Recipient’s email attachment size limit is 25MB and that only one PDF file will be allowed per response. The subject line of the transmittal email shall clearly identify the RFP title, company name and due date/time. File sizes greater than 25MB in size may be uploaded to bzncloud.bozeman.net upon special arrangement of the Recipient; however, it is the respondent’s sole responsibility to ensure the file upload is completed, and that the Recipient is separately notified via email of same, prior to the given deadline. Deliver RFPs via email to the City Clerk by April 1, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. MST. It is the sole responsibility of the proposing party to ensure that proposals are received prior to the closing time as late submittals will not be accepted and will be returned unopened. The email address for submission is: agenda@bozeman.net NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL PAY The City of Bozeman is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Discrimination in the performance of any agreement awarded under this RFP on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability is prohibited. This prohibition shall apply to the hiring and treatment of the awarded entity’s employees and to all subcontracts. As such, each entity submitting under this notice shall include a provision wherein the submitting entity, or entities, affirms in writing it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and which also recognizes the eventual contract will contain a provision prohibiting discrimination as described above and that this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the hiring and treatment of the submitting entity’s employees and to all subcontracts. In addition, pursuant to City Commission Resolution 5169, the entity awarded a contract under this RFP and any subcontractors must abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Section 39-3-104, MCA (the Montana Equal Pay Act), and affirm it will abide by the above and that it has visited the State of Montana Equal Pay for Equal Work “best practices” website, 13 https://equalpay.mt.gov/BestPractices/Employers, or equivalent “best practices publication and has read the material. Failure to comply with the above may be cause for the City to deem the submittal non-responsive. Any administrative questions regarding proposal procedures should be directed to: Mike Maas, City Clerk (406) 582-2321, agenda@bozeman.net. Questions relating to the RFP should be directed to: Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director, (406) 582- 2250, jon.henderson@bozeman.net DATED at Bozeman, Montana, this March 9, 2022 Mike Maas City Clerk City of Bozeman For publication on: Sunday, March 13 Sunday, March 20 14 I. INTRODUCTION A number of stakeholders across a wide variety of government agencies and non-profit organizations are partnering to conduct a study of sensitive lands to protect important wildlife habitat and critical connections for wildlife and natural systems throughout the Gallatin Valley. On behalf of the Gallatin Sensitive Lands Working Group, The City of Bozeman (Owner), is seeking qualifications and proposals from qualified firms (Consultant) to undertake professional services resulting in the development of a comprehensive plan, including the development of spatial tools to share current data, and specific recommendations to build policy, programs, and partnerships resulting in the protection of sensitive lands. This RFP shall not commit the Owner to enter into an agreement, to pay any expenses incurred in preparation of any response to this request, or to procure or contract for any supplies, goods or services. The Owner reserves the right to accept or reject all responses received as a result of this RFP if it is in the Owner’s best interest to do so. This procurement is governed by the laws of the State of Montana and venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the 18th Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. By offering to perform services under this RFP, all Submitters agree to be bound by the laws of the State of Montana and of the Owner, including, but not limited to, applicable wage rates, payments, gross receipts taxes, building codes, equal opportunity employment practices, safety, non-discrimination, etc. II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION Residents of the Gallatin Valley are dedicated to securing the long-term ecological health of the entire region. A strong connection between clean water, abundant wildlife, and agricultural heritage has provided a high quality of life for generations. While the area continues to experience unprecedented growth, a regional approach to protecting sensitive lands must be taken to provide adequate habitat for the future. Significant efforts have been made by many agencies and individuals to cultivate a strong environmental ethic while promoting sustainable growth. The City of Bozeman recently adopted a long-range Community Plan and a Climate Plan that work together to support a more resilient community. Gallatin County has recently adopted a Growth Policy and the Triangle Community Plan which further acknowledges the importance of relationships between both the natural and built environments. The United States Forest Service has recently adopted a new Forest Plan, allocating the west Bridger Mountains and the northern Gallatin Mountains as a “Key Linkage Area” managed with an emphasis for habitat connectivity. Sensitive lands include riparian and wildlife habitat and corridors, in addition to stands of specimen trees, wetlands, and other natural features needed to support a healthy environment and the valley’s renowned wildlife populations. A comprehensive study is needed to further evaluate habitat and corridors between urban and natural areas throughout the valley before critical opportunities are lost to development. Furthermore, the value of existing agricultural lands need to be considered as it relates to the overall economic, cultural, and environmental vitality of the 15 region. Linkages and important wildlife habitat needed for all phases of species’ lifecycle will be inventoried and evaluated in an effort to identify critical corridors, including recommendations to protect sensitive lands in these areas. Final products (i.e., maps, data layers, recommendations, etc.) will need to serve intended audiences (i.e., public officials, citizens, developers, and other agencies) in a way that informs decisions about land use and management within the Gallatin Valley. This Project will be under intense scrutiny by public officials, the media, and the citizens. It is imperative that it be managed with the utmost regard to cost, schedule, and quality control by all participants. III. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services for this project are categorized into the following areas. A detailed description of methodology and approach to each of the five areas is required within the submitted proposal. 1) Public Engagement Overview: Stakeholder and public engagement will inform the extent of interconnected issues experienced within areas of sensitive lands related to a number of stressors, including but not limited to, development, transportation infrastructure, local economy, recreation, human wildlife conflicts, and climate change. Deliverable: The selected Consultant will lead both stakeholder and public engagement efforts, relying on a variety of both in-person and virtual formats to capture robust input used to inform project scope and priorities. Details: a. Identifying and requesting input from a wide variety of stakeholders will be critical, including but not limited to, local agriculture, real estate, developers, conservationists, citizens, and government officials. b. Collaborative efforts in support of existing public engagement opportunities throughout the area shall be considered (e.g., Planning Coordination Committee events, etc.). c. Wherever possible, the subsequent scope of analysis should follow stressors relative to the geography of their impact. 2) Literature Review Overview: Emerging studies and lessons learned from other communities shall be used to guide research and recommendations. Deliverable: The selected Consultant will review regional scientific studies related to the identified stressors and their impacts on sensitive lands, in addition to a review of both past and current plans, including but not limited to, the Critical Lands Study of the Bozeman Area (1997), City of Bozeman’s Community Plan (2021) and Climate Plan 16 (2021), and Gallatin County’s Growth Policy (2021) and Triangle Community Plan (2020). Details: a. Detailed study of specific species or areas of interest are beyond the scope of this project. b. A focus on interconnectivity and relationships between stressors and impacts is desired. c. Conflicts between currently adopted plans shall be documented and prioritized for revision. 3) Data Collection Overview: Existing authoritative datasets across a wide range of sciences shall be compiled to provide a common resource for supporting multiple agencies, including the general public. Deliverable: The selected Consultant will locate, compile, and document all available data into a single Geodatabase environment. Details: a. All data shall include an adequate description of its origin and point of contact. b. Gaps in data shall be noted, including recommendations to support future data collection efforts. c. Wherever possible, the City of Bozeman GIS Division will be responsible for hosting the most current available data, with assistance from partnering agencies. 4) Spatial Tools Overview: Online GIS web mapping application(s) shall be developed to provide public access to data in addition to modeling and visualizing the effects of land use at both a local and regional scale. Deliverable: The selected Consultant will develop (or recommend for purchase) ESRI- based GIS software necessary to provide a publicly accessible data and application clearinghouse. Details: a. Environmentally sensitive linkages shall be highlighted to promote a shared understanding of where opportunities for preservation exist. b. A static series of scenario-based outcomes is preferred when modeling the effects of land use and growth over time, unless available technology within the project budget allows for a more interactive end-user experience. c. Wherever possible, the City of Bozeman GIS Division will host and maintain all available data and tools within its ESRI ArcGIS Enterprise platform. 5) Recommendations Overview: Specific recommendations to protect sensitive lands shall be pursued for both policy and program development, including regional partnerships, and key performance indicators. 17 Deliverable: The selected Consultant will develop a comprehensive set of recommendations that accomplish specific goals with measurable outcomes. Details: a. Recommendations must include a wide variety of solutions that will support contrasting interests throughout the study area. b. Feedback provided during public engagement efforts shall be used to inform a diverse set of recommendations. c. Policy and program recommendations must be delivered with reference to the agency or jurisdiction who oversees final decision making authority. d. Recommendations must be consistent with adopted plans and laws, including but not limited to, the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, the Montana State Wildlife Action Plan, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Park’s Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development. e. Legislative efforts required to implement any final recommendations shall be identified in support of the upcoming legislative session. f. Partnership opportunities for advancing long term goals shall be presented, including concepts for future community campaigns. g. Key performance indicators must be included to measures progress and communicate results. IV. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Firms interested in providing the services described above are requested to submit the following information. Responses to each item should appear in the same order as in this RFP and should identify the item to which the responses applies. Executive Summary Please include general information about the firm, such as: description of services offered, total years in business, number of employees, office locations, basic qualifications and name, phone number and email for authorized conact concerning the proposal. Project Management and Approach Provide a description of your proposed solution and an outline detailing your approach and concept for accomplishing this project. Address any time or commitments you see City personnel needing to provide. Experience with Projects of Similar Size and Design Provide a list of a minimum of three (3) similar and relevant projects, together with information on the project scope, common issues and services provided. Firm’s Qualifications 18 Provide the name of individuals involved in this project, their relevant experience and the role they will play, including present and projected workloads. Proposed Schedule Provide details on the amount of time needed to complete the project. Price Proposal Provide an overall budget. Describe your preferred fee structure rates. Describe factors significant to determining project budget. References Provide detailed contact information for at least five (5) projects undertaken by your firm within the past five years. Affirmation of Nondiscrimination (see Attachment A) Non-completion of the Affirmation of Nondiscrimination is cause for disqualification of firms. V. TIMELINES, DELIVERY DEADLINE, AND INSTRUCTIONS EVENT DATE/TIME Publication dates of RFP Sunday, March 13 Sunday, March 20 Deadline for receipt of proposals No later than 3:00 p.m. MST April 1, 2022 RFP review complete by committee April 15, 2022 Notice of interviews April 18, 2022 Interviews (if necessary) April 25 and 26, 2022 Selection April 29, 2022 With the exception of the advertising dates and advertised due date, the City reserves the right to modify the above timeline. Deliver RFPs via email to the City Clerk (agenda@bozeman.net) by 3:00 p.m. MST April 1, 2022. It is the sole responsibility of the proposing party to ensure that proposals are received prior to the closing time as late submittals will not be accepted and will be returned unopened. All proposals must be provided as a single, searchable PDF document file and be submitted digitally as an email attachment to the RFP Recipient email address agenda@bozeman.net. Respondents are advised that Recipient’s email attachment size limit is 25MB and that only one PDF file will be allowed per response. The subject line of the transmittal email shall clearly identify the RFP title, company name and due date/time. File sizes greater than 25MB in size may be uploaded to bzncloud.bozeman.net upon special arrangement of the Recipient; however, it is the 19 respondent’s sole responsibility to ensure the file upload is completed, and that the Recipient is separately notified via email of same, prior to the given deadline. VI. AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION Any interpretation or correction of this request will be published on the City’s webpage. The deadline for questions related to this document is 3:00 p.m. MST on March 23. VII. CONTACT INFORMATION Any administrative questions regarding proposal procedures should be directed to: Mike Maas, City Clerk, (406) 582-2321, agenda@bozeman.net Questions relating to scope of services should be directed to: Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director, jon.henderson@bozeman.net (406) 582-2250 VIII. SELECTION PROCEDURE A review committee will evaluate all responses to the RFP that meet the submittal requirements and deadline. Submittals that do not meet the requirement or deadline will not be considered. The review committee will rank the proposals and may arrange interviews with the finalist(s) prior to selection. Selection may be made directly based on the written RFP submission. If interviews occur, the selection of finalists to be interviewed will be made by a selection committee representing the City of Bozeman. The selection of interview candidates will be based on an evaluation of the written responses to the RFPs. All submitted proposals must be complete and contain the information required as stated in the "Request for Proposals.” IX. SELECTION CRITERIA Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. Project Management and Approach: Possible Points: 40 2. Respondent’s experience with projects of similar size and design: Possible Points: 25 3. Firm’s Qualifications: 20 Possible Points: 15 4. Price Proposal: Possible Points: 10 5. Interview: Possible Points: 10 X. FORM OF AGREEMENT The contractor will be required to enter into a contract with the City in substantially the same form as the professional services agreement attached as Attachment B. XI. CITY RESERVATION OF RIGHTS All proposals submitted in response to this RFQ become the property of the City and public records and, as such, may be subject to public review. A SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON ANY RESPONDENTS AND SHALL NOT OBLIGATE THE CITY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE NO AWARD AND TO SOLICIT ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AT A LATER DATE. A. This RFP may be canceled or any or all responses may be rejected in whole or in part, as specified herein, when it is in the best interests of the City. If the City cancels or revises this RFP, all Respondents who submitted will be notified using email. B. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all submissions; to add or delete items and/or quantities; to amend the RFP; to waive any minor irregularities, informalities, or failure to conform to the RFP; to extend the deadline for submitting proposals; to postpone award for up to 60 days; to award one or more contracts, by item or task, or groups of items or tasks, if so provided in the RFP and if multiple awards are determined by the City to be in the public interest. C. The City reserves the right to reject the submission of any person/firm who previously failed to perform properly to the satisfaction of the City, or complete on time agreements of similar nature, or to reject the submission of any person/firm who is not in a position to perform such an agreement satisfactorily as determined by the City. D. The City reserves the right to determine the best qualified Respondents and negotiate a final scope of service and cost, negotiate a contract with another Respondents if an agreement cannot be reached with the first selected Respondents, or reject all 21 proposals. E. The professional services contract between the City of Bozeman and the successful Contractor will incorporate the Contractor's scope of service and work schedule as part of the agreement (see Attachment B for form of construction services agreement). The professional services agreement presented to the Contractor may differ from this form as appropriate for the scope of services). F. This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract. The City assumes no liability or responsibility for costs incurred by Respondents in responding to this request for qualifications or request for interviews, additional data, or other information with respect to the selection process, prior to the issuance of an agreement, contract or purchase order. The Respondents, by submitting a response to this RFP, waives all right to protest or seek any legal remedies whatsoever regarding any aspect of this RFP. G. This project is subject to the availability of funds. XII. NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL PAY POLICY The City of Bozeman requires each entity submitting under this notice shall affirm, on a separate form provided, that it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, sexual preference, gender identity, or disability in fulfillment of a contract entered into for the services identified herein and that this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the hiring and treatment of the submitting entity’s employees and to all subcontracts it enters into in the fulfillment of the services identified herein. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be cause for the submittal to be deemed nonresponsive. The City also requires each entity submitting under this notice shall affirm it will abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Section 39-3-104, MCA (the Montana Equal Pay Act), and has visited the State of Montana Equal Pay for Equal Work “best practices” website, https://equalpay.mt.gov/BestPractices/Employers, or equivalent “best practices publication and has read the material. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. No Oral Agreements. No conversations or oral agreements with any officer, employee, or agent of the City shall affect or modify any term of this solicitation. Oral communications or any written/email communication between any person and City officer, employee or agent shall not be considered binding. B. No Partnership/Business Organization. Nothing in this solicitation or in any subsequent agreement, or any other contract entered into as a result of this solicitation, shall constitute, create, give rise to or otherwise be recognized as a partnership or formal business organization of any kind between or among the respondent and the City. 22 C. Employment Restriction and Indemnity. No person who is an owner, officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of a respondent shall be an officer or employee of the City. No rights of the City’s retirement or personnel rules accrue to a respondent, its officers, employees, contractors, or consultants. Respondents shall have the responsibility of all salaries, wages, bonuses, retirement, withholdings, worker’s compensation and occupational disease compensation, insurance, unemployment compensation other benefits and taxes and premiums appurtenant thereto concerning its officers, employees, contractors, and consultants. Each Respondent shall save and hold the City harmless with respect to any and all claims for payment, compensation, salary, wages, bonuses, retirement, withholdings, worker’s compensation and occupational disease compensation, insurance, unemployment compensation other benefits and taxes and premiums in any way related to each respondent’s officers, employees, contractors and consultants. D. Accessibility. Upon reasonable notice, the City will provide assistance for those persons with sensory impairments. For further information please contact the ADA Coordinator Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 or the City’s TTY line at 406-582-2301. E. Procurement. When discrepancies occur between words and figures in this solicitation, the words shall govern. No responsibility shall attach to a City employee for the premature opening of an SOQ not properly addressed and identified in accordance with these documents. F. Governing Law. This solicitation and any disputes arising hereunder or under any future agreement shall be governed and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Montana, without reference to principles of choice or conflicts of laws. XIV. ATTACHMENTS The following exhibits are incorporated in this RFP: Attachment A: Non-Discrimination and Equal Pay Affirmation Attachment B: Form of Professional Services Agreement END OF RFP 23 Attachment A NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL PAY AFFIRMATION ____________________________________(name of entity submitting) hereby affirms it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and acknowledges and understands the eventual contract will contain a provision prohibiting discrimination as described above and this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the hiring and treatments or proposer’s employees and to all subcontracts. In addition, ____________________________________(name of entity submitting) hereby affirms it will abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Section 39-3-104, MCA (the Montana Equal Pay Act), and has visited the State of Montana Equal Pay for Equal Work “best practices” website, https://equalpay.mt.gov/BestPractices/Employers, or equivalent “best practices publication and has read the material. ______________________________________ Name and title of person authorized to sign on behalf of submitter 24 CITY OF BOZEMAN GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY LOGAN SIMPSON APRIL 1, 2022 | 3:00 PM 25 PROPOSAL CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUmmary ��1 2. ProjECT managEmEnT and aPProaCh ��2 3. EXPErIEnCE wITh ProjECTS of SImIlar SIzE and dESIgn ��18 4. fIrm’S QUalIfICaTIonS ��23 5. ProPoSEd SChEdUlE ��29 6. PrICE ProPoSal ��30 7. rEfErEnCES ��32 8. affIrmaTIon of nondISCrImInaTIon ��33 26 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 1 213 Linden Street, Suite 300 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 P: 970.449.4100www.logansimpson.com LOGANSIMPSON1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY April 1, 2022 Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director and Mike Maas, City ClerkCity of BozemanMT PO Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 agenda@bozeman.net Regarding: Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Dear Mr. Henderson, Mr. Maas, and Members of the Selection Committee, Over the past decade, we have fallen in love with the Gallatin Valley while preparing Bozeman’s Community Plan and Climate Plan, the Big Sky Community Vision and Strategic Plan, and Growth Policy Updates for Gallatin County and the communities of Three Forks and Manhattan. Going back even further to when Gallatin Valley Land Trust founder Chris Boyd was convening conservationists for the first time, our team members were laying the groundwork for what would become the Larimer County Open Lands Program (1993), the Help Preserve Open Space sales tax (1995), and similar local government programs and land trusts throughout Colorado and the Rocky Mountains. Now, in Logan Simpson’s 32nd year, we have a demonstrated track record of transparently marrying community values with the best available science to identify where the highest scenic, wildlife, recreation, and historic priorities remain, and how these priorities interface with other responsible growth priorities such as affordable housing and tourism. We are passionate about and specialize in strategic open space master planning, community planning, and design of recreation facilities in sensitive natural resource areas. “Ahkoto Waktai Sakum,” which translates to “Many Come Together,” represents our vision for public engagement, as well as how GIS modeling of the river systems, critical habitats, and conservation opportunities will come together. Logan Simpson routinely works with the most enviable Mountain West communities, and understands the strategic choices necessary to protect lands, balance property rights; maintain agricultural lands and industry manage tourist population and access, maintain affordable housing, and fund community services long-term. Our consensus-making skills include visioning, strategic planning, resource mapping and modeling, and interagency facilitation. We are devoted to creating a science-based, politically-supportable plan that meets the long-term conservation-development vision of the Sensitive Lands Working Group. This team has been specifically tailored to meet the needs of the communities throughout the Gallatin Valley; it will be led by Jeremy Call, principal and an environmental planner, with specialized focus on conservation, scenic resources, recreation, and public process. Award- winning project manager Kristina Kachur will guide the public lands and open space planning and day to day coordination between the City, the Valley’s Sensitive Lands Working Group, and the consultant team. We are supported by in-house specialists in GIS analysis, open space modeling, recreation management, land use planning, and code. Logan Simpson, founded in 1990, is home to more than 130 staff members across our six offices in Tempe, Tucson, and Flagstaff, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; Reno, Nevada; and Fort Collins, Colorado (from where this work will be completed). Our team also brings geospatial designer Breece Robertson, who combines technology and storytelling to inspire, activate, educate, and engage people as the Director of Partnerships at the Center for Geospatial Solutions at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. We have included four optional tasks not anticipated in the RFP: • Jeff Haugen with Left Brain Concepts can develop a statistically-valid survey to quantify sensitive land values across each community, so that the subsequent GIS model reflects what people care about. • A literature review highlighting the economic benefits of sensitive lands conservation to reinforce the importance of the study. • Momentum and commitment will build as each community or organization in turn adopts (or approves or accepts) the plan. We are available to help staff in each community hold public hearings to adopt the plan recommendations. • Memorable photography and video is an excellent way to illustrate the awe-inspiring landscape, tell the story, and motivate change. Motion Digital can develop a short video that brings the Valley’s cultural and natural heritage to life. Logan Simpson acknowledges response to our questions dated March 23, 2022, as well as receipt of additional response to questions on March 30th. This type of planning is exactly what we love to do, and we are excited and eager to continue serving the Bozeman community. Respectfully submitted, Jeremy Call, Project Principal and Authorized Contact Kristina Kachur, Project ManagerP: 970.494.4100 ext. 4805 970.449.4100 ext. 4810E: jcall@logansimpson.com E: kkachur@logansimpson.com 27 2 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL 2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND APPROACH PROJECT UNDERSTANDING It would be our privilege and our passion to assist in creating the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan together. Gallatin Valley is an inspiring landscape, rich in human and natural history, home to abundant wildlife, and supporting world-class outdoor recreation opportunities. Outside Bozeman and the Valley’s smaller cities and towns, much of this land remains agricultural or undeveloped and provides essential habitat and movement corridors for grizzly bears, mountain lions, eagles, elk, mule deer, and moose . Forested streams hold cutthroat and Arctic grayling. The Gallatin Valley is also facing unprecedented growth in population, skyrocketing housing prices, and tourism. Recreation demand is seemingly infinite, limited only by the supply of publicly accessible areas and our tolerance of crowding. The population is growing faster than the state and has increased 71% in the past 20 years, and the Valley could be expected to include more than 200,000 residents by 2040. This growth has mobilized support for traditional agricultural practices, preservation of wildlife corridors, mitigating conflicts between traffic and wildlife, and protection of scenic views. Now on the heels of the Gallatin County Growth Policy, which saw high levels of public concern and comment for wildlife and wildlife habitat issues; and Bozeman’s Community and Climate plans is the opportune time to assess and proactively protect the values that old timers and newcomers cherish . This Sensitive Lands Protection Plan seeks to find greater balance in the Gallatin Valley. The Plan will highlight sensitive land priorities through a robust GIS model, make intangible values and natural assets more tangible, recommend how to protect the most sensitive resources, while helping identify the benefits and best practices of developing in harmony with the natural environment. Our hope is that the final model will influence the County’s Future Land Use Plan. Most importantly, the guide must facilitate dialogue between the city, county, agencies, stakeholders, and developers to result in a win-win solution. Past successes of community-supported long-range plans in Gallatin Valley. The Logan Simpson team understands what is takes to gain community support for, and ultimately adopt forward-thinking plans in Gallatin County and have worked with many of the agencies and stakeholders that are integral to this planning effort. Megan Moore and Bruce Meighen, land use and facilitation advisors to this planning effort, were instrumental to the development and adoption of the Bozeman Community Plan and Climate Action Plan; and Gallatin County’s Growth Policy. Three Forks, and Manhattan’s growth policies are currently nearing adoption. Our community-driven planning philosophy is that growth and change should only occur in a way that fits a community’s needs and values. We also believe that a community’s vision and goals must be grounded in reality (aka, this project) so that planning documents are meaningful, forward-thinking, and actionable. Count on us to champion and: • Consider the Sensitive Lands Working Group interests comprehensively. • Respect private property rights. • Enhance, not detract from, partnerships. • Celebrate the Valley’s intrinsic natural and agricultural characteristics – what makes it “home”. • Gather (and present) ideas in a noncontroversial way. Of the 1,685,617 acres of land in Gallatin County, 53% is in private ownership. Of the 886,074 acres of private land in the County, nearly 130,000 acres are placed under conservation easement – of which 36,000 acres have been conserved through Gallatin County’s Open Lands Program. Accomplishing conservation at that scale is phenomenal. 28 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 3 Planning for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Understanding our role in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem can help ensure the long-term sustainability of the City and County. Our plans within the larger region include the Jackson-Teton County 2012 and 2021 Comprehensive Plans and the Teton View Regional Plan for a four- county, seven-city region that straddles two states adjacent to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park. The plans are reversing Teton County’s trend toward outlying unincorporated development and redirecting nearly all development within towns to preserve adjacent lands. Logan Simpson also completed the Jackson-Teton County Workforce Housing Action Plan and is beginning work on the Housing Strategic Plan, which ensures people who work in Jackson can live there. We have also worked on smaller, outlying towns such as Driggs and Victor, Idaho, who are focusing on housing variety, affordability, character, downtown, and habitat and agricultural preservation. In-house multi-disciplinary team Our Logan Simpson team is highly integrated to include land use planners, code specialists, wildlife and wetland biologists, GIS modelers, and landscape architects. A collaborative planning process begins with gaining consensus on a science- and community-based vision. As we have demonstrated with the above plans, consensus is most often achieved by a thorough and deliberate stakeholder engagement program that identifies the key issues, ideas, and challenges at the outset, and engages people in meaningful, and productive dialogue guided by a team of experts. Logan Simpson has a team of experienced biologists who have completed biological reviews; biological assessments and evaluations; wildlife/species surveys and habitat evaluations; rangeland health assessments; and invasive, native, and sensitive species plant surveys. Our biologists also have extensive experience in the regulatory requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and other wildlife and environmental laws and regulations. Other regional planning efforts include integrating development with wildlife corridors into the foothills of the East and West Benches of the Salt Lake Valley. The Blackfeet Nation calls this area “Ahkoto Waktai Sakum,” which translates to “Many Come Together” country. Ahkoto Waktai Sakum is our vision for public engagement and resource mapping. 29 4 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL Experience with County and Federal land management planning We frequently work with the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, US Forest Service, and other federal agencies on resource management and recreation area management plans and NEPA. We also have worked for state and local agencies throughout the West to develop open space and trails plans; develop land management plans that included the goal of influencing federal land management actions; county-wide shared conservation visions; and community plans adjacent to federal lands. Conservation GIS and open space priority models We bring decades of conservation GIS experience and will share the impact of other local models in delivering a vision for success. Our goal is to create maps that: • Tell compelling stories to stakeholders and the public• Analyze access to nature equity • Show the economic benefits of conservation • Map, model, and analyze land characteristics to enhance biodiversity, connectivity, and climate resilience • Leverage maps and data to gain insights for fundraising, program initiatives, policy, advocacy, finances, and marketing Like the real-life examples in Breece Robertson’s must-read “Protecting the Places We Love,” Logan Simpson’s open space GIS prioritization models have garnered awards large and small, but more importantly have conserved places we love. Logan Simpson will work with the stakeholders to craft criteria based on community values, collect the best available GIS data, and analyze eligible land parcels and natural resources to create a GIS supported output of the most significant sensitive lands. 47% of Gallatin County is publicly owned and managed by federal and state agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP), Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT), and Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC); and local governments. and 0.20 percent sales taxes that are estimated to yield up to $500 million over a 30 year period. LAND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES The master plan defines a three-fold strategy, shown on the previous page: 1) cooperative agreements with Federal and County agencies for lands north of State Route 74; 2) coordination and cooperative planning of State Land parcels that contain natural, scenic, and/or significant cultural sites; and 3) discussions with willing private land owners to obtain conservation easements, dedications, or acquisitions for identified significant parcels or portions thereof. All of this will be accomplished in partnership with other departments, agencies, interest groups, and active citizen involvement. POTENTIAL PROJECTS A variety of potential conservation projects has been identified, Several examples are listed below: ▪Continuing efforts to pro- tect and enhance the Agua Fria corridor ▪New River Dam Regional Open Space ▪Agricultural land protection ▪Black Mountain Open Space ▪Calderwood Butte Open Space ▪Prince Mountain Open Space THIS PLAN RECOMMENDS A THREE PRONGED STRATEGY FOR THE THREE DISTINCT TYPES OF LAND OWNERSHIP, AND SECONDLY, PROPOSES A SPECIFIC REVENUE TOOL IN ORDER TO SATISFY PUBLIC DEMANDS FOR OPEN SPACE AND PASSIVE RECREATION. [] THE CITY OF PEORIA IS DETERMINED TO PRESERVE AND MANAGE THE BEST OF THE AREA’S UNIQUE ECOLOGY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND BEAUTY THROUGH THE SONORAN PRESERVATION PROGRAM.[]Sensitive lands model from Peoria Open Space Analysis Our work on recreation and open space plans have received the following awards: 2021 – American Planning Association (APA) Colorado “Top Award” in Sustainability Category for Estes Valley Open Space Plan 2020 – APA Utah: Chapter “Award of Merit” for Wasatch Canyons Comprehensive Plan 2019 – APA Colorado: “Honor Award” for Larimer County Mountain Resilience Comprehensive Plan 2016 - Arizona Forward: Public Policy Plans “Award of Merit” for Peoria Sonoran Desert Preservation Program 2016 – APA Utah: “President’s Achievement Award” for Draper Open Space Plan 2015 – Idaho APA “GEM Award” and Idaho Smart Growth “Planning & Policy Award” for Teton View Regional Plan for Sustainable Development 2014 – Society of Outdoor Recreation Professionals “Project Excellence Award;” APA National and the National Association of County Planners “Award of Excellence;” and American Society of Landscape Architects Colorado “Stewardship Award” for Our Lands - Our Future: Recreation and Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado 30 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 5 PROJECT APPROACH The Logan Simpson Team is committed to providing the City staff with excellent customer service. Our team’s success can be attributed to the successful project management, leadership, and organizational skills we maintain for each project. Our success is based on utilizing tools that make it easy to obtain information and participate in the process, reaching participants who may not typically engage. We will identify, up-front, your goals and objectives for the project’s public and stakeholder outreach and participation. The following section details Logan Simpson’s methodology and approach to accomplishing the proposed scope of services, including a summary of specific meetings, deliverables, and City roles at the end of each major task. TASK 1 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ProjECT managEmEnT CoordInaTIon Upon contract commencement, Logan Simpson will coordinate with the City Project Management Staff to refine and finalize the schedule and public engagement plan. At the virtual project management kickoff meeting, we will establish bi-weekly or monthly coordination calls to be held virtually so everyone can put it on their calendars. We envision in-person meetings during key milestones when planned during other meetings in Gallatin County. The Logan Simpson team, of course, will be available throughout the project via cell phone, office phone, and email. PUblIC EngagEmEnT Plan Logan Simpson’s approach in all of our work is to achieve excellence through collaboration. This requires a deliberate and sustained effort to fully understand the community’s needs, provide solution-oriented communication, and having the ability to sustain a nonpartisan, inspirational attitude throughout the project. We understand the need to gain definitive input from stakeholders and the public throughout the process and use techniques geared to reaching specific meeting objectives. Roles, decision-making authority, and make-up of the various project groups, including the project management and leadership within the City and Gallatin County, as well as stakeholders and the public will be listed and defined. Knowing the ultimate role of key partners early in the process will help the project be successful in the long run. We will right-size the engagement strategies, meeting facilitation, schedule, and notifications for each group. ProjECT wEbSITE Logan Simpson is very familiar and could use with Bozeman’s public engagement website, Engage Bozeman. Given the nature of this project, we envision creating a one stop shop via ESRI’s ArcGIS Hub. This project website platform is equally capable of providing project updates and will allow the public to review, comment on, and even download (if desired) the detailed GIS data and analysis required in this RFP. The project website will include a link to register to get involved, a project timeline, project contacts, and additional resources. Additional details are described in Tasks 3-5. STakEholdEr InTErVIEwS Our team will announce the initiation of this project and hold group and one-on-one stakeholder interviews with key stakeholders. This will include a discussion with various City and County staff and leadership, including Boards and Commissions, as well as members of the Planning Coordination Committee and the Gallatin Sensitive Lands Working Group. Key questions will include: Who are we missing? What does success look like? What case studies, literature sources, and/ or best practices would you recommend? What data should we consider? And to inform the development of initial survey questions, what are key values and tradeoffs to understand across the Valley? We have begun early conversations with the Montana Natural Heritage Program and University of Montana’s Spatial Analysis Lab to understand their data availability. In tandem with Task 2, we will meet with these research agencies to understand the data history, limitations, and modeling scenarios completed to date. We have found that successful wildlife habitat models are built over a lifetime of understanding and partners. Working with these groups will ensure the data reliability needed in this process. 31 6 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL workIng groUP & CoUnTy CoordInaTIon Following the initial round of stakeholder interviews, we will convene meetings with the Gallatin Sensitive Lands Working Group throughout the process. Two in-person and two virtual meetings are envisioned for a total of four meetings. Meetings will involve worksessions to review materials and provide guiding direction prior to public review. • Meeting 1 – Review data collection and literature review and provide input on project goals • Meeting 2 – Review modeling methods • Meeting 3 – Review modeling results and provide input on preliminary recommendations • Meeting 4 – Provide input on recommendations Throughout our work on previous planning efforts in Gallatin County, we have worked with the majority of the Gallatin Sensitive Lands Working Group which includes: • Animal Welfare Institute • City of Bozeman • Craighead Institute • Gallatin County • Gallatin Valley Land Trust • Gallatin Watershed Council • Gallatin Wildlife Association • Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks • Montana Freshwater Partners • Sacajawea Audubon Society • Sierra Club • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative 32 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 7 Beyond the Working Group meetings, Logan Simpson proposes additional coordination with the County. These meetings will be specific to land use recommendations that would likely fall to the County to implement. Up to three additional meet-ings are anticipated to occur virtually, unless in tandem with other trips to Gallatin County. STaTISTICally ValId SUrVEy (oPTIonal) Sensitive Lands hold a myriad of community values. The more the model aligns with community values, the more readily the results will be accepted and effect the desired change. At the client group’s discretion, Logan Simpson will work with Left Brain Concepts early in the process to develop a statistically valid mail survey with the option to respond electronically. We will work with Bozeman to develop a 4- to 6-page survey that will be mailed to 3,500 residents across the Gallatin Valley. We begin with an exhaustive list of households in the community - including individual units in multi-family developments - and mail to a random sample of households. This has been the standard in sampling for decades; to be able to defend the results with a sample size of 600- 700 responses. Responses would be held in an ASCII data file as numerically coded data. Answers to each question will be double-entered to ensure accuracy. This is the industry standard in paper-and- pencil survey research and is the most accurate method of recording information from surveys. We will capture people’s responses to any open-ended questions verbatim, will code the responses and enter them into the data file. LBC will compile the results, produce percentages for each response, and perform numerous data splits and statistical analyses using a powerful software package. Results will be spilt by jurisdiction and length of time residency in the Valley. If a statistically valid survey is not desired, $5,000 for setup and analysis will be utilized to complete an online survey in Public Engagement Series #1. 9OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS STRATEGIC PLAN DRAFT PRIORITIES FOR PROTECTION I believe that open spaces and trails are a good investment for our community.Even if I don’t use trails and open spaces myself, I think it’s important that they exist. Children need access to open spaces as they grow. I am more likely to bike or walk to a destination if there are trails that lead there. 0 100 200 300 400 500 Number of Responses Blus & Arroyos Agricultural Lands Watershed & Drainage Areas Wetlands Riparian Areas River Corridor Lakes and Ponds Trail Corridors Wildlife Habitats HIgh Priority Priority Low Priority Public opinions shaped sensitive lands priorities for the Windsor Open Space & Trails Strategic Plan Determine Sensitive Land Categories and Public Values Develop Criteria and Weights for each Category Collect Data for each Criteria Model and display results Refine Results Develop Recommendations 33 8 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL PUblIC EngagEmEnT SErIES Each public engagement phase below includes a distinct outcome-oriented outreach series with hands-on and high-tech outreach methods tailored to the audience and desired outcomes. This process uses trust, credibility, and process to create consensus. Each series will involve a public meeting in a centrally located area and opportunities to provide input online. #1: Review of data and visioning After initial literature review and data collection outlined in Tasks 2 and 3 below, we will reach out the broader public for review of the data to ensure no further gaps remain and define the planning context. This series will also collect feedback on the plan’s vision and goals based on the data and statistically valid results. We will collect information on the community’s values to determine importance as we move into developing the model methods. This phase could be paired with an online survey if the optional statistically valid survey is not completed. #2: Review of modeling results and preliminary recommendations After developing the modeling scenarios in Task 4 below, we will again review the data and mapping with the public and begin initial development of preliminary recommendations. Logan Simpson will work the Working Group and City to host a public, keynote speaker event similar to a TEDx talk, modeled after the successful TEDxBozeman. Initial conversations with TEDxBozeman indicate that they will be restructuring after this week’s event, and are not able to commit now to a 2023 partnership. If we are not able to partner with TEDxBozeman, our event will be smaller yet still educational and thought provoking by encouraging people to think past their daily lives and discuss how changing demographics and climate will affect the future. Attendees will help identify the sensitive land priorities based on these presentations for the Gallatin Valley. The event will include live streaming on social media sites where interested parties that are not able to attend in person can listen-in as well as provide comments and as questions. Speakers could include experts from the Working Group, Montana Natural Heritage Program, University of Montana’s Spatial Analysis Lab, GIS storyteller Breece Robertson, conservation specialists, and land use advisors. After the public event, the “TED Talks” will be posted online and a survey will be provided to allow for additional input. The City would provide a meeting venue and expenses could be used for speaker honorariums and refreshments. Many of our planning efforts include detailed map review, which is key to understanding the community priorities. 34 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 9 #3: Draft Plan Review Once recommendations are developed with the Working Group/Stakeholders in Task 5, the recommendations and plan will be reviewed with the public. Meetings & Deliverables: • Staff Kickoff Meeting agenda, materials, facilitation, and summary • On-going biweekly project management coordination meetings• Draft and Final Public Engagement Plan • Stakeholder interview coordination, facilitation, and summary • Working Group meetings agendas, materials, facilitation, and notes. Zoom logistics for virtual meetings • Public meeting plans, notifications, website updates, materials, facilitation, and summary for each public engagement series.• Statistically Valid Survey Report or online survey summaries City Roles: • Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. • Communication and coordination with the Working Group and reserve meeting locations, notify meetings, and provide refreshments. • Provide access to Bozeman Enterprise GIS Account (no fee included for additional purchases).• Public meeting coordination with City engagement staff to coordinate meeting locations, distribute public meeting notifications, and assistance at meetings. • Communication and coordination with City elected officials. The Jolt Our Future event showcased three speakers plus the Mayor as emcee and engaged over 100 participants in Navigating Farmington’s Future. 35 10 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL TASK 2 LITERATURE REVIEW dEfInE STUdy arEa An important decision early in the process will be definition of the “Gallatin Valley” study area. Is it limited to a portion of Gallatin County, (the greater Bozeman area), the entire county, or does it include the Gallatin Valley Land Trust’s broader headwaters region of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers including Gallatin, Park, Madison, and Meagher counties in Southwest Montana? GIS model results will be more reliable if the data collected uniformly covers the entire study area. For costing purposes, we assume it is no more than 750,000 acres – essentially the remaining unconserved private land in the County. EXISTIng Plan and PolICy rEVIEw We will review past plans, studies, and regulations related to the Gallatin Valley. For each plan, we will note data by resource, key priorities and values, and identify where conflicts may arise. Plans will include Critical Lands Study of the Bozeman Area (1997), City of Bozeman’s Community Plan (2021) and Climate Plan (2021), Gallatin County’s Growth Policy (2021) and Triangle Community Plan (2020), the Montana State Wildlife Action Plan, Montana Subdivision and Platting Act Montana Department of Fish, the Wildlife and Park’s Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development, publications by Montana Natural Heritage Program, among others. CaSE STUdy rEVIEw & doCUmEnT PorTal With input from the stakeholders and Working Group, we will develop and review a list of case studies and existing models. We will compare case studies for applicability in modeling methods and policy recommendations to protect sensitive lands. We will provide a summary of the connectivity between stressors and impacts and, if needed, identify data gaps and conflicts in recommendations. A few case studies may warrant further evaluation, including author interviews, funding, and code review to assist in the development of preliminary recommendations. We will interview planners/analysts about how their programs worked/did not work and what they would have done differently. We will post the most relevant case studies and documents on the project website and highlight key themes in a summary report. EConomIC analySIS of ConSErVaTIon bEnEfITS (oPTIonal) An extensive body of research has been developed that documents the economic benefits of natural areas and the outdoor recreational benefits they provide. Some of these benefits are more standard, e.g., a direct increase in property values on parcels adjacent to protected areas, while others are more broadly distributed such as ecosystem service benefits or economic costs from reduced cost of government services, recreation and tourism, agriculture industry, and government cost savings. We will summarize prior research in a memo format. Deliverables: • Draft and Final Existing Plan Review Report • Draft and Final Case Study Review Report • Project website update and document portal • Draft and Final Economic Analysis literature review memo City Roles: • Minor assistance in gathering existing plans and policies, if not publicly posted. • Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. 36 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 11 TASK 3 DATA COLLECTION dEVEloP daTa PorTal on arCgIS hUb We will create an online application on ESRI’s ArcGIS Hub to share data and a narrative to engage the public. The online application is intended to be educational and show data transparency with publicly available from multiple supporting agencies on interactive maps. Some sensitive data is likely needed for the analysis and will be made available only to authorized users. CollECT daTa & organIzE on arCgIS hUb With guidance from the stakeholders, Logan Simpson will use the best available GIS data applicable to the project. The data will be organized into a single geodatabase environment. Metadata beyond origin source, year, and point of contact will not be added to the original data. Any changes to data description will be directed towards the source. Some examples of data types may include, but are not limited to: • US Forest Service (Key linkage Areas and other Designated Areas, ROS, SIO, WSR,) • Lakes and streams • Rock outcrops (determined via USGS land cover raster data)• Highly visible areas (determined via viewshed analysis from major highways) • Transportation (trails and roads) • Land Cover • Wildlife (T&E habitat, Concentration Areas, raptor nesting, Species of Concern Occurrence, Predicted Biodiversity from MTNHP, movement corridors) • Wetlands • Riparian areas • Existing protection lands• National Register of Historic Places• Prime Soils/Ag lands • Centennial Farms • Other City/County Layers (parcels, contours, zoning, urban waterways, imagery, etc) Big Thompson River Corridor Master Plan slider bar graphic and which was used to view before and after imagery of the 2013 flood event. 37 12 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL daTa gaP rEPorT We will summarize the review of GIS data in a data report and post relevant and publicly available data to ArcGIS Hub. The Working Group will review the Data Gap Report. PUblIC rEVIEw of daTa and rEVISIonS Issues identified within the first public meeting series will be considered and recorded. Any datasets or issues that have changed over time may be presented cartographically by using an interactive slider bar for the public to compare data. These datasets may include: • Urbanization• Wildlife movement corridors • Changes in landcover • River movement Meetings & Deliverables: • Agreed upon method to present and share the data (ArcGIS Hub, Story Maps, standard geodatabase) • Meetings to address any GIS data gaps • Staff and partner GIS status meetings (beyond full Working Group Meeting in Task 1) • Draft and Final Data Gap Report City Roles: • Provide existing City GIS data layers • Provide access to Bozeman Enterprise Account (no fee included for additional purchases) • Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. Resource inventory of the City’s acquisition helped us to understand the future of conservation, recreation, and development. As part of the public involvement plan, open houses were held to introduce alternatives, explain recommendations, and garner support for the plan. Map excerpts of the Natural Resource Sensitivity, Recreation Demand, and Management Zones. J a c o b sL a d d e r L o n eR o c k S t e e p M o u n t a i n E q u e s t r i a n C e n t e r C o u n t yF l i g h tP a r k R e dR o c k P o t a t o H i l l C o r n e r C a n y o n S u n c r e s t Gh o s t Fa l l s L i t t l eV a l l e y M e r c e r H o l l o wH o g H o l l o w S o u t h M a p l e H o l l o wFort CreekProvo Reserv o i r C a n a lGalenaCanalJordanRiver DryCreekJordanandSaltLakeCanal EastJo rd a n C ana lDraperIrri g a tio n C o C a n a lNatural Resource Sensitivity Date: 4/26/2016 Base Map Items Streams Draper City Limits Forest Service 00.510.25Miles µUUttaahhSSaallttLLaakkeeLegend Low SensitivityHighSensitivityFort CreekProvo Reserv o i r C a n alGalenaCanalJordanRiver DryCreekJordana n d S alt LakeCanal E a s tJ o rda n C a nal D ra p e rIrrig a tio n C o C a n a lManagement Zones Date: 4/25/2016 Base Map Items Draper City Limits Counties Forest Service Existing Trails Streams 0 0.5 10.25 Miles µUUttaahhSSaallttLLaakkeeLegend Frontcountry Backcountry Resource Protection Protected Watershed Area (No dogs) Critical Watershed Area (No domesticated animals) Note: Dogs must be leashed at all times in non-restricted areas 38 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 13 TASK 4 SPATIAL TOOLS dEVEloP modEl mEThodology Data collected above will be categorized into an agreed upon scheme (wildlife, hydrology, etc.). The Working Group will confirm the categories of resources to map and approve the best available data for each of the categories. Logan Simpson will work with the stakeholders to develop model criteria. Criteria will reflect community values and focus on highlighting environmental sensitive areas where opportunities for preservation exist. We will facilitate two Working Group (or a subcommittee) virtual workshops on range of modeling methodologies to arrive at a preferred methodology. We will document the methods in a report. dEVEloP modElS Working with the City GIS staff and key GIS Partners, Logan Simpson will develop and test a reusable model within Model Builder. A static series of scenario-based maps will be developed. Some scenarios will reflect changes to weighting, while other scenarios may include a unique suite of data. We have anticipated three rounds of iterative maps to test and calibrate the model. dISPlay rESUlTS on arCgIS hUb We will work to display the static results on ArcGIS Hub for public review. Meetings: • Staff and partner GIS status meetings (beyond full Working Group Meeting in Task 1) Deliverables: • Draft and final Methodology Report • Draft, revised, and final maps City Roles: • Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. OUR LANDS - OUR FUTURE OUR LANDS, OUR FUTURE Recreation Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado GIS Modeling Criteria and Methods | January 2013 | Page 4 Criteria Criteria Weights Proximity Considered?Methodology Data (Date, Source) Vacant Parcels 0.9 No Undeveloped parcels were given priority. The following query identified vacant parcels from the Larimer County assessors database- Parcels between 2-35 acres no buildings- Parcels between 35-80 acres with less than 2 buildings - Parcels between 80-150 acres if less than 5 buildings- Parcels between 150-300 acres if less than 8 buildings- or parcels greater than 300 acresIn the Windsor GMA in Weld County, vacant parcels were defined as - Parcels between 2-35 acres with an improved actual value of $0- Parcels between 35-80 acres with an improved actual value of less than $200,000- Parcles greater than 80 acres. 2012 Larimer County parcels2012 Weld County parcels Adjacency to Public Open Space and Other Protected Land 0.6 Yes This models prioritizes parcels that are near existing conserved lands and conservation easements, such as Federal (Forest Service), State (State Stewardship Trust), County (Larimer County Open Lands), City, and non-profit and private conservation easements. State Board lands that are no protected in perpetuity were not included. 2012 COMaP Potential Conservation Areas 1.1 No This model prioritizes the 2010 Statewide Potential Conservation Areas (PCA) developed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). The PCA's represent CNHP's best estimate of the primary area required to support the long-term survival of targeted species or natural communities. PCA refers to the ability of a conservation area to maintain healthy, viable, targets over the long term (100+ years), including the ability of the targets to respond to natural or human caused environmental change. The PCAs do not necessarily preclude human activities, but their ability to function naturally may be greatly influenced by them. PCAs at all scales may require ecological management or restoration to maintain their functionality and long term persistence. The PCAs that were rated as High, Very High, and Outstanding Biodiversity Significance were incorporated into the model. 2010 Statewide Potential Conservation Areas, Colorado Natural Heritage ProgramFor more information:http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/gis.asp Critical Wildlife Habitat Areas 2.5 No Severe winter range, concentration areas, production areas, migratory corridors, nest sites, for Bald Eagle, Bighorn, Great Blue Heron, Greater Sage Grouse, Moose, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Pronghorn, River Otter throughout Larimer County as determined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.2012 Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Species Activity Mapping Riparian Areas, Rivers, Water Bodies, and Wetlands 1.4 Yes To identify water quality, water supply, and riparian corridor priorities, this model utilized hydrology and riparian vegetation. 1) Riparian vegetation inventories were not available for the entire extent of Larimer County. Two Fish and Wildlife Service datasets covered one-half of the County and were merged into one layer for greater coverage, then buffered by 100 feet. 2) For areas not covered by the CDOW and FWS riparian datasets: - Perennial rivers were buffered by 300 feet. - Intermittent rivers were buffered by 100 feet.- Water bodies were buffered by 100 feet. - Wetlands were buffered by 100 feet. Fish and Wildlife ServiceFor more information:http://ndis1.nrel.colostate.edu/riparian/riparian.htmESRINDISNational Hydrography Dataset2007 Larimer County, Cooper + Merit inventory Natural Resource and Wildlife Areas Criteria and Weighting Rationale: Data indicating landscapes with high ecological values, critical habitta, water resources, and/or unique resources were modeled as shown below to depict overall priorities for Natural Resource and Wildlife Areas. Partners and county-wide survey established criteria and criteria weights for the Our Land, Our Future Recreation Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado. Natural Resources and Wildlife Areas was one of the four topic areas addressed. 39 14 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL TASK 5 RECOMMENDATIONS PrElImInary rECommEndaTIonS & IndICaTorS Logan Simpson will present several ways to structure the plan’s implementation, and the City will select a preferred format, such as an implementation table that ties each recommendation to a funding source, regulatory tools or incentives, and a responsible organization. Based on the public and stakeholder feedback collected to date; data modeling results; and within the bounds of adopted plans, laws, and decision-making authority, Logan Simpson will identify preliminary recommendations related to: Funding Sources. Each priority resource (scenic, wildlife, recreation, or historic) opens the door to different funding sources. We will identify a funding source for each recommendation, emphasizing dollars available for conserving properties or capital improvements. Regulatory Tools. The Comprehensive Plan/Growth Policy and zoning, along with subdivision tools such as conservation developments, are instrumental to direction growth away from sensitive areas. We will recommend by agency how existing and new programs and policies can align with plan priorities. If there are conflicts between currently adopted plans, these will be documented and prioritized for revision. Incentives (TDR ). Logan Simpson’s code team is currently helping two western communities, Spanish Fork, Utah and Teton County, Idaho, develop Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) incentive programs with the goal of preserving irreplaceable agricultural and natural resources such as waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife habitat, scenery, floodplains, slopes, wildland-urban interface, and recreational access. Our team will work with City and County staff and attorneys to recommend how the right program. Partnerships. We will outline recommendations with the Working Group as well as other partners to determine who should most effectively and efficiently lead each initiatives to advance long-term goals. Indicators. To answer the question, “How will we measure success?” we recommend at a minimum a table with indicators, timelines, and adaptive management thresholds be included in the plan so that future leaders will know whether we are moving toward or away from the desired future condition. We would like to explore how to tie the indicators to the project website with a GIS indicators dashboard, as we recently did for Colorado Springs. (See graphic below). 40 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 15 rEVISEd rECommEndaTIonS & IndICaTorS We will post the recommendation on Konveio, another online service that we often use for collaborative document review. This tool has been extremely beneficial to our projects, especially to gather feedback on the draft plan, solicit input on design concepts, or even offer a self-paced virtual “open house” where participants can comment on the presented materials. We will revise the recommendations based on public input. Envision Gallatin embedded the Konveio tool on the project’s website for the Public Review of the Draft Plan. For Our Lands, Our Future, users can add or change open space data to explore current conditions; learn about four types of open space values in Larimer County; create their own open space weighting experiment for a particular area; and share their comments with the project team or others. 41 16 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL onlInE SEnSITIVE landS ProTECTIon Plan Based on the analysis, input, and work completed up to this point, our team will prepare a streamlined, and graphically appealing Online Sensitive Lands Protection Plan, linking data and maps from the ArcGIS Hub in Story Map format. The Logan Simpson team will develop an end product that is easily navigated and understandable to the public with minimal technical language or jargon. Content, layout, and format for the plan will be mocked up for discussion and through a workshop. It will integrate text, interactive maps, photos, and other multimedia content online. The Preliminary Draft Online Protection Plan will be reviewed and then revised to present to the public. aPPEndICES Technical details consolidated throughout the process will be placed under a separate cover for future reference. rECommEndaTIonS EXECUTIVE SUmmary We will create a 4 to 8-page graphically appealing executive summary that highlights the plan process and goals, recommendations, and references the online ArcGIS Hub Site for detailed maps and text on analysis. The Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan was designed to exist online via an ArcGIS Story Map. The document consists of detailed narrative integrated with interactive maps. 2 Boulder County Larimer County Rocky Mountain National Park Pinewood Springs Glen Haven Drake Allenspark RooseveltNational Forest ")43 £¤36 £¤36 £¤34 £¤34 £¤34 UV7 UV66 Conservation Easements Estes Park TownBoundary National Park Service U.S. Forest Service Other Conserved Lands Unconserved Lands 0 52.5 Miles ´ Conserved Lands 3 Our Backyard THE ESTES VALLEY REGION For this Plan, the greater Estes Valley encompasses all the public and private land in the Estes Valley School District and Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. This includes the town of Estes Park and portions of unincorporated Larimer and Boulder counties, including, but not limited to, Drake, Glen Haven, Pinewood Springs, and Allenspark. However, since much of the Estes Valley is already conserved within Rocky Mountain National Park and Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, as seen on the map to the right, the maps throughout the Plan focus on primarily unconserved areas. The greater Estes Valley encompasses a wide diversity of ecosystems, including montane, subalpine, and riparian, and undeveloped foothills within the North Fork Big Thompson, Big Thompson, and Tahosa Valley. It hosts abundant populations of large mammals and birds such as elk, deer and raptors, and uncommon and elusive wildlife such as the tiger salamander, greenback cutthroat trout and painted lady (a butterfly). The Valley also supports a vibrant outdoor recreation economy and charming mountain communities. The landscape and sky offer many natural wonders – birds returning from migration and wildflowers blooming in spring, the tracks of a mountain lion, the brilliance of the Milky Way, and the experience of serenity in a wild place. For generations visitors have come to the Valley for a variety of activities across all seasons, especially as a summer respite, and to be close to this unique natural landscape. BY THE NUMBERS 329,000 Estes Valley Recreation District + School District 2019 STUDY AREA ACRES National Park Visitors 4.6 MILLION PEAKS OVER 13,000 FEET 16 Jobs in lodging and food services29% Annual Report Rocky Mountain Nation Park 2019 USGS 2019 Total Annual for 2019, Town of Estes Park Monthly Economic Dashboard SALES TAX COLLECTIONS (Town of Estes Park) 15 Threatened & Endangered SpeciesUSFWS 2019 Estes Housing Needs Assessment 2016 12,400Estes Valley Population 9,716 Estes Valley Land Trust 2020 ACRES CONSERVED by Estes Valley Land Trust $16.3 Million Estes Housing Needs Assessment 2016 30 In Closing What will the future of open space and outdoor recreation in the Estes Valley look like? Can we continue to grow the Valley’s economy while at the same time conserving our beautiful scenery, providing housing for all, and preserving our quality of life? By working together, in the next 10 years we could: • conserve another 5,000 acres • build 20 miles of sustainable trails on public lands; and • create new tools and partnerships that preserve: • Healthier wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems • Beautiful views of our iconic landscape • Sustainable outdoor recreation for all • Historic resources that tell our story • Sustainable growth that strengthens our economy IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS The following strategic actions are needed to stimulate land conservation in the Estes Valley and help protect the quality of life we all share: 1. Adopt the plan at local levels. Endorsement of the Estes Valley Open Space Plan by local governments, special districts, and partnering organizations will build partnerships and create support for the Plan. 2. Integrate this plan’s principles into regional and state open space and outdoor recreation plans. Open space and outdoor recreation planning occurs at the county, regional and state level by Boulder and Larimer County, the USFS, Great Outdoors Colorado, and others. Integrating the Estes Valley Open Space Plan into these regional and state efforts will help provide funding to implement this plan. 3. Identify parcel-level conservation and outdoor recreation priorities with the Town of Estes Park and Larimer and Boulder counties. Specific areas of the Estes Valley will be identified for potential private land conservation (no public access), public open space (limited public access), and parks. 4. Provide funding to enable additional land conservation. The Estes Valley Land Trust will fundraise and work with Larimer and Boulder counties, the Town of Estes Park, Great Outdoors Colorado and others to reduce conservation easement transaction costs and purchase development rights or land. © Lucas Ludwig Graphic design in our illustrated Executive Summary will honor the region known as the ‘Valley of the Flowers”. 42 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 17 SUmmary VIdEo (oPTIonal) During the planning effort, Logan Simpson will coordinate a 2-day video shoot in order to interview people involved in the project, record elements of the community engagement, and capture b-roll footage. Early in the process, we prepare and submit a storyboard for review. In tandem with the preliminary recommendations, we will produce a 4 to 6 minute video. We anticipate live action footage and available B-roll from the Working Group to produce a draft video for review. The video will be high-energy and capture the spirit of the planning effort while effectively breaking down and sharing the key components of the plan. Our team will incorporate feedback on the draft and produce a final video based on one set of consolidated comments from the Working Group. adoPTIon Following public review of the Draft Online Sensitive Lands Protection Plan and Executive Summary, Logan Simpson will prepare final Executive Summary and Protection Plan for adoption by the City of Bozeman. At this stage, Logan Simpson anticipates only minor revisions after each meeting based on public comments. After the approval, Logan Simpson will compile and submit all associated graphic links and files. Logan Simpson does not anticipate providing printed copies. addITIonal adoPTIon mEETIngS (oPTIonal) While this is a City of Bozeman project, we believe for this plan to be fully supported and implemented it should be adopted/approved by all jurisdictions with decision making authority over the recommendations. Logan Simpson will support the City in presenting to up to 6 additional Boards and/or Commissions across other agencies virtually. Meetings: • City adoption meetings, agendas, materials, facilitation, and notes. Deliverables: • Preliminary and Final Recommendations • Preliminary Online Protection Plan & Executive Summary for staff and Working Group Review • Draft Protection Plan & Executive Summary for Public Review • Final Protection Plan & Executive Summary City Roles: • Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments and reconcile conflicting • Assist in City adoption meetings ESTES VALLEY OPEN SPACE PLAN A Shared Land Conservation Strategy https://evlandtrust.org/plan/ 43 18 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL 3. EXPERIENCE WITH PROJECTS OF SIMILAR SIZE AND DESIGN ESTES VALLEY OPEN SPACE PLAN | A SHARED LAND CONSERVATION STRATEGY | COLORADO Logan Simpson worked with the Estes Valley Land Trust, the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, US Forest Service, and Colorado Parks & Wildlife, as well as Housing Partners, to establish the first ever valley-wide strategy for conserving open space and outdoor recreation opportunities for future generations. The Plan provides a shared land conservation strategy for priority wildlife conservation areas, scenic views, and historic resources, and strategies for expanding outdoor recreation, where appropriate. The gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park has over 28,000 acres of non-conserved, unincorporated, private lands that could be developed. Most open space plans stop at identifying where natural and cultural values should be conserved. This plan uniquely recognizes that the highest and best use of some vacant land is to accommodate the affordable housing and economic needs of the constrained mountain town. Utilizing the best available science and community input, land use models prioritize lands with the highest scenic, wildlife habitat, historic, outdoor recreation, and housing values. The planning process involved a broad spectrum of residents and visitors who are passionate about nature and love to recreate in the outdoors, and who also are invested in the Valley’s economic vitality. The plan sought to break down barriers and move past the conservation vs. development dichotomy to conversations about secure a successful future for all. Increases in land use, visitation, population, and climate variability throughout Colorado and the Estes Valley have added significant pressures on the picturesque Rocky Mountain landscape. Much of that growth (100,000 people per year since 2015) has been in the Denver Metro and Northern Colorado area; places with easy access to Estes Valley. According to the Census, Estes Valley’s population has grown at a rate of nearly 7.8 % between 2010 and 2017 – roughly 1,000 new homes. In addition to development pressure, the Valley’s popularity and Rocky Mountain National Park alone has seen an increase in visitation from 2.9 million visitors in 2010 to 4.6 million visitors in 2019. Climate change is disrupting habitats by extending the fire season, reducing the snow cover, causing vegetation to change elevations, which in turn affects habitat quality and migration corridors. Distinguishing areas prime for conservation can help direct other areas where future development should be located. This Plan identifies both conservation and development opportunities to responsibly address those pressures and tools to protect natural and cultural resources. 10 Boulder County Larimer County Pinewood Springs Glen Haven Drake Allenspark ")43 £¤36 £¤36 £¤34 £¤34 UV7 UV66 Estes Park Town Boundary Conservation Easements Public Lands 0 42Miles ´ Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Conservation Priorities LowHighGOAL Protect large habitat blocks, migration corridors, riparian corridors, and rare plant and animal habitat to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Protecting Biodiversity Biodiversity in the broadest sense refers to the variety of living organisms, their habitats and the biological processes they depend on. Ecosystems that are biodiverse are generally healthier and more resilient after major disturbances, such as a fire. To maintain its rich biodiversity, Colorado’s forests and other plant communities require adaptive management, such as controlling invasive exotic plants, improving forest health and reintroducing threatened or endangered species or biological processes, such as periodic flooding. • Large habitat blocks - intact landscapes that provide a diversity of high-quality habitats • Wildlife corridors - migratory and movement corridors between habitat blocks Protecting large habitat blocks and wildlife corridors reduces habitat loss and fragmentation and protects biodiversity. PRIORITIES Conserve large habitat blocks near Allenspark, the North Fork of the Big Thompson, and private inholdings surrounded by conserved land. Increase wildlife corridor connectivity along Highway 34/Big Thompson and the North Fork, near Rocky Mountain National Park and Allenspark, and adjacent to public lands. Protect stream corridors and wetlands that feed into the Big Thompson, Little Thompson, and Fall rivers, St. Vrain creeks, and their tributaries. Work with private landowners and land managers to monitor forest health, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce the spread of invasive weeds. © National Park Service Plant species found in the Estes Valley help to stabilize sensitive soils along river margins and in wetland areas. They may provide the observant nature enthusiast with a showy spectacle in the hard-to-find moist areas of Colorado. 14 Boulder County Larimer County Pinewood Springs Glen Haven Drake Allenspark ")43 £¤36 £¤36 £¤34 £¤34 UV7 UV66 Estes Park Town Boundary Conservation Easements Public Lands Important Viewsheds onUnconserved Lands 0 42Miles ´ Open Space and Scenery A Sweeping Landscape We’ve come full circle since Enos Mills, F.O. Stanley, and other tourists sought Estes Park for healing and renewal. Today more than ever, the Estes Valley is associated with health, wellness, and the pleasures of the outdoors. If cascading streams are the lifeblood of the Valley, then scenery is the soul of its people. The map to the left identifies the location of some of the most desirable sight lines and views. Important views include those of Longs Peak, Mount Meeker, Lumpy Ridge, Deer Mountain, the Continental Divide, and notable viewpoints from Enos Mills memorial, Lake Estes, downtown Estes Park, and from Dry Gulch Road near MacGregor Ranch. GOAL Protect the Valley’s stunning mountain scenery. PRIORITIES Protect important views on unconserved lands. Protect community gateways along US 36, US 34, and Highway 7. Protect key scenic assets, such as Prospect Mountain, Mount Olympus, Mount Pisgah, and Oldman Mountain. Protect the riparian forests of Fall River, the Big Thompson River, and the North Fork. Support conservation of scenic quality through governmental development processes, such as ridgeline protections, setbacks from public roads, and design guidelines that help new developments blend in with the natural environment. Implement dark-sky guidelines to avoid unnecessary impacts to the quality of night skies and dark-dependent biological resources. The silence of night in the Estes Valley and incredible views of the Milky Way are an experience to behold. © Jeremy M White 44 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 19 PEORIA SONORAN PRESERVATION PROGRAM PLAN | ARIZONA In 2006, the City of Peoria retained Jeremy Call to prepare their Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan. Owing to its successful completion, the City re-engaged the same team in 2011 to create an open space decision support tool to assist in the decision making process of open space land acquisition. The Peoria Open Space Decision Support System (OSDSS), a GIS data model, identifies sensitive lands that merit special consideration for conservation to achieve the vision and goals to be considered for preservation or protection. The model identifies and prioritizes areas that merit special consideration to achieve the vision and goals of open space preservation. In the past, traditional models overlaid resources to identify localized areas of interest, creating isolated pockets of land to be preserved. The OSDSS model goes further by considering the geographic, social, and environmental relationships between multiple resources. Peoria uses this methodology to ensure they acquire the appropriate amount of land for the multiple open space categories. The model includes 26 GIS data sets, from the most recent land use plans to lands with development constraints. In 2013, the City retained Logan Simpson to assist in editing and preparing a final draft of the Preservation Plan. Our staff facilitated and refined program goals, focus areas, and acquisition and management strategies. The plan was unanimously adopted by Council in June 2015. FILTERS Final prioritization of potential projects can be accomplished by applying the following filters: ▪Resource Protection, which prioritizes key cultural and historic sites based on their sensitivity. ▪Low/ Minimum Public Cost, which prioritizes lands based on lowest cost to the community (dedication, public lands, protected by code). ▪Best Value, areas with high resource value for lowest cost. ▪Complete Open Space Program, which combines all three filters. PEORIA OSDSS A Decision Support System was developed to identify sensitive lands that merit special consideration for conservation. The model used over 20 datasets to identify and prioritize areas that merit special consideration for protection, and can be updated as prioritization and criteria change over time to meet the changing needs of the City. 132 4 5 76 8 9 100 Inputs to the model include GIS datasets such as wildlife corridors, wetlands, cultural sites, washes, and other variables. These inputs are weighted from 1-10 based on the community’s values and their level of importance for protection. The City has the ability to continually alter weights and criteria to reflect current visions and needs. VALUES OSDSS MODELING PROCESS CRITERIA Prioritization begins with determining which criteria will be input to the model: ▪Cultural Resources: Are there important cultural resources in the area? ▪Scenic Quality: Does the area have important scenic qualities? ▪Access: Is the area reasonably accessible? ▪Distance: Is the area close to other protected areas or parks? ▪Wildlife Habitat: Does the area have important habitat values or other biological resources? ▪Ownership: Does existing land ownership complicate purchase or management, or does it facilitate conservation agreements? SCENIC QUALITYWILDLIFE HABITAT DISTANCEACCESS OWNERSHIP CULTURAL RESOURCES A HOLISTIC MODEL Traditional models (inset) overlay resources to identify localized areas of interest, often resulting in isolated pockets of conserved lands. The Peoria model goes one step further, defining contiguous focus areas based on how resources relate to one another. As seen in the diagram above, this method provides a more connected method of open space utilization. The system focuses on protecting multiple resources, their local and regional connectivity, and a mosaic of habitats and experiences. Focus areas are those areas that were identified through the model as having the highest level of importance for protection. Each area is generally defined on the Focus Areas map (next page) to allow flexibility in the development of subsequent implementation strategies or negotiations. Each of the three open space types are represented; the Agua Fria corridor is a combination of both Natural/Sensitive and Heritage/Culture resource considerations. c c c BLM Park c Cultural Site Focus Area OSDSS MODEL c c c BLM PARK Traditional Models Level of Prioritization Existing protected areas include dedicated open space and other non-saleable lands, such as city and regional parks. This plan identifies three additional key open space types to meet the prioritization goals represented in the Vision: Natural/Sensitive, Cultural/Heritage, and Passive/Managed. Each open space type emphasizes certain resource types, but may protect other resources as well. The maps on the following page illustrate the values and weights applied to the open space type. For example, to identify priority natural/sensitive areas, resources such as critical wildlife habitat, areas with protected species received the highest weighting. DETERMINE OPEN SPACE TYPES DEVELOP CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS FOR EACH OPEN SPACE TYPE COLLECT DATA FOR EACH CRITERIA DISPLAY RESULTS REFINE RESULTS DEVELOP OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION AND FUNDING STRATEGIESPRIORITIZATION STEPSKEY OPEN SPACE TYPESBaldyMountain BigSpring BlackMountain CalderwoodButte East WingMountain IndianMesa PikesPeak SaddlebackMountain SunriseMountain TwinButtes West WingMountain WhitePeak WildBurroMesaFre n c h C r e e k Mor g a n C i t y W a s h Pade l f o r d W a s h Weir WashHum b u g C r e e k Skunk Cr eekNew Ri v erAgu a F r i a PrinceMountain Lake PleasantRegional Park Hells Canyon Wilderness Carefree SR 7 4 LOOP303 SR 74 HWY303 LOOP101 LOOP101LOOP101 Copyright:© 2009 ESRI¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles Natural / Sensitive Priority MediumLow High Major Roads Roads Planning Boundary SONORAN PRESERVATION FOCUS AREAS FOR THE CITY OF PEORIANATURAL/ SENSITIVE: Protects areas of general wildlife importance in conjunction with other sensitive resources and wildlife corridors. Riparian Habitats Mountainous Areas Springs and Lakes BaldyMountain BigSpring BlackMountain CalderwoodButte East WingMountain IndianMesa PikesPeak SaddlebackMountain SunriseMountain TwinButtes West WingMountain WhitePeak WildBurroMesaFre n c h C r e e k Morg a n C i t y W a s h Padelf o rd W a sh Weir W ashHumb u g C r e e k Skunk C reekNew Riv e r Ag u a F r i a PrinceMountain Lake PleasantRegional Park Hells Canyon Wilderness Carefree SR 7 4 LOOP 303 SR 74 HWY303 LOOP101 LOOP101LOOP101 Copyright:© 2009 ESRI¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles Heritage / Cultural Priority MediumLow High Major Roads Roads Planning Boundary SONORAN PRESERVATION FOCUS AREAS FOR THE CITY OF PEORIAHERITAGE/ CULTURE: Protects sensitive cultural resources and sites. The intent of these areas is to provide protection from mining, urban development, and grazing; areas emphasize conservation over public use. Cultural Artifacts Surface Ruins Historic Sites BaldyMountain BigSpring BlackMountain CalderwoodButte East WingMountain IndianMesa PikesPeak SaddlebackMountain SunriseMountain TwinButtes West WingMountain WhitePeak WildBurroMesaFre n c h C r e e k Mor g a n C i t y W a s h Padelf o rd W a sh Weir Wash Hu m b u g C r e e k Skunk Cre ekNew R iv e r Ag ua F r i a PrinceMountain Lake PleasantRegional Park Hells Canyon Wilderness Carefree SR 7 4 LOOP303 SR 74 HWY303 LOOP101 LOOP101LOOP101 Copyright:© 2009 ESRI¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles HighMediumLow Passive / Managed Priority Major Roads Roads Planning Boundary PASSIVE/MANAGED: Emphasis on protecting important viewsheds; also provides opportunity to experience natural environment and isolation from urban development. This category also identifies key managed recreation areas identified through other agencies or the City’s Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan. SONORAN PRESERVATION FOCUS AREAS FOR THE CITY OF PEORIARegional Facilities Public Lands Hillsides and River Corridors 45 20 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL SUMMIT COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | COLORADO Logan Simpson is working to prepare the first update of the Summit County Open Space and Trails Master Plan since 1996 based on a conservation GIS model. The previous Master Plan primarily focused on land acquisition for a newly conceived program. After decades of successful open space protection and trail construction, the County now faces new challenges with natural resource management, visitor use, and growth pressures. The new master plan will guide the acquisition, trail development, maintenance, and resource management into the next 10 years to proactively address challenges and adapt to change. Summit County is a unique environment, serving as a picturesque gateway—and getaway—to a year-round adventure land that is simultaneously coping with the resident, tourist, and climate change pressures. Summit County owns and manages over 17,000 acres of open space. These properties provide a variety of recreational opportunities including over 100 trailheads and trail portals, 100 miles of natural surface trails, 50 miles of dirt roads, and 35 miles of paved Recreational Pathways (i.e., the RecPath), some of which are co-managed with the Town of Breckenridge, Town of Frisco, and US Forest Service. These open spaces also protect important wildlife and plant communities, provide buffers between communities, and preserve unique and fragile ecosystems. The planning process integrates a vast reach of partners, land managers, resource interests, and recreation stakeholders to address acquisition, stewardship, and visitor use priorities. The process is effectively managing the future of the County’s resources and clearly identifying the County’s role. The final plan will contain an analysis of existing conditions, desired conditions and appropriate activities and facilities, indicators and thresholds for desired conditions, management strategies to achieve the desired conditions, and strategies to monitor the effectiveness of strategies for adaptive management. 46 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 21 OUR LANDS, OUR FUTURE; OPEN SPACE PLAN, AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING | LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Logan Simpson has long been assisting Larimer County with studies, plans, and designs for recreational amenities, stewardship, and conservation of public lands. In 2013, we completed the “Our Lands, Our Future” – Recreation and Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado study, which utilized multiple innovative public outreach methods to shape the vision and planning for the region’s conservation and recreation programs. Logan Simpson’s open space prioritization model with support from the Trust for Public Land, uniquely incorporated the cost of acquiring, developing, and maintaining new landholdings to educate the public about the fiscal implications of their desired quality of life. As both the growth in outdoor recreation demand and Larimer County’s populations continues, the County retained Logan Simpson to prepare a county-wide Open Space Plan based on the model’s results. When the Bureau of Reclamation and Larimer County set out to address growing demands between management for visitor recreation use and management of natural resources, and capital improvement and maintenance needs at Horsetooth, Carter Lake, Pinewood, and Flatiron reservoirs, Logan Simpson prepared the 2016 Reservoir Parks Master Plan, Resource Management Plan, and Environmental Assessment. This map is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. The following criteria were considered when creating this map: • Inside of Growth Management Areas• Riparian Areas, Rivers, Water Bodies, and Wetlands • Planned Trail and Bike Corridors • Adjacency to Public Open Space and Other Protected Land • Underserved Areas • Natural Landcover (unpaved areas) Urban Open Space Area Opportunities This map is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. The following criteria were considered when creating this map: • Outside of Growth Management Areas • Potential Conservation Areas• Adjacency to Public Open Space and Other Protected Land • Planned Trail and Bike Corridors• Front Range Foothills Backdrop, Steep Slopes, and Major Landmarks • Riparian Areas, Rivers, Water Bodies, and Wetlands • Large Parcels • Heritage Sites and Overland Trail corridor Regional Open Space Area Opportunities This map is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. The following criteria were considered when creating this map: • Critical Wildlife Habitat Areas• Riparian Areas, Rivers, Water Bodies, and Wetlands • Potential Conservation Areas• Vacant Parcels • Adjacency to Public Open Space and Other Protected Land Natural Resources & Wildlife Area Opportunities This map is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. The following criteria were considered when creating this map: • Outside of City Limits• Prime Farmland • Development Pressure • Large Parcels• Centennial Farms• Connected Value to Public Open Space and Other Protected Land Working Farms & Ranches Area Opportunities Using an online GIS model, Logan Simpson identified opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. 47 22 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL ARKANSAS HEADWATERS RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION & BROWNS CANYON NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN | SALIDA, COLORADO Logan Simpson worked with an interagency planning team comprised of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the US Forest Service to prepare an update to the Management Plan for the Arkansas River Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA) and, subsequently, the first-ever Browns Canyon National Monument (BCNM) Resource Management Plan. The Arkansas River is the epicenter of activity in BCNM and renowned for camping, wildlife watching, and numerous other river-related recreation activities including its Gold Medal Trout Fishery and nation’s most popular river for whitewater boating. The Arkansas River receives the highest level of commercial boating of any river in the nation and the BCNM has grown in popularity as a newly created national monument. Therefore, key issues for both projects revolved around outdoor recreation and its impacts to the natural, scenic, and cultural resources of the landscapes. The AHRA Management Plan provides a framework for managing numerous and often conflicting recreation activities along the 150-mile river corridor. Logan Simpson led the effort to formulate alternatives and a proposed management plan that addressed a wide array of issues and management topics including carrying capacity, the need for new or improved facilities, and improved access and resource conservation. The RMP focuses on protection of Browns Canyon National Monument resources, objects, and values (ROVs) while providing for public use and enjoyment of the monument. Environmental reviews for both projects reviewed the best available scientific data to produce effective management strategies that protect the ROVs. For both projects, Logan Simpson led multiple rounds of public outreach in four different cities across the Front Range and project vicinity to help guide the planning process. !H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H C haffeeP a r k Fremont D a n d R G W e s t e rn R a i lw a y GasCreek Browns Creek Chalk C reek DryCreek Little CottonwoodCreek Herring Creek Cottonwood Creek SandCreek ThreemileCreek Middle Cottonwood Creek Fourmile Creek EddyCreek ArkansasRiver Nath r o p Spur Turret CatkinGulchLoop Seidel’sSuckholeTrailRive rBench 1434143 5 RiverAccess 1434.A ArkansasRiver SRMA FS185E BLM561 1 FS185 B FS185C FS 182BLM561 3 BLM300C1FS 185.D FS 188BLM 300 C FS T1434A FS 184Turret AveFS 300CR 30 0 Co Rd 194Co Rd 271Co Rd 191 BLM 300 FS T 1 434 Co Rd 261-C Co Rd 2 5 1 - A FS 86 Co Rd 184 FS 18 7 Co Rd 162 Co Rd 187 Co Rd 270 FS 1 8 6 Co Rd 175FS 1 8 5 UV291 £¤285 2B 4B 5B 4D 6B Ruby Mountain Hecla Junction StoneBridge BassamGuardstationand Cabin !H Recreation SiteSystem TrailMotorized RouteBrowns Canyon NM Cooperative Management LandsArkansas River SRMA USFS Management AreaStateBureau of Land Management PrivateU.S. Forest Service ! ^_ ! !! ! ROYALGORGE FIELDOFFICE BrownsCanyon NM Wyoming Nebraska New MexicoUtah Kansas§¨¦76 §¨¦25 §¨¦70 ColoradoSprings Denver Pueblo Buena Vista Salida Map 16 - Management ZonesAlternative A 1:90,000 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Managementas to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these datafor individual use or aggregation use with other data.All boundaries are an approximate representation. Ü01 20.5 Miles !H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H C haffeeP a r k FremontD an d R G W e s t e r n R a i lw a y GasCreek Browns Creek Chalk C reek DryCreek Little CottonwoodCreek Herring Creek Cottonwood Creek SandCreek ThreemileCreek Middle Cottonwood Creek Fourmile Creek EddyCreek Arka nsa sRiver Nathrop S p u r Turret CatkinGulchLoop Seidel’sSuckholeTrailRiverBench 14341435 RiverAccess1434.AFS185E BLM5611 FS185 B FS185C FS 182BLM561 3 FS 185.D FS 188BLM 300 C FS T143 4 A FS 184Turret AveFS 300CR 3 0 0 Co Rd 194Co Rd 271Co Rd 1 91 BLM 300 FS T 143 4 Co Rd 261-C Co R d 2 5 1 - A FS 8 6 Co Rd 184 FS 187 Co Rd 162 Co Rd 187 Co Rd 270 FS 1 8 6 Co Rd 175FS 185 UV291 £¤285 Fisherman'sBridge Ruby Mountain HeclaJunction Stone Bridge BassamGuardstationand Cabin !H Recreation SiteSystem TrailMotorized RouteBrowns Canyon NM Cooperative Management LandsManagement ZonesArkansas River Shore and Passage Monument - River EastMonument - River WestAspen RidgeRailroad GulchTurret Road Ruby Mountain Access - Hecla Junction ! ^_ ! !! ! ROYALGORGE FIELDOFFICE BrownsCanyon NM Wyoming Nebraska New MexicoUtah Kansas§¨¦76 §¨¦25 §¨¦70 ColoradoSprings Denver Pueblo Buena Vista Salida Map 17 - Management ZonesAlternative B 1:90,000 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Managementas to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these datafor individual use or aggregation use with other data.All boundaries are an approximate representation. Ü01 20.5 Miles !H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H ChaffeeP a r k Fremont D a n d R G W e s t e rn R a i lw a y GasCreek Browns Creek Chalk C reek Dry Creek Little CottonwoodCree kHerring Creek Cottonwood Cr eek SandCreek ThreemileCreek MiddleCottonwoo dCree kFourmileCreek EddyCreek Ark ans as River Nathrop S p u r Turret CatkinGulchLoop Seidel’sSuckholeTrailRive rBench 14341435 RiverAccess1434.AFS185E BLM561 1 FS185 B FS185C FS 182BLM561 3 FS 185.D FS 188BLM 300 C FS T14 3 4 A FS 184Turret AveFS 300CR 30 0 Co Rd 1 94Co Rd 271Co Rd 19 1 BLM 300 FS T 1 434 Co Rd 261-C Co Rd 2 5 1 - A FS 8 6 Co Rd 184 FS 18 7 Co Rd 162 Co Rd 187 Co Rd 270 FS 1 8 6 Co Rd 175FS 1 8 5 UV291 £¤285 Fisherman'sBridge Ruby Mountain HeclaJunction Stone Bridge BassamGuardstationand Cabin Copyright:(c) 2014 Esri !H Recreation Site System TrailMotorized RouteBrowns Canyon NMCooperative Management LandsManagement ZonesArkansas River Shore and BenchMonument - River EastMonument - River WestAspen RidgeRailroad GulchTurret RoadRuby Mountain - Hecla Junction Access ! ^_ ! !! ! ROYALGORGE FIELDOFFICE BrownsCanyon NM Wyoming Nebraska New MexicoUtah Kansas§¨¦76 §¨¦25 §¨¦70 ColoradoSprings Denver Pueblo Buena Vista Salida Map 18 - Management ZonesAlternative C 1:90,000 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Managementas to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these datafor individual use or aggregation use with other data.All boundaries are an approximate representation. Ü01 20.5 Miles !H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H!H ChaffeeP a r k FremontD an d R G W e s t e r n R a i lw a y GasCreek Herring Creek Browns Creek ChalkCreek Dry Creek Little CottonwoodCree kCottonwoodCreek ThreemileCreek MiddleCot tonwoo dCree kFourmile Creek Eddy Creek Arka nsa sRiv erNathrop S p u r Turret CatkinGulchLoop Seidel’sSuckholeTrailRiv erBench 14341435 RiverAccess1434.AFS185E BLM5611 FS185 B FS185C BLM5613 Pvt 18 5 E BLM 300 C FS 1 8 5 . D FS 1 8 8FS 300BFS T143 4 A FS 184Turret AveCR 30 0 Co Rd 1 94 FS 300 Co Rd 271Co Rd 261-C BLM 300 FS T 1 434 FS 86 Co Rd 162 Co Rd 184 FS 18 7 Co Rd 270 Co Rd 187 FS 1 8 6 Co Rd 175 FS 1 85 UV291 £¤285 Fisherman'sBridge Ruby Mountain HeclaJunction BassamGuardstationand Cabin !H Recreation SiteSystem TrailMotorized RouteBrowns Canyon NMCooperative Management LandsManagement ZonesArkansas River Shore and Passage Monument - River EastMonument - River WestAspen RidgeRailroad GulchTurret Road Ruby Mountain Access - Hecla Junction ! ^_ ! !! ! ROYALGORGE FIELDOFFICE BrownsCanyon NM Wyoming Nebraska New MexicoUtah Kansas§¨¦76 §¨¦25 §¨¦70 ColoradoSprings Denver Pueblo Buena Vista Salida Map 19 - Management Zones Alternative D 1:90,000 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Managementas to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these datafor individual use or aggregation use with other data.All boundaries are an approximate representation. Ü01 20.5 Miles 48 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 23 BUCKEYE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS BEST PRACTICES GUIDE | ARIZONA Logan Simpson developed the first of its kind Wildlife Corridors Best Practices Guide to offers planners, residents, developers, non-profits, and City leadership a set of best management practices and tools for development that considers harmony with wildlife corridors and the natural environment within the City of Buckeye’s growth area. Nestled against the White Tank Mountains and Buckeye Hills along the Hassayampa and Gila rivers much of land surrounding the City remains undeveloped and provides essential habitat for mule deer, bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, and other wildlife. However, Buckeye is evolving rapidly, and the population increase warrants thoughtful planning. With the goal of maintaining and enhancing existing biodiversity and connectivity while ensuring community prosperity, a case study-based approach was taken to organize this Guide around three strands - environmental, growth, and quality of life. Creating wildlife-friendly development will result in a variety of benefits to animals, residents, visitors, and the businesses and developers that stimulate economic growth. Best practices were evaluated against the three strands/triple bottom line analysis as well local applicability and ease of implementation. The triple bottom line analysis evaluated quality of life, environmental, and economic growth factors - using both qualitative and quantitative metrics. The purpose of the Guide is to advocate for wildlife connectivity throughout the city and to encourage collaboration between all groups involved in developing Buckeye. As part of the process, a variety of groups and individuals with local information and expertise helped inform the planning process, including landowners/developers, utilities, local and state agencies, and conservation advocacy groups. The project team sought to inform community-wide stakeholders of the plan and its goals for the community to gain a common understanding, as well as feedback on how best to approach implementation of the Guide. A suite of tools is recommended at the regional, neighborhood, and design level that could be implemented by developers, residents, and partners. Incentives of regional development considered may be analyzed on a case-by-case basis by the City. 49 24 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL LOGAN SIMPSON jErEmy Call, aICP | PrInCIPal PlannEr Jeremy has been the project manager and/or principal planner for several land prioritization models, such as the Estes Valley Open Space Plan | A Shared Conservation Strategy; Larimer County Mountain Resilience and Comprehensive Plan; Our Lands, Our Future – Recreation and Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado; Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan; Larimer Reservoir Parks Master Plan and Resource Management Plan/Environmental Assessment; Peoria’s Open Space Decision-Support System. As a Principal in Logan Simpson’s Fort Collins office, he oversees the team’s environmental, natural resource, and recreation projects. Jeremy brings nearly 20 years of professional consulting experience, especially for planning projects that address recommended goal, policy, and land use code language pertaining to open space conservation, preservation, and future use. He will provide contract and project oversight, be responsible for coordination of the public engagement plan and facilitation and serve as a primary author of the Sensitive Lands Plan. Additionally, Jeremy’s expertise in scenery resources allows him to effectively evaluate open spaces and natural areas for scenery, recreation, and development opportunities and impacts. 4. FIRM’S QUALIFICATIONS Education M.L.A., Utah State University, 2003 B.A., Brigham Young University, 2000 Present and Projected Workload: Jeremy is currently planned for ~70% of his overall workload, and anticipates dedicating ~15% of his workload to this effort over the 18-24 month project timeline. Jeremy’s relevant project experience includes: • Estes Valley Open Space Plan | A Shared Land Conservation Strategy, Colorado • Summit County Open Space and Trails Master Plan, Colorado • “Our Lands, Our Future: Recreation and Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado,” Larimer County Regional Conservation Study, Colorado• Larimer County Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment and Reservoir Parks Master Plan, Colorado • Chimney Hollow Recreation Area Conceptual Plans, Larimer County, Colorado • Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Management Plan Revision & Browns Canyon National Monument Resource Management Plan, Salida, Colorado• Big Thompson Recreation and Conservation Assessment, Larimer County, Colorado• Larimer County Comprehensive Plan for Community Development, Colorado • Fort Collins Natural Areas Master Plan Update (2004 and 2014), Fort Collins, Colorado • Big Thompson Recreation and Conservation Assessment, Larimer County, Colorado • BLM Browns Canyon National Monument Planning Area, Salida, Colorado• BLM Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Management (AHRA) Plan Revision, Salida, Colorado• Steamboat Springs Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails & River Master Plan, Colorado • Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Colorado • Castle Pines Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, Colorado • Peoria Sonoran Preservation Program Study and OSDSS, Arizona• Las Vegas Valley Perimeter Open Space Plan, Clark County, Nevada• Henderson Desert Edge Development Concepts, City of Henderson, Nevada • Draper Open Space Master Plan, Utah 50 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 25 LOGAN SIMPSON krISTIna kaChUr, aICP | ProjECT managEr Kristina is a environmental planner skilled in GIS and public involvement. She helps facilitate an efficient and defensible planning process through scholarly research, applying alternative methods to engagement with the public and elected officials, facilitating advisory groups, and creating implementable strategies and best management practices. She has been the recreation, socio- economic, and environmental resource specialist for multiple resource and travel management plans, and is proficient using GIS to produce models and maps to aid in evaluating sensitive resources and recreation management. Kristina has worked with Jeremy on numerous conservation and open space strategies, including Steamboat Springs, Summit County, Greeley, Windsor, and Castle Pines. Kristina was the assistant project manager for Draper, Utah’s Open Space Master Plan, which developed an organizational strategy and property management plan to address conservation needs, overuse, and encroaching development and concept plans for specific sites. The plan resulted in a new Open Space division and park ranger program and a conservation easement for an additional 2,913 acres of land to ensure long-term preservation. In addition, Kristina has served as project manager on several comprehensive plans that address natural resources and recreation. Prior to joining Logan Simpson, she assisted in developing the Colorado Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Education M.A., Urban and Regional Planning - Environmental & Land Use (MURP), University of Colorado, 2013 B.A., Geography- Environmental Planning, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, 2010 Professional Registrations Certified Planner, American Institute of Certified Planners / American Planning Association, 2015 Present and Projected Workload: Kristina is currently planned for ~65% of her overall workload, and anticipates dedicating ~20% of her future workload to this effort over the 18-24 month project timeline. Kristina’s relevant project experience includes: • Bozeman Community Plan, Montana• Estes Valley Open Space Plan | A Shared Land Conservation Strategy, Colorado • Summit County Open Space and Trails Master Plan, Colorado • “Our Lands, Our Future: Recreation and Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado,” Larimer County Regional Conservation Study, Colorado• Draper Open Space Master Plan, Utah• Larimer County Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment and Reservoir Parks Master Plan, Colorado • Chimney Hollow Recreation Area Conceptual Plans, Larimer County, Colorado • Greeley Open Space Plan, Colorado• Big Thompson Recreation and Conservation Assessment, Larimer County, Colorado• BLM Browns Canyon National Monument Planning Area, Salida, Colorado • BLM Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Management (AHRA) Plan Revision, Salida, Colorado • Buckeye Wildlife Corridors Best Practices Guide, Arizona • Valley County Waterways Management Plan, Valley County/McCall, Idaho• Estes Park Comprehensive Plan, Colorado• City of Bozeman Community Plan, Montana • City of Hamilton Comprehensive Plan, Montana • Steamboat Springs Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails & River Master Plan, Colorado • Delta Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan, Colorado• Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Colorado• Castle Pines Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, Colorado • Fountain Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, Colorado 51 26 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL LOGAN SIMPSON mEgan moorE | land USE PolICy and Program CoordInaTIon wITh STakEholdErS Megan is an urban designer and planner with extensive experience in comprehensive and subarea planning and placemaking for a range of Mountain West and Montana communities. She brings 17 years of experience to her projects and is the recipient of over 30 design and planning awards. Megan’s planning capabilities are enhanced by her background in architecture and landscape architecture, giving her a unique perspective into design strategies and solutions. An expert in a variety of graphics programs and a skilled conceptual designer, Megan can quickly generate and refine concepts on paper and in digital formats. She is an expert at combining input from staff, stakeholders, and the public with data and demographics, resulting in plans reflect the vision and goals of a community while encouraging appropriate and innovative growth strategies. Utilizing her knowledge of the region from the planning efforts listed below, Megan will assist with land use policy and stakeholder coordination. Education Master of Architecture, University of Colorado at Denver, 2005 Master of Landscape Architecture, University of Colorado at Denver, 2005 Graduate Certificate in Historic Preservation, University of Colorado at Denver, 2005 B.S. in Architectural Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 2001 Professional Registrations American Institute of Architects American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Present and Projected Workload: Megan is currently planned for ~70% of her overall workload, and anticipates dedicating ~5% of her future workload to this effort over the 18-24 month project timeline. Megan’s relevant project experience includes: • Bozeman Community Plan, Montana • Our Big Sky Community Vision and CIP, Montana • Envision Gallatin Growth Policy, Montana • Envision Three Forks Growth Policy, Montana• Plan Manhattan Growth Policy, Montana• ReEnvision Victor Comprehensive Plan, Idaho • Uniquely Driggs Comprehensive, Idaho • South of the River Subarea Plan, Star, Idaho • My Meridian Comprehensive Plan Update and the Fields Subarea Plan, Idaho• Wasatch Canyons General Plan, Salt Lake County, Utah• The River Bottoms Vision Plan, Spanish Fork, Utah • Ogden Valley Comprehensive Plan and Code, Utah • Washoe County Comprehensive Plan, Nevada • Douglas County Comprehensive Plan, Nevada• Larimer County Comprehensive Plan for Community Development, Colorado• Gypsum - Eagle River Area Plan, Gypsum, Colorado 52 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 27 LOGAN SIMPSON brUCE mEIghEn | land USE PolICy and gIS modElIng adVISor Bruce is a certified planner with 25 years of experience and more than 50 awards in comprehensive planning and public involvement. His planning and environmental experience includes the successful completion of hundreds of public involvement programs associated with comprehensive, corridor, and subarea planning, travel management, infrastructure, and transportation assignments. He is expert at land use policy, and many of his projects include incorporation of funding sources, incentivization, and changes to code and implementation strategies. His ability to create innovative and focused public involvement, and to clarify and prioritize the issues identified, is crucial to the success of outcome-oriented plans. Bruce specializes in managing defensible planning processes that create sustainable, quality growth communities with common, enduring visions. With his extensive understanding of the area’s land use policy through relevant project experience, Bruce will provide recommendations on land use policy related to the Valley’s sensitive lands. Education Master of City and Regional Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1994 B.A., Geography Urban Systems, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 1992 Professional Registrations American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Master Project Manager (MPM) North American Lake Management Society (NALMS), 2020 US Forest Service (Pike/San Isabel National Forests) ATV Safety Training Program, 2005 Present and Projected Workload: Bruce is currently planned for ~65% of his overall workload, and anticipates dedicating ~5% of his future workload to this effort over the 18-24 month project timeline. Bruce’s relevant project experience includes: • Bozeman Community Plan, Montana • Our Big Sky Community Vision and CIP, Montana • Envision Gallatin Growth Policy, Montana • Envision Three Forks Growth Policy, Montana• Plan Manhattan Growth Policy, Montana• ReEnvision Victor Comprehensive Plan, Idaho • Uniquely Driggs Comprehensive, Idaho • My Meridian Comprehensive Plan Update and the Fields Subarea Plan, Idaho • “Our Lands, Our Future: Recreation and Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado,” Larimer County Regional Conservation Study, Colorado• Larimer County Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment and Reservoir Parks Master Plan, Colorado • BLM Browns Canyon National Monument Planning Area, Salida, Colorado • BLM Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Management (AHRA) Plan Revision, Salida, Colorado• Gypsum - Eagle River Area Plan, Gypsum, Colorado• Buckeye Wildlife Corridors Best Practices Guide, Arizona • Peoria Sonoran Preservation Program Study, Arizona • Peoria Open Space and Cultural Decision Support System and Acquisition Program, Arizona • Wasatch Canyons General Plan, Salt Lake County, Utah• The River Bottoms Vision Plan, Spanish Fork, Utah 53 28 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL LOGAN SIMPSON brIan Taylor | gIS analyST Brian is a GIS Analyst with 12 years of experience in environmental consulting. His experience includes cartography, data management, modeling, web mapping applications, GPS deployment, and GIS analysis. His primary focus has been leading GIS analyses and cartographic design on Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments for pipeline, mining, wind farm, and transmission line projects, as well as travel management planning as both a GIS Analyst and inventory crew member. Brian is a key member of Logan Simpson’s Travel Management Planning team, which he supports through on-site inventory, data management and analysis, and all phases of travel management planning. He will use GIS data to identify sensitive lands and will complete data compilation and management resulting into an open space prioritization plan. Education B.A., Geography, Emphasis GIS, University of Northern Colorado, 2007 Present and Projected Workload: Brian is currently planned for ~55% of his overall workload, and anticipates dedicating ~35% of his future workload to this effort over the 18-24 month project timeline. Brian’s relevant project experience includes: • BLM Billings Field Office Pryor Mountain and Cottonwood TMP/EA, Montana • Valley County Waterways Management Plan, Valley County/McCall, Idaho • BLM Boise District Office Morley Nelson NCA West Route Evaluation, GIS Support and TMP/EA, Idaho • Idaho State Lands OHV Trail Inventory & Recreation Management Plan, Idaho• Greeley Open Space Plan, Colorado• BLM Browns Canyon National Monument Planning Area, Salida, Colorado • BLM Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Management (AHRA) Plan Revision, Salida, Colorado • BLM Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Kanab-Escalante Resource Area – RMP and EIS, Utah 54 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 29 LEFT BRAIN CONCEPTS jEff haUgEn Jeff has 30 years of experience in market research and marketing consulting. He is the President of Left Brain Concepts, Inc. (LBC) a Colorado-based research and consulting firm whose clients consists of government (Federal to local), non-profits and industry (Fortune 100 to entrepreneur) entities. Jeff provides surveys, conducts focus groups, provides executive-level exploratory interviews, and conducts literature reviews. Jeff and LBC are deeply committed to client service and assure that their research designs accomplish their clients’ goals. LBC is well regarded for conducting actionable research studies in direct response to management issues, and for providing unsurpassed client service. He has teamed with Logan Simpson to conduct surveys for: BREECE ROBERTSON | GIS MODEL ADVISOR Breece Robertson is a conservationist and geospatial designer who combines technology and storytelling to inspire, activate, educate, and engage people to protect our planet. She is a noteworthy leader in the conservation and parks field with two decades of experience with The Trust for Public Land where she built strategic initiatives like ParkScore, ParkServe and Greenprinting. In 2006, she was awarded the Esri Special Achievement in GIS award and in 2012, the “Making a Difference” award. Currently, she directs partnership and strategy for the Center for Geospatial Solutions at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. She authored a book called “Protecting the Places We Love” published in April 2021 by Esri Press. When she’s not protecting places, she’s exploring and enjoying them. Education BA Business Administration. University of Puget Sound, 1980 • Steamboat Springs Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails & River Master Plan, Colorado • Delta Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan, Colorado • Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Colorado • Castle Pines Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, Colorado• Fountain Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, Colorado 55 30 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL 5. PROPOSED SCHEDULE 2022 2023 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep TASK 1 - PUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Project Management Coordination (Monthly for 16 months) Public Engagement Plan Project Website Set Up Stakeholder One-on-Ones (Virtually) Working Group Meetings (x4 - two in-person) & County Coordination (3 virtual)Public Engagement Series (x3 - all in-person) TASK 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW Define Study Area Existing Plan and Policy Review TASK 3 - DATA COLLECTION Develop Data Portal on ArcGIS Hub Collect Data & Organize on ArcGIS Hub Data Gap Report Public Review of Data and Revisions TASK 4 - SPATIAL TOOLS Develop Modeling Methods Develop Models Display Results Public Review of Model and Revisions TASK 5 - RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary Recommendations & Indicators Revised Recommendations & Indicators Online Protection Plan Appendices Recommendations Executive Summary Online Protection Plan and Executive Summary Adoption OPTIONAL TASKS Statistically Valid Survey Six Additional Adoption Meetings (Virtually) Economic Analysis of Conservation Benefits Video 56 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 31 20222023 MayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep TASK 1 - PUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Project Management Coordination (Monthly for 16 months) Public Engagement Plan Project Website Set Up Stakeholder One-on-Ones (Virtually) Working Group Meetings (x4 - two in-person) & County Coordination (3 virtual)Public Engagement Series (x3 - all in-person) TASK 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW Define Study Area Existing Plan and Policy Review TASK 3 - DATA COLLECTION Develop Data Portal on ArcGIS Hub Collect Data & Organize on ArcGIS Hub Data Gap Report Public Review of Data and Revisions TASK 4 - SPATIAL TOOLS Develop Modeling Methods Develop Models Display Results Public Review of Model and Revisions TASK 5 - RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary Recommendations & Indicators Revised Recommendations & Indicators Online Protection Plan Appendices Recommendations Executive Summary Online Protection Plan and Executive Summary Adoption OPTIONAL TASKS Statistically Valid Survey Six Additional Adoption Meetings (Virtually) Economic Analysis of Conservation Benefits Video 6. PRICE PROPOSAL We prepare our proposed fee based on a philosophy that it includes all identified and anticipated tasks. In preparing our fees for a project, the project manager walks through the project and identifies all tasks that will be required, from the number of meetings and submittals required, to complexity of design, to coordination with client and subconsultants. Factors used to determine our project budget are detailed in our scope of work and included as subtasks in the following fee spreadsheet. Additional factors that may be desired by the City are included as optional tasks. Logan Simpson’s staff billing rates reflect overhead costs, including applicable insurance, and are available upon request. 57 32 LOGAN SIMPSON SUBMITTAL OVERALL TOTALS Labor Expenses Total Task 1 - Public & Stakeholder Engagement Project Management Coordination (Monthly for 16 months)$9,904 $0 $9,904 Public Engagement Plan $1,245 $0 $1,245 Project Website Set Up $3,102 $1 $3,103 Stakeholder One-on-Ones (Virtually)$7,365 $2 $7,367 Working Group Meetings (x4 - two in-person) & County Coordination (three virtual) $18,940 $4,003 $22,943 Public Engagement Series (x3 - all in-person)$27,487 $17,000 $44,487 Subtotal Task 1 $68,043 $21,006 $89,049 Task 2 - Literature Review Define Study Area $1,518 $0 $1,518 Existing Plan and Policy Review $4,488 $150 $4,638 Subtotal Task 2 $15,006 $225 $15,231 Task 3 - Data Collection Develop Data Portal on ArcGIS Hub $2,028 $0 $2,028 Collect Data & Organize on ArcGIS Hub $4,716 $0 $4,716 Data Gap Report $5,736 $0 $5,736 Public Review of Data and Revisions $1,998 $0 $1,998 Subtotal Task 3 $14,478 $0 $14,478 Task 4 - Spatial Tools Develop Modeling Methods $6,038 $0 $6,038 Develop Models $11,385 $0 $11,385 Display Results $6,540 $0 $6,540 Public Review of Model and Revisions $1,620 $0 $1,620 Subtotal Task 4 $25,583 $0 $25,583 Task 5 - Recommendations Preliminary Recommendations & Indicators $12,635 $0 $12,635 Revised Recommendations & Indicators $4,761 $0 $4,761 Online Protection Plan $9,636 $0 $9,636 Appendices $3,252 $0 $3,252 Recommendations Executive Summary $8,100 $0 $8,100 Online Protection Plan and Executive Summary Adoption $3,741 $0 $3,741 Subtotal Task 5 $42,125 $0 $42,125 TOTAL (without Optional Tasks)$165,235 $21,231 $186,466 OPTIONAL TASKS Statistically Valid Survey $1,116 $24,000 $25,116 Six Additional Adoption Meetings (Virtually)$9,908 $0 $9,908 Economic Analysis of Conservation Benefits $8,236 $0 $8,236 Video $2,880 $14,000 $16,880 58 CITY OF BOZEMAN | GALLATIN VALLEY SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN 33 7. REFERENCES The following five references are for similar Logan Simpson projects completed within the past five years. Detailed descriptions of these and additional projects are located in Section 3, Experience with Projects. ESTES VallEy oPEn SPaCE Plan | a SharEd land ConSErVaTIon STraTEgy, Colorado Reference: Jeffrey Boring, Executive Director | Estes Valley Land Trust | 1191 Woodstock Dr #5 | P.O. 663| Estes Park, CO 80517 | P: 970.577.6837 | E: jeffrey.boring@evlandtrust.org SUmmIT CoUnTy oPEn SPaCE and TraIlS maSTEr Plan, Colorado Reference: Katherine King | Director | Summit County Open Space & Trials | P: 970-668-4067 | E: Katherine.king@summitcountyco.gov rESoUrCE managEmEnT PlannIng and ChImnEy hollow rECrEaTIon arEa ConCEPTUal Plan, larImEr CoUnTy, Colorado Reference: Meegan Flenniken, Land Acquisition, Planning & Resource Division Manager | Larimer County Natural Resources Department | 1800 S. County Road 31, Loveland, CO 80537 | P: 970.619.4562 | M: 970.231.1536 | E: mflenniken@larimer.org arkanSaS hEadwaTErS rECrEaTIon arEa managEmEnT Plan rEVISIon & brownS Canyon naTIonal monUmEnT rESoUrCE managEmEnT Plan, SalIda, Colorado Reference: Joe Vieria, National Monument Project Manager | BLM Colorado Rocky Mountain District | P: 719.246.9966 | E: jvieira@blm.gov bUCkEyE wIldlIfE CorrIdorS bEST PraCTICES gUIdE, arIzona Reference: Adam Copeland | Principal Planner | City of Buckeye | 530 E Monroe Avenue, Buckeye, Arizona 85326 | P: 623.349.6210 | E: acopeland@buckeyeaz.gov 59 8. AFFIRMATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION 60 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK JUNE 29, 2022 TASK 1 PUBLIC AND CONSTITUENT ENGAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT COORDINATION Upon contract commencement, Logan Simpson will coordinate with the City Project Management Staff to refine and finalize the schedule and community engagement plan. At the virtual project management kickoff meeting, we will establish bi-weekly to monthly coordination calls to be held virtually so everyone can put it on their calendars. We envision in-person meetings during key milestones when planned during other meetings in Gallatin County. Logan Simpson will provide an agenda in advance of all meetings, along with a summary following each meeting. The Logan Simpson team, of course, will be available throughout the project via cell phone, office phone, and email. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN Constituent community engagement will inform how the Sensitive Lands Plan prioritizes action to address interconnected issues such as development, recreation, environmental justice/equity, human wildlife conflicts, and climate change. We will outline the details of constituent community engagement and outreach in a consolidated Community Engagement Plan (CEP). The CEP will outline the project description (including what it is and what it is not), key milestones for the public, messaging, benefits of the planning process, as well as outreach tools and notification methods to be used throughout the project. Development of the CEP will involve the City’s communication department. Roles, decision-making authority, and make-up of the various project groups, including the project management and leadership within the City and Gallatin County, as well as constituents and the public will be listed and defined. Knowing the ultimate role of key partners early in the process will help the project be successful in the long run. We will right-size the engagement strategies, meeting facilitation, schedule, and notifications for each group. We will outline the acceptance process, with possible support and/or acceptance from other agencies/partners. PROJECT WEBSITE Logan Simpson will use ESRI’s ArcGIS Hub as the preferred community engagement platform. This project website platform is capable of providing project updates and will allow the public to review, comment on, and even download (if desired) the detailed GIS data and analysis required in this RFP. The project website will include a link to register to get involved, a project timeline, project contacts, and additional resources. Additional details are described in Tasks 3-5. The Engage Bozeman website may be considered as a complimentary tool for occasional/targeted engagement, to be determined and supported by City staff. CONSTITUENT ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS Our team will announce the initiation of this project and hold group and one-on-one interviews with key constituents. This will include a discussion with various City and County staff and leadership, including but not limited to Boards and Commissions, members of the Planning Coordination Committee, government officials, representatives from local agriculture, indigenous leaders, real estate, developers, conservationists, wildlife biologists, citizens, and the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Working Group. Key questions will include: Who are we missing? What does success look like? What case studies, literature sources, and/or best practices would you recommend? What data and narratives should we consider? And what experts related to these data and narrative should we engage? And to inform the development of initial survey questions, what are key values and tradeoffs to understand across the Valley? We have begun early conversations with the Montana Natural Heritage Program and University of Montana’s Spatial Analysis Lab to understand their data availability. In tandem with Task 2, we will meet with these research agencies to understand the data history, limitations, and modeling scenarios completed to date. We have found that successful wildlife Exhibit A 61 habitat models are built over a lifetime of understanding and partners. Working with these groups will ensure the data reliability needed in this process. WORKING GROUP & COUNTY COORDINATION Following the initial round of group and one-on-one interviews, we will convene meetings with the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Working Group throughout the process. Two in-person and two virtual meetings are envisioned for a total of four meetings. Meetings will involve worksessions to review materials and provide guiding direction prior to public review. Meeting 1 – Review data collection and literature review and provide input on project goals Meeting 2 – Review modeling methods Meeting 3 – Review modeling results and provide input on preliminary recommendations Meeting 4 – Provide input on recommendations Beyond the Working Group meetings, Logan Simpson proposes additional coordination with the County. These meetings will be specific to land use recommendations that would likely fall to the County to implement. Up to three additional meetings are anticipated to occur virtually, unless in tandem with other trips to Gallatin County. STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY Sensitive Lands hold a myriad of community values. The more the model aligns with community values, the more readily the results will be accepted and effect the desired change. At the client group’s discretion, Logan Simpson will work with Left Brain Concepts early in the process to develop a statistically valid mail survey with the option to respond electronically. We will work with Bozeman to develop a 4- to 6-page survey that will be mailed to 3,500 residents across the Gallatin Valley. We begin with an exhaustive list of households in the community - including individual units in multi-family developments - and mail to a random sample of households. This has been the standard in sampling for decades; to be able to defend the results with a sample size of 600-700 responses. Responses would be held in an ASCII data file as numerically coded data. Answers to each question will be double-entered to ensure accuracy. This is the industry standard in paper-and-pencil survey research and is the most accurate method of recording information from surveys. We will capture people’s responses to any open-ended questions verbatim, will code the responses and enter them into the data file. LBC will compile the results, produce percentages for each response, and perform numerous data splits and statistical analyses using a powerful software package. Results will be spilt by jurisdiction and length of time residency in the Valley. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SERIES Each public engagement phase below includes a distinct outcome-oriented outreach series with hands-on and high-tech outreach methods tailored to the audience and desired outcomes. This process uses trust, credibility, and process to create consensus. Each series will involve a public meeting in a centrally located area and opportunities to provide input online. #1: Review of data and visioning After initial literature review and data collection outlined in Tasks 2 and 3 below, we will reach out the broader public for review of the data to ensure no further gaps remain and define the planning context. This series will also collect feedback on the plan’s vision and goals based on the data and statistically valid results. We will collect information on the community’s values to determine importance as we move into developing the model methods. This phase could be paired with an online survey if the optional statistically valid survey is not completed. #2: Review of modeling results and preliminary recommendations After developing the modeling scenarios in Task 4 below, we will again review the data and mapping with the public and begin initial development of preliminary recommendations. Meeting #2 will focus on the modeling results and preliminary recommendations in an open house format. Attendees will help identify the sensitive land priorities. #3: Draft Plan Review 62 Once recommendations are developed with the Working Group/Constituents in Task 5, the recommendations and plan will be reviewed with the public. Task 1 Meetings & Deliverables: Staff Kickoff Meeting agenda, materials, facilitation, and summary On-going biweekly project management coordination meetings, agenda, materials, facilitation, and summary Draft and Final Community Engagement Plan Group and one-on-one interview coordination, facilitation, and summary Working Group meetings agendas, materials, facilitation, and notes. Zoom logistics for virtual meetings Public meeting plans, notifications, website updates, materials, facilitation, and summary for each community engagement series. Statistically Valid Survey development, notification, data compilation, and report Task 1 City Roles: Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. Communication and coordination with the Working Group and reserve meeting locations, notify meetings, and provide refreshments. Provide access to Bozeman Enterprise GIS Account (no fee included for additional purchases). Public meeting space reservations, food, distribute public meeting notifications, and staffing assistance at meetings. Communication and coordination with City and regional elected/appointed officials. TASK 2 LITERATURE REVIEW DEFINE STUDY AREA & PRELIMINARY OUTLINE An important decision early in the process will be definition of the “Gallatin Valley” study area. We will start with the map below, which is generally defined as within the watershed between the Bridger Mountains, start of Gallatin Canyon, Three Forks, and Bozeman Pass. GIS model results will be more reliable if the data collected uniformly covers the entire study area. The study area should focus on the remaining unconserved private land in the County – approximately 600,000 acres. Detailed study of specific species or areas of interest are beyond the scope of this project. We will define what the decision space of the plan is early to focus future discussions. Also early in the process, we will outline the table of contents of the final plan deliverables. 63 EXISTING PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW We will review past plans, studies, and regulations related to the Gallatin Valley. For each plan, we will note data by resource, key priorities and values, and identify where conflicts may arise. Plans will include Critical Lands Study of the Bozeman Area (1997), City of Bozeman’s Community Plan (2021) and Climate Plan (2021), Gallatin County’s Growth Policy (2021) and Triangle Community Plan (2020), the Montana State Wildlife Action Plan, Montana Subdivision and Platting Act Montana Department of Fish, the Wildlife and Park’s Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development, publications by Montana Natural Heritage Program, among others. We will focus on the interconnectivity and relationships between stressors and geography of their impacts on sensitive lands and identify data gaps and conflicts in recommendations. CASE STUDY REVIEW & DOCUMENT PORTAL Emerging studies and lessons learned from other communities shall be used to guide research and recommendations. With input from constituents and the Working Group, we will develop and review a list of case studies and existing models. We will compare case studies for applicability in modeling methods and policy recommendations to protect sensitive lands. A few case studies may warrant further evaluation, including author interviews, funding, and code review to assist in the development of preliminary recommendations. We will interview planners/analysts about how their programs worked/did not work and what they would have done differently. We will post the most relevant case studies and documents on the project website and highlight key themes in a summary report. Task 2 Deliverables: Draft and Final Existing Plan Review Report Draft and Final Case Study Review Report Project website update and document portal 64 Task 2City Roles: Minor assistance in gathering existing plans and policies, if not publicly posted. Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. Post deliverables to Engage Bozeman or similar for public review. TASK 3 DATA COLLECTION DEVELOP DATA PORTAL ON ARCGIS HUB We will create an online application on ESRI’s ArcGIS Hub to share data and a narrative to engage the public. The online application is intended to be educational and show data transparency with publicly available data from multiple supporting agencies on interactive maps. Some sensitive data is likely needed for the analysis and will be made available only to authorized users. The City of Bozeman GIS Division will be responsible for hosting the most current available data, with assistance from partnering agencies. COLLECT DATA & ORGANIZE ON ARCGIS HUB With guidance from constituents, Logan Simpson will compile the best available authoritative GIS data applicable to a wide range of sciences. The data will be organized into a single geodatabase environment. Metadata beyond origin source, year, and point of contact will not be added to the original data. Any changes to data description will be directed towards the source. Some examples of data types may include, but are not limited to: US Forest Service (Key linkage Areas and other Designated Areas, ROS, SIO, WSR) Lakes and streams Rock outcrops (determined via USGS land cover raster data) Highly visible areas (determined via viewshed analysis from major highways) Transportation (trails and roads) Land Cover Wildlife (T&E habitat, Concentration Areas, raptor nesting, Species of Concern Occurrence, Predicted Biodiversity from MTNHP, movement corridors) Wetlands Riparian areas Existing protection lands National Register of Historic Places Landmarks or areas of particular significance to indigenous communities Prime Soils/Ag lands Centennial Farms Health and social indicators based on environmental justice/equity Other City/County Layers (parcels, contours, zoning, urban waterways, imagery, etc) DATA GAP REPORT We will summarize the review of GIS data in a data report, including recommendations to support future data collection efforts, and post relevant and publicly available data to ArcGIS Hub. The Working Group will review the Data Gap Report. Data gaps could include data that are not currently available or available datasets that are not useful for downscaling for conservation planning efforts due to spatial resolution, temporal, or other factors. PUBLIC REVIEW OF DATA AND REVISIONS Issues identified within the first public meeting series will be considered and recorded. Any datasets or issues that have changed over time may be presented cartographically by using an interactive slider bar for the public to compare data. These datasets may include: Urbanization 65 Wildlife movement corridors Changes in landcover River movement Task 3 Meetings & Deliverables: Agreed upon method to present and share the data (ArcGIS Hub, Story Maps, standard geodatabase) Meetings to address any GIS data gaps Staff and partner GIS status meetings (beyond full Working Group Meeting in Task 1) Draft and Final Data Gap Report Task 3 City Roles: Provide existing City GIS data layers Provide access to Bozeman Enterprise Account (no fee included for additional purchases) Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. Host data and models on the City of Bozeman GIS Division’s ArcGIS Enterprise platform or similar Assist in identifying landmarks or areas of particular significance to indigenous communities TASK 4 SPATIAL TOOLS DEVELOP MODEL METHODOLOGY Data collected above will be categorized into an agreed upon scheme (wildlife, hydrology, etc.). The Working Group will confirm the categories of resources to map, approve the best available data for each of the categories, and develop model criteria. Criteria will reflect community values and focus on highlighting environmental sensitive areas where opportunities for preservation exist. We will facilitate two Working Group (or a subcommittee) virtual workshops on range of modeling methodologies to arrive at a preferred methodology. We will document the methods in a report. DEVELOP MODELS Working with the City GIS staff and key GIS Partners, Logan Simpson will develop and test a reusable model within Model Builder. A static series of scenario-based maps will be developed to visualize the effects of land use at both a local and regional scale is preferred, unless available technology within the project budget allows for a more interactive end-user experience. We’ll develop three scenarios based on based on values. Some scenarios will reflect changes to weighting, while other scenarios may include a unique suite of data. We have anticipated three rounds of iterative maps to test and calibrate the model. DISPLAY RESULTS ON ARCGIS HUB We will work to display the static results on the City of Bozeman GIS Division’s ArcGIS Enterprise platform for public review. Environmentally sensitive linkages and other important habitat needed by wildlife for various life cycle stages will be highlighted to promote a shared understanding of where opportunities for preservation exist. Task 4 Meetings & Deliverables: Staff and partner GIS status meetings (beyond full Working Group Meeting in Task 1) Draft and final Methodology Report Draft, revised, and final maps Task 4 City Roles: Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated comments. Post deliverables to Engage Bozeman or similar for public review. TASK 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 66 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS & INDICATORS Logan Simpson will present several ways to structure the plan’s implementation, and the City will select a preferred format, such as an implementation table that ties each recommendation to a funding source, regulatory tools or incentives, and a responsible organization to empower them to take action. Specific recommendations to protect sensitive lands shall be pursued for both policy and program development, including regional partnerships, and key performance indicators, along with an estimated implementation priority and schedule. Recommendations must include a wide variety of solutions that will support contrasting interests throughout the study area. Based on the community feedback collected to date; data modeling results; and consistent with adopted plans (such as Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, the Montana State Wildlife Action Plan, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Park’s Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development), laws, and decision-making authority, Logan Simpson will identify preliminary recommendations that provide a wide variety of solutions that will support contrasting interests related to: Legislative Initiatives. Efforts required to implement any final recommendations shall be identified in support of the upcoming legislative session. Policy and Programs: Policy and program recommendations must be delivered with reference to the agency or jurisdiction who oversees final decision making authority. Funding Sources. Each priority resource (scenic, wildlife, recreation, or historic) opens the door to different funding sources. We will identify a funding source for each recommendation, emphasizing dollars available for conserving properties or capital improvements. Regulatory Tools. The Comprehensive Plan/Growth Policy, code language, and zoning, along with subdivision tools such as conservation developments, are instrumental to direction growth away from sensitive areas. We will recommend by agency how existing and new programs and policies can align with plan priorities. If there are conflicts between currently adopted plans, these will be documented and prioritized for revision. Incentives (TDR). Logan Simpson’s code team is currently helping two western communities, Spanish Fork, Utah and Teton County, Idaho, develop Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) incentive programs with the goal of preserving irreplaceable agricultural and natural resources such as waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife habitat, scenery, floodplains, slopes, wildland-urban interface, and recreational access. Our team will work with City and County staff and attorneys to recommend how the right program could be implemented in the future. Regional Partnerships. We will outline partnership opportunities including concepts for future community campaigns with the Working Group as well as other partners to determine who should most effectively and efficiently lead each initiative to advance long-term goals. Key Performance Indicators. To answer the question, “How will we measure success?” we recommend at a minimum a table with indicators, timelines, and adaptive management thresholds be included in the plan so that future leaders can communicate results and know whether we are moving toward or away from the desired future condition. We would like to explore how to tie the indicators to the project website with a GIS indicators dashboard, as we recently did for Colorado Springs. REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS & INDICATORS We will post the recommendation on Konveio, another online service that we often use for collaborative document review. This tool has been extremely beneficial to our projects, especially to gather feedback on the draft plan, solicit input on design concepts, or offer a self-paced virtual “open house” where participants can comment on the presented materials. We will consider revisions to the recommendations based on public input. SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN (PHYSICAL COPY) Based on all the work completed to date and feedback on the Draft Online Sensitive Lands Protection Plan, we will create a full report that is graphically appealing physical Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. The Plan will highlight the plan process 67 and goals, background, details of the analysis, integrated maps, and recommendations. The Draft Protection Plan will be reviewed and then revised to present to the public. SENSITIVE LANDS PROTECTION PLAN (ONLINE) Based on the analysis, input, and work completed up to this point, our team will prepare a streamlined, and graphically appealing Online Sensitive Lands Protection Plan that will serve as the Executive Summary, linking data and maps from the ArcGIS Hub in Story Map format. The Logan Simpson team will develop an end product that is easily navigated and understandable to the public with minimal technical language or jargon. Content, layout, and format for the plan will be mocked up for discussion and through a workshop. It will integrate text, interactive maps, photos, and other multimedia content online. APPENDICES Technical details consolidated throughout the process will be placed under a separate covers for future reference attached to the ArcGIS Hub. ACCEPTANCE Following public review of the Draft Online Sensitive Lands Protection Plan, Logan Simpson will prepare final Story Map and physical copy of the Protection Plan for acceptance by the City of Bozeman. At this stage, Logan Simpson anticipates only minor revisions after each meeting based on public comments. After the approval, Logan Simpson will compile and submit all associated graphic links and files. Logan Simpson does not anticipate providing printed copies. ADDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE MEETINGS While this is a City of Bozeman project, we believe for this plan to be fully supported and implemented it should be accepted/approved by all jurisdictions with decision making authority over the recommendations. Logan Simpson will support the City in presenting to up to 6 additional Boards and/or Commissions across other agencies in person. Meetings: Up to 6 City acceptance meetings, agendas, materials, facilitation, and notes over no more than 3 trips (in-person) Deliverables: Preliminary and Final Recommendations that accomplish specific goals with measurable outcomes Preliminary Draft Protection Plan for Public Review for staff and Working Group Review Preliminary Draft Online StoryMap Protection Plan for staff and Working Group Review Public Draft Protection Plan for Public Review for staff and Working Group Review Public Draft Online StoryMap Protection Plan for staff and Working Group Review Final Protection Plan & Online StoryMap for acceptance City Roles: Review/approve the above deliverables. Provide consolidated and reconcile conflicting comments Assist in City acceptance meetings: scheduling, staff report, and rehearsal 68 Labor Expenses Total Task 1 - Partner & Community Engagement Project Management Coordination (Monthly for 16 months)$10,412 $0 $10,412 Community Engagement Plan $1,275 $0 $1,275 Project Website Set up $3,178 $0 $3,178 One-on-One Interviews (Virtually)$7,055 $0 $7,055 Statistically Valid Survey $1,140 $24,000 $25,140Working Group Meetings (x4 - two in-person) & County Coordination (3 virtual)$18,260 $5,200 $23,460 Community Engagement Series (x3 - all in-person)$16,097 $6,000 $22,097 Subtotal Task 1 $57,417 $35,200 $92,617 Task 2 - Literature Review Define study area & Prelminary Plan Outline $1,558 $0 $1,558 Existing Plan and Policy Review $4,780 $150 $4,930 Subtotal Task 2 $15,928 $225 $16,153 Task 3 - Data Collection Develop data portal on ArcGIS Hub $2,025 $0 $2,025 Collect Data & Organize on ArcGIS Hub $4,912 $0 $4,912 Data Gap Report $5,692 $0 $5,692 Public Review of Data and Revisions $2,104 $0 $2,104 Subtotal Task 3 $14,733 $0 $14,733 Task 4 - Spatial Tools Develop modeling methods $5,870 $0 $5,870 Develop models $11,864 $0 $11,864 Display results $6,838 $0 $6,838 Public Review of Model and Revisions $1,710 $0 $1,710 Subtotal Task 4 $26,282 $0 $26,282 Task 5 - Recommendations Preliminary Recommendations & Indicators $12,906 $0 $12,906 Revised Recommendations & Indicators $3,812 $0 $3,812 Online Protection Plan (Story Map)$12,466 $0 $12,466 Appendices $3,384 $0 $3,384 Protection Plan (Physical Copy)$12,925 $0 $12,925 Protection Plan Acceptance (1 meeting in-person)$5,264 $1,000 $6,264 Additional Acceptance Meetings (Not to exceed) In-person $16,745 $3,255 $20,000 Subtotal Task 5 $67,502 $4,255 $71,757 GRAND TOTAL $181,862 $39,680 $221,542 Gallatin County Sensitive Lands Protection Plan June 27, 2022 OVERALL TOTALS Page 1 of 1 Exhibit B 69 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN Project Title Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Connecting our landscape, heritage, and future on common ground Project Leads/Who’s Listening - Jon Henderson, City of Bozeman Strategic Services Director - Gail Jorgenson, GIS Program Manager - Ali Chipouras, Sustainability Specialist - Jeremy Call, Logan Simpson - Kristina Kachur, Logan Simpson Community Engagement Purpose Community input will shape the vision and goals of the Sensitive Lands Plan. This Plan requires a deliberate and sustained effort to fully understand the community’s needs, provide solution-oriented communication, and sustain a nonpartisan, inspirational attitude throughout the project. Every effort will be made to encourage meaningful community involvement throughout the process by listening and responding to interested parties early, frequently, and effectively. We will gather insight from groups and individuals across the community on the value, stressors, and the extent of interconnected issues impacting sensitive lands. This CEP provides a project purpose, key term definitions, community groups and their respective roles, key questions, outreach tools, and the engagement process/timeline. Goals for Community Engagement - Consult the community to gather information on stressors to our existing sensitive lands, priority categories of sensitive lands, and values that should be reflected in the vision and goals for the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. - Involve the Sensitive Lands Working Group who will be highly involved in establishing criteria, developing alternatives, evaluating alternatives, and developing recommendations. 70 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 2 - Represent the entire community including a range of interests through outreach with key constituents and the general public. - Inform the community on the initiative and input opportunities, whether or not they choose to participate. Project Purpose Residents of the Gallatin Valley are dedicated to securing the long-term ecological health of the entire region. A strong connection between clean water, abundant wildlife, productive agriculture, and cultural heritage has provided a high quality of life for generations. While the area continues to experience unprecedented growth, a regional approach to protecting sensitive lands can help provide adequate habitat into the future. This Sensitive Lands Protection Plan seeks to find greater balance in the Gallatin Valley. The Plan will highlight sensitive land priorities through a robust GIS model, make intangible values and natural assets more tangible, and recommend how to protect the most sensitive resources, while helping identify the benefits and best practices of developing in harmony with the natural environment. Most importantly, the Plan will facilitate dialogue between the city, county, agencies, constituents, and developers to result in a win-win solution. Gallatin Valley is an inspiring landscape, rich in human and natural history, home to abundant wildlife, and supporting world-class outdoor recreation opportunities. Outside Bozeman and the Valley’s smaller cities and towns, much of this land remains agricultural or undeveloped and provides essential habitat and movement corridors. Sensitive lands include riparian and wildlife habitat and corridors, in addition to stands of specimen trees, wetlands, and other natural features needed to support a healthy environment and the valley’s renowned wildlife populations. This plan will include a comprehensive model to evaluate habitat and corridors between urban and natural areas throughout the valley while also considering the value of existing agricultural lands and other sensitive lands. Results of the model will inform recommendations and help guide decisions about land use and management in the Gallatin Valley. In summary, the project goals are to: • Secure the long-term ecological health of the region • Create a regional model that connects clean water, abundant wildlife, productive agricultural, and cultural heritage • Recommend how to protect the most sensitive resources during unprecedented growth • Identify benefits and best practices in development in harmony with the natural environment • Facilitate dialogue between city, county, agencies, constituents, and developers 71 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 3 Key Talking Points: The Plan… • Builds off values and recommendations of recently adopted policies including the cities of Bozeman, Three Forks, Manhattan, and Gallatin County Growth Plans. • Does not result in any immediate changes or new regulations. Any new policy or code changes would need to be adopted through separate processes. • Will create recommendations for new policy and programs, regulatory tools, funding sources, legislative initiatives, partnerships, among others. • Relies on the best available authoritative data and not original data collection. • Will be guided by a Working Group of technical experts with diverse interests. The Working Group will provide a recommendation to Bozeman Commission for acceptance. Other jurisdictions may accept, adopt, or approve all or portions of the Plan as desired. • Implementation will be the work of many agency, non-profit, and private entities. Key Terms The following is a working list of acronyms and other technical terms that need to be clarified in communication and engagement with the public: • Sensitive Lands: Lands that are susceptible to negative impacts from the built environment and its residents such as riparian and wildlife corridors, stands of specimen trees, wetlands, and other natural features needed to support a healthy environment. • Specimen trees: Large cottonwoods following streams/rivers, isolated stands of pine, rare species, etc. • Authoritative data: Data that was produced or is approved by a trusted source and is known to be complete, current, and accurate. • Stressors: Any activity or event that results in stress. Stressors to the sensitive lands in Gallatin Valley may include: development, transportation infrastructure, local economy, recreation, human wildlife conflicts, climate change, water security, water quality, water availability, drought, flood, wildfire, etc. • Wildlife needs: Food, water, cover, and space availability needed for basic survival. • GIS (Geographic Information System): A digital system that creates, manages, analyzes, and maps all types of data. • GIS Model: A geographic overlay of resources to identify localized areas of interest through a public process. • ArcGIS Hub: A cloud platform that organizes information, data, collaboration, and outreach. Acts as the project website for this initiative. • Movement corridors: Areas that allow for safe passages between habitat populations. 72 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 4 Study Area This map displays the geographic scope of the Gallatin Valley. For this project, the Gallatin Valley is considered all public and private land that has yet to be conserved or protected within the Valley. This is the general area that will be analyzed for sensitive lands opportunities. The boundary is not a hard line but a way to focus the analyze and discussion of plan recommendations. GIS model results will be more reliable if the data collected uniformly covers the entire study area. The study area should focus on the remaining unconserved public and private land in the Gallatin Valley. Detailed study of specific species or areas of interest are beyond the scope of this project. 73 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 5 Community Engagements Roles by Group For a complete list of contact information see: Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Contact List.xlsx Internal Contacts The project is being managed by the City of Bozeman with a dedicated Project Management Core Team. Additional City staff members will be engaged as needed throughout the project. The City Commission will accept the Plan with recommendation from the Sensitive Lands Working Group. • City Commission (accepts the Plan) • City Manager Office (Project Management Core Team) • Communications & Engagement (Project Management Core Team) • GIS and Asset Management Division (Project Management Core Team) • Sustainability Division (Project Management Core Team) • Parks and Recreation Department • Utilities Department, Water Conservation and Stormwater Divisions • Transportation & Engineering Department • Consultant Team – Logan Simpson (Program Management Core Team) Sensitive Lands Working Group (Make recommendation to City Commission) The role of the Working Group will be to provide guidance and feedback throughout the development of the sensitive lands model and plan recommendations, approve the model inputs, review and interpret model results, and be a sounding board for the plan content. Their input to the plan recommendations will be vital to the Plan’s implementation. The Working Group offers technical expertise, embodies diverse interests, and thinks big! They will draw on their individual expertise to serve as part of a larger team working towards a cohesive goal, as well as work to involve broader community constituents. The Project Management Core Team will facilitate regular meetings with the Working Group. The Working Group will be represented from individuals from the following organizations: • Animal Welfare Institute • City of Bozeman • Craighead Institute • Gallatin County • Gallatin Valley Land Trust • Gallatin Watershed Council • Gallatin Wildlife Association • Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks • Montana Freshwater Partners • Sacajawea Audubon Society • Sierra Club • US Fish & Wildlife Service • USFS • Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative 74 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 6 The consultant team will provide the Working Group with public meeting notification materials to the WG to distribute to their contacts during key milestone events, including social media graphics, postcard graphics, newsletter text, press release text, etc. City of Bozeman Citizen Advisory Boards & Gallatin County Advisory Boards The City of Bozeman will provide regular updates to Advisory Boards, as needed. Gallatin County may also integrate outreach to their boards, as needed. External Contacts Constituents Constituents are individuals or groups with a stake in the sensitive lands project and management in Gallatin Valley and can help articulate public interests. • Agricultural producers/Stockgrowers/Cattlemen • Conservation organizations • Data Managers • Development Community o Design & Engineering o Architects, Landscape Architects o Site Developers, Land planners o Builders o Realtors, Real Estate Professionals • Land managers • Recreationalist • Towns • Tribal/Indigenous communities General Public The general public will be invited to participate through community forums and other online feedback opportunities. • General Public (social media, website, media) • University Students (LRES, Geography/Planning, American Indian/Alaska Native Student Success Center) • Youth (High School courses, Scouts) • Neighborhood Associations + InterNeighborhood Council • Business Community • Large employers/large landowners o Bozeman Health o School District o Billings Clinic o MSU o Churches Key Questions • What decision(s) needs to be made? 75 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 7 • Establish Vision and Goals of the plan based on community values (community input + Working Group) • What is considered “Sensitive Lands,” define categories of sensitive lands, what are the “Stressors” that impact sensitive lands (community input + Working Group) • Develop model criteria (with input from specific set of partners, data availability and constraints, finalized by Working Group) • Strategies, recommendations, implementation of the final plan (Working Group) • What decisions have already been made? o Data comes from authoritative data sources o Recommendations/responsibility will be shared with regional partners o Study area boundary o Valid and existing private property rights • Who is the final decision maker? o Working Group will a provide a recommendation o City Commission – will accept the final plan • At what stages in the decision-making process the public is being asked to participate? o General public, advisory groups: Define the problem, gather sideboards and values o Specific data partners, Working Group: Establish decision criteria, develop alternatives, evaluate alternatives o Make decision: City Commission • Who will be most impacted by this decision/project/policy? o Private landowners, developers, conservation organizations, local/state/federal agencies, agricultural producers may all be impacted by recommendations in the plan that regulate land use o Public land users may experience different benefits and burdens as a result of recommended actions o Plant and animal populations, watercourses, sensitive land areas themselves may benefit • What are the potential unintended consequences? o Additional requirements and limitations on new development may lengthen timelines and affect overall costs of projects, including much needed community housing projects o Alternatively, this plan could improve the development process by providing clearer and more readily available conservation goals/values up-front and early on in the development process that could help avoid conflicts later on in the development process when it has become too late/expensive to make changes o Recommendations from the Sensitive Lands Plan should align with those in existing plans (Climate Plan, Community Plan, affordable housing goals, equity & inclusion plan underway, current Unified Development Code overhaul project) to avoid unintended consequences • How will people be better off as a result of this decision/project/policy? o This project will impact quality of life for human and non-human residents of the Gallatin Valley, improve climate resiliency, and promote equitable access to the benefits of preserving sensitive lands across the Valley. • What is the timeline for this decision/project/policy? 76 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 8 o Final presentation and acceptance is scheduled for November 2023 • What are the communication and engagement resources available? o Logan Simpson will be working with City engagement, communications, and GIS staff to populate and update ArcGIS Hub as the main platform for engagement throughout the project. LS staff are responsible for maintaining and updating content, gathering public input, and sending out project updates/newsletters. 77 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 9 Level of Community Engagement 78 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 10 Objectives/Tools Tool Level of Engagement Description Audience ArcGIS Online/Hub Website Consult & Involve Use online platform to inform the community about the project, gather input, and share data. All Working Group Collaborate Host 4 meetings to establish project goals, review modeling methods, results, and recommendations. Working Group (see above) Gallatin County meetings Collaborate Host up to 3 meetings to coordinate implementation of plan through county land use recommendations. Gallatin County, City of Bozeman One-on-One Interviews Involve Conduct discussions with small groups or one-on-one to understand what does success looks like, gather sources to review, and understand challenges. Key Constituents (see above) Statistically Valid Survey Consult Use a survey to gather input on values and sensitive lands priorities from data partners and the public. All Community Forums Involve Use geospatial engagement techniques to gather input on values and sensitive lands priorities from data partners and the public. All Other Notifications Inform Use city newsletters, social media, emails, and press releases during key community involvement stages and major project milestone updates. All Engagement Timeline Timeline: July – December 2022 • Phase 1: Values and Data Collection Actions: - Define Study Area and Plan Goals - Develop Community Engagement Plan and Project Website - Revies existing plans and policies - Collect data and complete data gap report 79 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan FINAL October 2022 Community Engagement Plan 11 Tools: - Working Group Meeting #1 - One-on-one Constituent Interviews - Statistically Valid Survey - County Coordination - Working Group Meeting #2 - Community Engagement Series #1 (Review of Data and Visioning) Timeline: January – March 2023 • Phase 2: Sensitive Lands Modeling Actions: - Develop modeling methods - Develop model - Analyze results Tools: - Working Group Meeting #3 - County Coordination - Community Engagement Series #2 Timeline: April – November 2023 • Phase 3: Recommendations and Plan Development Actions: - Develop preliminary recommendations - Identify key indicators - Develop the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Tools: - Working Group Meeting #4 - Community Engagement Series #3 - Protection Plan Acceptance Meetings 80 LITERATURE, POLICY, AND CASE STUDY REVIEW DRAFT JANUARY 2023 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 1 Contents Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Part 1: Currently Adopted Guiding Plans in the Gallatin Valley ............................................................................................ 3 Currently Adopted and Relevant Plans Overview ............................................................................................................ 3 Common Themes between Currently Adopted Plans ..................................................................................................... 9 Conflicts between Currently Adopted Plans .................................................................................................................... 11 Part 2: Publications for Consideration ................................................................................................................................. 12 Part 3: Implementation Tools ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Existing Code and Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Funding Sources, Partnerships, and Conservation Tools ............................................................................................... 17 Legislative Initiatives ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Part 4: Existing Sensitive Lands Models covering the Gallatin Valley Study Area .............................................................. 19 Part 5: Models/Program Case Study Review ...................................................................................................................... 20 Part 6: Example ArcHub Site Review .................................................................................................................................. 24 81 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 2 Overview Residents of the Gallatin Valley are dedicated to securing the long-term ecological health of the entire region. A strong connection between clean water, abundant wildlife, productive agriculture, and cultural heritage has provided a high quality of life for generations. While, the area continues to experience unprecedented growth, a regional approach to protecting sensitive lands can help provide adequate habitat into the future. The Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan is dedicated to helping preserve the long-term ecological health of the entire region. The project aims to: - Create a regional model that connects clean water, abundant wildlife, productive agricultural, and cultural heritage. - Recommend how to protect the most sensitive resources during unprecedented growth. - Identify benefits and best practices in development in harmony with the natural environment. - Facilitate dialogue between the city, county, agencies, constituents, and developers. Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review This report aims to evaluate current and past plans, literature, regulations, and case studies that will help inform the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection plan. This report provides the initial data review to identify the interconnectivity and relationships between stressors and geography of their impacts on sensitive lands and identify data gaps and conflicts in recommendations. The report includes: 1. Currently Adopted Guiding Plans in the Gallatin Valley: Plans developed and adopted by local governing bodies within the study area that are currently guiding the growth and development of the region. 2. Publications for Consideration: Publications and resources from a variety of sources that can provide important information and data related to the plan. 3. Implementation Tools: Tools that could be used to inform and implement recommendations proposed in the plan including existing programs, regulatory tools, funding sources, partnership potential, incentives, etc. 4. Existing Sensitive Lands Models covering the Gallatin Valley Study Area: Existing models that will be considered for use in the plan. 5. Models/Programs Case Study Review: Case studies from similar projects in other locations. 6. Example ArcHub Site Review: Example ESRI ArcHub sites to use as examples for the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan ArcHub site. 82 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 3 Part 1: Currently Adopted Guiding Plans in the Gallatin Valley Within the Gallatin Valley government organizations have various plans in place to the support the growth of the community. This section evaluates local plans that are relevant to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan and identified connections and conflicts between the adopted plans. Plan Year Adopted Gallatin County Growth Policy 2021 City of Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Triangle Community Plan 2020 Envision Three Forks 2022 City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability and Resiliency Strategy 2019 City of Bozeman Climate Plan 2020 City of Bozeman Parks, Recreation and Active Transportation Plan In Progress Currently Adopted and Relevant Plans Overview Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) In 2021 the Gallatin County Growth Policy was adopted by the County Commission. A Growth Policy is required by state statute (Montana Code Annotated 76-1-601) and is meant to inform and guide the County’s land use decisions. Not all land within Gallatin County falls under the purview of the Growth Policy. Large portions of the County (47%) are under the jurisdiction of State and Federal land agencies. In addition, Bozeman, Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks, and West Yellowstone have their own growth policies and other planning documents. Relevance to Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: Gallatin County upholds and advances values that protect the unparalleled beauty of its landscape, honor its rich history rooted in agriculture, and promote the development of healthy, welcoming communities that offer a variety of extraordinary opportunities. The “Heritage” section of the plan celebrates Gallatin County’s cultural and historical significance, which is represented by the tradition, charm, and western community character that permeates working lands, natural areas, and urban areas. These values include working agricultural lands, productive soil, minimal impacts to agricultural land from development, access to local food, balancing property rights with maintaining rural character, healthy native plant and wildlife habitat, the protection of areas important for wildlife movement and migration, and an abundance of healthy wildlife. The “Open Space” section recognizes the importance of protecting the world-renowned natural environment and open space networks and their profound influence on our social, economic, and recreational activities that take place across Gallatin County. These values includes the protection of the natural environment; fish and wildlife resources; land use that is suitable for and compatible with natural features and environmental characteristics; social, economic, and recreational activities that take place within the open space network; public lands, and waterways; stewardship of public lands; supporting enhanced stewardship of private lands; key viewshed protection; and the physical and mental health benefits that open space access provides. The “Opportunity” section focuses on the development of healthy and welcoming communities that offer a variety of cultural, recreational, and educational amenities. These values include the thoughtful planning of infrastructure, transportation networks, and community services; land use that follows logical settlement 83 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 4 patterns, concentrating development in areas where a full range of services are available and resulting in the fiscally-efficient delivery of public services; land use and development patterns that ensure and prioritize public health and safety from identified man-made hazards; developer responsibility for adequate provision of infrastructure; development that includes sustainable best practices and technologies, such as green building techniques and renewable energy resources; development regulations that are clear and consistent to the greatest degree possible; diversity and variety in neighborhood and housing options; educational excellence and abundant, accessible cultural opportunities; coordination with other towns and cities in the County to advance shared goals and priorities. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: This plan establishes core goals and recommendations for wildlife habitat through a number of different lenses: water bodies, bald and golden eagle nests, other important wildlife habitat, higher value for wildlife, lower value for wildlife, and urban/urbanizing areas. The map and associated matrix are intended to provide useful and non-regulatory information for considering fish and wildlife in land use planning, development projects, and conservation opportunities. These tools were created by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) with extensive input from the Gallatin County Planning Department as part of the Gallatin County Growth Policy update in 2020. The map and associated matrix do not prescribe where development should or should not occur but instead provide general guidance on how to consider fish and wildlife resources on privately-owned lands within the jurisdiction of Gallatin County. This map is based on the best available data and professional knowledge of FWP biologists at the time the map was created. Because this guidance is general and the landscape is rapidly changing, land use planners, developers, and conservation professionals should continue to consult with FWP staff and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on plans and projects. In general, the wildlife value boundaries drawn on the map are located on identifiable landmarks for ease and logistics and the user should recognize that these boundaries are approximate, and that wildlife habitats and use do not necessarily change on that line. City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) This Community Plan is a fundamental policy document guiding further growth and community development in Bozeman. It sets forth Bozeman's future growth policy for land-use and development. The purpose of the Plan is to guide the City’s community planning and to evaluate and prioritize the City’s actions moving forward. It reflects the community’s shared values and priorities. The Plan is the City’s long-range growth policy that meets the statutory requirements of Section 76-1-601 of the Montana Code Annotated. This Plan helps guide residents, City staff, and elected officials’ decisions. It brings land use policy into larger community discussions on many issues addressed by the City. Its measure of success is a continuation of the Bozeman tradition— a flourishing, safe, healthy, and a vibrant place to live, work, and raise a family. Bozeman’s Planning Area is generally the area of the City’s future municipal water and sewer service boundary. It includes the City of Bozeman as well as a half-mile to two-mile area around the City in the Gallatin County jurisdictional area. Relevance to Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The plan includes two themes that correspond to the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: Theme 4 - “A City Influenced By Our Natural Environment, Parks, and Open Lands” • Our City is home to an outdoor-conscious population that honors and protects our natural environment and our well-managed open space and parks system. 84 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 5 Theme 7 - “A City Engaged in Regional Coordination” • Our City, in partnership with Gallatin County, Montana State University, and other regional authorities, desires to address the needs of a rapidly growing and changing regional population through strategic infrastructure choices and coordinated decision-making. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The plan includes an emphasis on identifying and expanding open space, parks, and trails; identifying, prioritizing, and preserving key wildlife habitat and corridors; and reducing the impacts to environmentally sensitive areas that contribute to water quality, wildlife corridors, or wildlife habitat. One of the primary goals of the plan is lessening or eliminating development in environmentally sensitive areas and/or preserving areas. The plan also includes a focus on working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to keep wetlands mitigation within the Gallatin Valley rather than locating to other watersheds. The plan considers floodplain regulations and mitigation efforts to minimize conflicts between humans and wildlife through the use of proactive, non-lethal measures. Considerations and coordination is aimed at the regional level. The plan attempts to keep rural areas rural by maintain a clear edge to urban development that evolves as the City expands outwards. Triangle Community Plan (2020) The intent of the plan is to coordinate land use development patterns, deliver community services and infrastructure, and protect important environmental resources, all in a manner that supports community values and vision while responding to rapid growth pressures. The plan boundary includes the Gallatin River to the West, Frontage Road to the North, Fowler Avenue to West Garfield Street to South 19th Avenue to the East, and Blackwood Road to Four Corners Water and Sewer District to the South. Relevance to Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: Relevant Project Goals: • Goal 4.1 - Provide a coherent land use pattern that is compact and contiguous, which maximizes infrastructure efficiency, protects open space and agriculture, and encourages mixed use centers with opportunities for multimodal transportation. • Goal 4.2 - Conserve and protect agricultural land and prime agricultural soils, and support local production of agricultural products. • Goal 4.3 - Create and preserve open space areas in order to support natural resource functions, community well-being, public health, and quality of life for residents. • Goal 4.9 – Support the function and maintain the connectivity of irrigation ditches and canals. • Goal 4.11 – Conserve, protect, and manage water quantity. Protect and manage water quality. • Goal 4.12 - Identify, conserve, and protect wetlands. • Goal 4.13 - Identify, conserve, and protect important fish and wildlife habitat. • Goal 4.14 - Continue efforts to inform residents about hazards and reduce impacts associated with those hazards. The Triangle Community Plan includes an emphasis on coordination and communication between the various jurisdictions is vital to maintaining administrative efficiency and quality of life for all residents in a rapidly changing landscape. This approach may be useful to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. 85 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 6 Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The plan focuses on protecting existing agricultural activities and encouraging new appropriate and compatible agriculture activities; encouraging development designs that integrate significant agricultural opportunities, such as cluster development, community gardens, or agrihoods; explores voluntary opportunities such as Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) and cluster development provisions in zoning codes that provide opportunities to extract value from agricultural lands or develop property while still providing opportunities for agricultural production; and supports conservation easements with an agricultural component as tools for protection and preservation of important agricultural lands. The plan supports opportunities to establish larger swaths of open space and parks instead of primarily relying on small parks from individual review of subdivisions; encourages connections between open space areas when feasible; offers opportunities for parkland dedication; and supports conservation easements as a way of preserving open space. The plan supports efforts to map ditch systems; maintains current and abandoned ditches for their functions as important water management systems and infiltration systems that support late season flows and shallow aquifer recharge; and maintains consistent standards for access, maintenance, and setbacks. The plan maintains floodplains, wetlands, and irrigation infrastructure, which all support the recharge of shallow groundwater aquifers and maintain late season flows; maintains current setback standards from irrigation infrastructure, wetlands, and watercourses; and encourages developments to employ Best Management Practices for projects along and adjacent to ditches, streams, and rivers in order to manage runoff of particulates, pollutants, and sediment into surface waters. The plan explores tools to identify sensitive wetland areas in order to prioritize protection; and avoids impacts to wetlands and encourage mitigation, as required from the Army Corps of Engineers, to be done within the Gallatin Watershed. The plan continues efforts to work with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to identify sensitive fish and wildlife habitat in the Triangle area in order to avoid and/or mitigate impacts from development on these resources; and continues to support conservation easements as a tool for preserving and protecting fish and wildlife habitat. The plan supports efforts to update floodplain maps to better assess risk; and maintains natural flood control by encouraging implementation of Floodplain Regulations and discouraging building structures in the 100-year floodplain. Envision Three Forks (2022) The plan focuses on the City of Three Forks and its surrounding rural lands. Using input from City residents, the plan aims to support the following principles: • Protect public health and safety • Respect private property rights • Guide development to suitable areas • Deliver services efficiently • Keep pace with the demand for new housing • Conserve agricultural resources and functions • Protect hydrological resources and functions • Protect the natural environment, including critical wildlife resources Develop and/or improve incentive mechanisms 86 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 7 The plan has nine total goals. Three goals are dedicated to each of the three focus areas: People, Economy, and Environment. • Our People Goal 1: Offer accessible housing for residents of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities. • Our People Goal 2: Preserve our small-town character and agricultural heritage. • Our People Goal 3: Increase access to services, education, healthcare, and cultural experiences. • Our Economy Goal 1: Enhance our beautiful and vibrant downtown. • Our Economy Goal 2: Increase access to living-wage jobs. • Our Economy Goal 3: Promote a diverse and resilient economy. • Our Environment Goal 1: Coexist with the natural water systems surrounding three forks. • Our Environment Goal 2: Preserve open space and natural lands. • Our Environment Goal 3: Support a healthy and active community. Relevance to Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The most relevant aspects of the plan include the environmental goals. These sections focus on coexisting with the natural water systems surrounding three forks, preserving open space and natural lands, and supporting a healthy and active community. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The plan prioritizes the floodplain mitigation project and work with property owners to implement the project, mitigating the amount and area of floodplain-affected properties and growth area within City boundaries; supports the relocation of structures within the 100-year floodplain zone; integrates stormwater management with an updated stormwater infrastructure plan; and adopts low impact development (LID) standards for development and promote the use of green infrastructure for stormwater filtration and the reduction of impermeable surfaces on a site. The plan supports clustered residential development to preserve open space; supports infill and strategic development over sprawl; and supports development that mitigates or avoids negative impacts to riparian areas and wildlife. The plan focuses on future dedication of trails, parks, and natural open spaces, and the connections between them. City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) Preparing for the continued and exacerbated effects of climate change, the City of Bozeman is taking a leading role to reduce key vulnerabilities of municipal facilities and build resilience in delivering its services. Building a resilient City is a continuous process of many collaborative and mutually supportive efforts, steps, and projects. Through the intentional plan development process and vulnerability assessment, the City has identified seven key resilience strategies with associated adaptation actions based on the impacts of climate change. Relevance to Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The plan includes potential climate vulnerabilities related to the plan. These include extreme heat, floods, drought & reduced mountain snowpack, wildfire, winter storms. 87 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 8 Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The potential climate vulnerabilities outlined in the plan (extreme heat, floods, drought & reduced mountain snowpack, wildfire, and winter storms) could inform the future level of sensitivity to lands and natural resources. The Climate Resiliency Strategy focused on how climate change may affect the vulnerability of municipal facilities, but this data may be applied to lands and natural resources. City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) The Bozeman City Commission adopted the Bozeman Climate Plan in 2020. The Climate Vision, as stated in the plan, is “Through leadership and collaboration, the City of Bozeman will advance innovative solutions to cultivate a more equitable and resilient low-carbon community for current and future generation. The Climate Plan builds off of the 2019 City of Bozeman Vulnerability Assessment and Resiliency Strategy and outlines bold emissions mitigation targets and accompanying resiliency goals. To reach these goals, the Climate Plan has 16 innovative, actionable solutions that are organized across the following six focus areas. 1. Healthy, Adaptive & Efficient Buildings 2. Responsible & Reliable Clean Energy Supply 3. Vibrant & Resilient Neighborhoods 4. Diverse & Accessible Transportation Options 5. Comprehensive & Sustainable Waste Reduction 6. Regenerative Greenspace, Food Systems, & Natural Environment Relevance to Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: Resiliency goals: Conserve natural resources, strengthen infrastructure to withstand natural hazards Solution N. Cultivate a Robust Local Food System 6.N.1. Support the Formation of a Local Food Council 6.N.2. Help Develop a Food System Assessment and Security Plan 6.N.3. Encourage Local Agriculture and Preservation of Working Lands 6.N.4. Support Local Food Production, Processing, and Distribution Solution O. Manage and Conserve Water Resources 6.O.1. Invest in Landscaping and Irrigation Upgrades at City Facilities 6.O.2. Build on the Success of Water Conservation Education and Incentives 6.O.3. Evaluate Additional Water Conservation Code and Water Rate Structure Adjustments Solution P. Manage Land and Resources to Sequester Carbon 6.P.1. Protect Local Wetlands for Flood Resilience and Water Quality 6.P.2. Maintain and Expand the Urban Forest 88 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 9 6.P.3. Enhance Greenspace and Carbon Sequestration for New Development 6.P.4. Provide Outreach on Water Pollution Prevention and Carbon Sequestration Strategies Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: The plan may inform sensitive lands related to resiliency. The potential solutions related to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan include Solutions N, O, and P (cultivate a robust local food system, manage, and conserve water resources, and manage land and resources to sequester carbon). City of Bozeman Parks, Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation (PRAT) Plan (2023 in progress) Overview – Section to be developed Relevance to Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: Key themes/sections of the plan that are relevant. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan: Identify anything that will be used in the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan or that can help support it (policies, actions, maps, datasets, etc.) Common Themes between Currently Adopted Plans The following table identify common themes and interconnectivity between plans for topics relevant to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. Common Themes Plans Managing and Conserving Water Resources Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Envision Three Forks (2022) Maintaining Agricultural Heritage Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Envision Three Forks (2022) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Support for increased development density Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Open Space Protection Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Envision Three Forks (2022) Parks Planning City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Thoughtful Infrastructure Planning Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Envision Three Forks (2022) City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) 89 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 10 Common Themes Plans Soil Health Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Air Quality Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Native Plants Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Fish and Wildlife Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Envision Three Forks (2022) Movement and Migration Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Recreational Opportunities Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Envision Three Forks (2022) Viewshed Protection Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Climate Change City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Regional Coordination Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Indigenous Involvement Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Protect Public Health and Safety Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Envision Three Forks (2022) Respect Private Property Rights Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Envision Three Forks (2022) Deliver Services Efficiently Envision Three Forks (2022) Vibrant & Resilient Neighborhoods Envision Three Forks (2022) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Healthy, Adaptive & Efficient Buildings City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Responsible & Reliable Clean Energy Supply Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Diverse & Accessible Transportation Options Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) Triangle Community Plan (2020) City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Comprehensive & Sustainable Waste Reduction City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) 90 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 11 Common Themes Plans City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Regenerative Greenspace, Food Systems, & Natural Environment Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) Triangle Community Plan (2020) City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) Conflicts between Currently Adopted Plans None of the currently adopted plans are directly in conflict with each other. However, all of the community plans/growth policies address a variety of topics to provide for a thriving community. Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021) The “opportunity” section of the plan has a greater focus on human development rather than a focus on the natural resources. The plan focuses on infrastructure, transportation networks, community services, settlement patterns, safety from man-made hazards, green building techniques, renewable energy, and diversity of housing options. City of Bozeman Community Plan (2020) There are sections in this plan that are more focused on human benefits/interactions with the environment. These topics include parks and recreation, public health, resource usage, water treatment, building standards, transportation, and climate change implications related to the built environment. The plan indicates that the improvement habitat, water quantity, and water quality will be evaluated while giving due consideration to the impact of City regulations on economic viability. There is potential that this consideration may overshadow the importance of natural resource protection. Triangle Community Plan (2020) The plan is focused on development, public health, resources use, transportation. These human-focused topics may detract from identifying and protecting sensitive lands. Envision Three Forks (2022) The plan is focused on public health and recreation. These human-focused topics may detract from identifying and protecting sensitive lands. City of Bozeman Climate Vulnerability Resiliency Strategy (2019) This plan is limiting in that it focuses on the impacts of climate change to Bozeman’s municipal facilities. City of Bozeman Climate Plan (2020) This plan is focused less on existing sensitive lands, and more on developing sustainable human infrastructure on the land. It focuses on the topics of building efficiency, clean energy, neighborhood resiliency, diverse and accessible transportation, waste reduction, and regenerative greenspace and food systems. City of Bozeman Parks, Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation (PRAT) Plan (2023 in progress) To be completed 91 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 12 Part 2: Publications for Consideration The publications and resources reviewed in this section were provided by the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Working Group. They were identified as sources of information that could be useful to inform the plan or provide data to include in the plan. Plan Year Adopted Critical Lands Study of Bozeman Area 1997, Not Formally Adopted Montana Department of Fish, the Wildlife and Park’s Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development 2012 Montana State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 USFS Custer Gallatin Forest Plan (2020) 2020 Online Publications by Montana Natural Heritage Program Long Range Plan for Gallatin County (2019- 2024) 2019-2024 MTFWP Comments on the Missoula Area Land Use Map and Land Use Element Review 2019 MSU Ecology Analysis 2022 Critical Lands Study of the Bozeman Area (1997) The Bozeman City-County Planning Board initiated the development of the Critical Lands Study as a supplement to the implementation of the 1983 Bozeman Area Master Plan. The overarching goal of the plan was to establish ways to protect the unique physical setting and environmental features in the Bozeman area. The objectives of the planning process were to identify aspects of the physical environment which present problems for development and/or have uniqueness or public value, include the public in the process, and develop the mechanisms which can provide the Bozeman community with a pattern of development that protects these valuable and unique resources in an economically sound manner. The study identified seven types of critical lands: wetlands; floodplains; rivers, streams, and ditches; groundwater aquifers and recharge zones; geologic constraints; farmland and open space; fish and wildlife habitat. For each critical land category the study contains information on functions and values, threats, regulations and programs in place to protect critical lands, goals and objectives, maps and location of the lands in the City-County planning jurisdiction, and protection options. Plan Conclusions The study concluded with next steps for the City and County to take to reach the goals and objectives of the study. In summary, the plan proposed: • Developing a new chapter in the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance titled Critical Lands Districts what would include regulations for development in or near identified critical lands. • Include in the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance provisions to allow purchase/transfer of development rights, cluster development, etc. 92 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 13 • Incorporate the requirement for a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan. • Initiation the process to develop a Bozeman Area Open Space Plan. • Adopt fire protection guidelines for the urban and wildland interface. • Support public education efforts • Work with non-profit organizations in the community to protect farmland and/or open space. Ultimately, the City of Bozeman did not adopt the plan and the proposed next steps were not put into action. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Data and information from the 1997 Bozeman Area Critical Lands study will not be directly utilized for the current Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. The plan was never adopted and put into action. The plan will be reviewed by the project team for possible implementation strategies that could be carried forward in light of this new planning effort. Montana Department of Fish, the Wildlife and Park’s Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development (2012) The MDFWP recommendations for subdivision development were developed for use by FWP biologists, local governments, and developers to generate an open discussion on the implementation of consistent fish and wildlife conservation recommendations for subdivision development in Montana. The recommendations are designed to help guide fish and wildlife professionals, and to help inform municipal and county leaders and land developers. The recommendations were compiled by knowledgeable biologists and planners who have drawn from the best available science of wildlife biology and land use planning. Specific topics for recommendations include the subdivision application and review process, conservation of water bodies, big game winter range, public hunting, human/bear conflicts, native vegetation communities, and Species of Concern. Plan Conclusions The plan provides seven recommendations specific to the sub-division planning process in Montana. These recommendations are summarized in the following bullets: 1. Developers planning to sub-divide land in Montana should consult with MTFWP biologists and land use specialists prior to selecting a site for development so that developers can fully understand and consider key habitat issues that may be associated with proposed subdivision development at a particular location. 2. Developer should utilize public domain fish and wildlife information sources and the Fish and Wildlife Information Checklist provided in the plan appendices. Specific reference to the MTFWP Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS) for use as a sitting tool is also recommended. 3. Local municipalities should consider making the Fish and Wildlife Information Checklist a required element of a sub-division development application. 4. Local municipalities and developers should use the Fish and Wildlife Impact Assessment (FWIA) tool for addressing local Environmental Assessment requirements. In addition, municipalities and developers should use the Summary of Probable Impacts (SPI) guidance when addressing the local SPI requirements. 5. Local municipalities should consider including in local subdivision regulations a set of science-based development design standards for conserving important fish and wildlife resources. 6. For local municipalities that do include science-based development design standards in local subdivision planning, consider establishing a process where developers have the option to propose alternatives to the adopted standards. 7. Local municipalities should consider the detailed recommended design standards provided in the plan when updating local sub-division regulations and considering development applications. Developers should consider these recommended design standards as guidance when sitting and designing proposed projects. 93 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 14 Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Recommendations for subdivision development related to habitat conservation may be considered for inclusion in the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. The recommended MTFWP CAPS tool does not appear to be available online currently, although it may have been incorporated into other statewide or regional planning tools since 2012. During the recommendations phase of this planning effort, the project team will identify gaps/opportunities to integrate these recommendations into local land use codes. Montana State Wildlife Action Plan (2015) The Montana State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) identifies wildlife and plant species that are in the greatest need of conservation effort and provides rationale for funding through grant applications to implement conservation actions and programs intended to maintain sustainable native populations and habitats statewide. The SWAP also serves as the required supporting documentation for Montana FWP to participate in the federal State Wildlife Grant funding program ratified by congress in 2000. The Montana SWAP identifies priority community types, Focal Areas, and species to inform FWP’s priorities and decisions and to assist other agencies and organizations in making decisions on where to focus their conservation efforts and funding. Plan Conclusions The Montana SWAP identifies three tiers of terrestrial communities for prioritization of conservation efforts. Community types identified as the highest priority (Tier I) include floodplains, riparian areas, wetlands, and open water due to the level of biodiversity supported by wet landscapes in Montana. Other community types that support a high percentage of species diversity identified as Tier I include alpine grasslands and shrublands, conifer dominated forest and woodlands (both mesic and xeric types), deciduous shrublands, prairie grasslands, montane grasslands, scrub and dwarf shrublands, and sagebrush steppe. The Madison River is the only intermountain river located within the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan study area identified in the SWAP as a Tier I community type. All smaller streams within the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan study area are identified as Tier I priority areas. Aquatic Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) associated with this community include Artic Grayling, Bull Trout, Columbia River Redband Trout, Lake Trout, Northern Redbelly Dace, Pygmy Whitefish, Torrent Sculpin, Westslope Cutthroat Trout, and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout. The Montana SWAP identifies the Shields River watershed as an aquatic focal area for its unfragmented Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout population in the Yellowstone River Basin. This area is located adjacent to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan study area. No terrestrial focal areas are identified within the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan study area. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Aquatic and terrestrial community type and species designations should be considered for use in the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan for consistency in terminology between state and local planning efforts and spatial data consistency. USFS – Custer Gallatin Forest Plan (2020) The Custer Gallatin National Forest (CGNF) includes over 3 million acres in Montana and the northwest corner of South Dakota. Geographic areas within the CGNF that are located within or adjacent to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan study area include the northern Gallatin Mountains, the Southern Bridgers Mountains, and the southern Bangtails Mountains. The CGNF Land Management Plan (LMP) sets the overall context for informed decision making by evaluating and integrating social, economic, and ecological considerations relevant to management of the national forest. Areas of specific direction included in the LMP center around identifying priority watersheds for maintenance and restoration, identifying geographic areas that may require special management decisions, and 94 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 15 providing management direction for the multiple uses and ecological and social resources within the CGNF with the ultimate goal of long-term sustainability. Plan Conclusions The CGNF LMP does not provide specific conclusions or approvals for management actions. The LMP does provide information on forest wide goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and desired conditions for ecological resources within the national forest planning area. Desired conditions describe the overall vision for the CGNF and other plan components (goals, objectives, standards, guidelines) provide guidance on how the USFS and partners may achieve those conditions. The LMP acknowledges that some of the desired conditions may require several decades or longer to achieve but also notes that the NF must move forward and make progress towards achieving these conditions. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Baseline information and desired conditions for specific geographic areas within or adjacent to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan study area should be considered for inclusion (or acknowledgement) in the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. Although the USFS central objective is to manage the lands and resources under its administrative control in a manner that promotes long-term sustainability of all valued resources, the USFS multiple use mandate may result in some currently approved uses being in conflict with the long-term goals of the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. These potential conflicts should be discussed and identified in the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan in order to develop potential solutions that may bring both plans into alignment. Long Range Plan for Gallatin County (2019-2024) The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Gallatin County Long Range Conservation Strategy provides an overview of Gallatin County geography, ecology, climate, and resource information and concerns. Resource concerns are divided into seven categories including Soil, Water, Plants, Animals, Air, Energy, and Human. Plan Conclusions One important conclusion identified in the strategy is that over the past several decades the economic benefits realized by agricultural producers in the county has fluctuated significantly due to volatility in commodities markets. This volatility has generally led to the subdivision and development of agricultural lands becoming a more stable and profitable way of life for agricultural landowners. Also identified in the strategy is the fact that since 2001, agricultural farming is the only employment sector in the county that has experienced an overall loss of jobs. Even with this volatility in agricultural production and overall decline in farming employment, Gallatin County continues to be one of the most stable Montana counties economically due to the presence of Montana State University, the United States Department of Agriculture offices in Bozeman, and a consistent tourism sector driven by the proximity to Yellowstone National Park and multiple world-class winter recreation areas. The strategy also provides an excellent overview of land use and resource related issues within Gallatin County. Each land use/resource is addressed in a concise manner and highlights the main concern related to each type of area. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan The Sensitive Lands Protection Plan should consider referencing the Long-Range Strategy document and/or incorporating and updating the resource concerns overview. 95 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 16 MTFWP Comments on the Missoula Area Land Use Map and Land Use Element Review (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2019) In late December 2018 and early January 2019, biologists and managers with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) met in Missoula to discuss the Missoula Area Land Use Map and Element and provide recommendations to Missoula County to accommodate fish and wildlife as the City of Missoula expands. Plan Conclusions MTFWP provides several detailed recommendations on approaches to sustaining fish and wildlife populations in the Missoula area. Among these are three overarching themes to guide responsible development in the Missoula Valley: 1. Protection and enhancement of stream corridors and associated riparian areas that are the most ecologically important and imperiled habitats for fish and wildlife species in western Montana. 2. Protection of important grassland habitats that are relatively rare in western Montana but provide critical resources for game and nongame wildlife communities, many of which are declining in North America. 3. Accommodation of geographic funnels and terrain features (e.g., riparian corridors, ridgelines, timbered draws, passes) that naturally guide wildlife to certain areas in harsh weather conditions and during seasonal movements and migrations. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan General landscape scale recommendations provided by MTFWP on the Missoula Land Use Map are highly relevant to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan and should be considered for update and inclusion. Site specific recommendations are not applicable to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan and do not need to be considered for inclusion. MSU Ecology Analysis (2022) MSU Professor Andy Hansen et al. have developed a Biodiversity Conservation Priority Index (BCPI) based on ecological value and risk of habitat loss for remaining areas of natural vegetation cover (NVC) in the northwestern United States. This work seeks to address two questions: (1) Which remaining NVC on private lands is the highest priority for biodiversity conservation based on ecological value and risk of development? And (2) are conservation easements in NVC placed preferentially in locations of high biodiversity conservation priority? The approach integrates five metrics of ecological structure, function, and composition to quantify ecological value of NVC. Ecological metrics include net primary productivity, species richness, ecosystem type representation, imperiled species range rarity, and connectivity among “Greater Wildland Ecosystems”. Plan Conclusions High BCPI values were associated with suburban and rural development, roads, urban proximity, valley bottom landforms, and low intensity of current development within the study area. Existing conservation easements were observed to be distributed more towards lower BCPI value areas than unprotected NVC at both the study area and region scales. Integration into Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan The results of this study and model are relevant to the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan and should be considered for inclusion. 96 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 17 Part 3: Implementation Tools Existing Code and Regulations Gallatin County Zoning Regulations Zoning regulations are adopted in conformity with the Growth Policy to the greatest extent possible under existing Montana State law. The County currently has 22 different Zoning Districts. Zoning may regulate various components of development or impacts from development, including building setbacks, building height, density, use, landscaping, and other standards and provisions. The recently adopted Growth Policy calls for the update of Zoning Regulations, creation of a Future Land Use map, update of the Floodplain Management Ordinance, updates of the subdivision regulations to be consistent with the goals and policies. Bozeman Code The Unified Development Code update for Bozeman is in progress. The current code has significant direction in place to protect sensitive lands in the city limits with applicable setbacks, watercourse protections, etc. Funding Sources, Partnerships, and Conservation Tools Gallatin County Open Lands Tax & Program In 2018 Gallatin County voters passed the Open Space Levy that allows an up to 4.5 mills for open space conservation, with .5 being transferred to parks fund for capital improvements and maintenance. Conservation Projects (3.25 mills) are projects related to the purchase of land and conservation easements to conserve farm and ranch lands, provide recreation, protect water quality of streams and rivers, manage growth, protect wildlife areas, and Other Eligible Projects (0.75 mills) are those capital improvements and maintenance projects that support the purpose of the open space levy and are eligible for funding under the Levy. “The Gallatin County Open Lands Board seeks to preserve open space lands for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The diverse acreage includes rich agriculture lands, serene mountain settings, parks, unique wildlife habitats, streams and lakes, historic areas and trail corridors. A prime goal of the Open Space Program is to preserve and enhance the County's uniqueness -- its striking mountain vistas, rolling agriculture plains, fish-filled streams and abundant wildlife.” In 2022, the Open Space Mill Levy collected nearly $1.8 million in revenue from property taxes. The mill levy’s supports open land projection through funding conservation easements by project applicants. The County Open Lands Program has provided funding to conserve 50,000 acres of open space in the County, across 58 conservation easement. The County manages a 100-acre regional open space in Bozeman. Gallatin Valley Land Trust & Montana Land Reliance The GLVT and Montana Land Reliance work with Gallatin County Open Lands to conserve areas in Gallatin Valley, and beyond, through conservation easements. Funds from the Gallatin County Open Lands tax are provided to these non-profits through the application process. Recent projects include conserving a nearly 800-acre bison ranch and 300 acres of grain and hay operations. GVLT Mission: Gallatin Valley Land Trust connects people, communities, and open lands through conservation of working farms and ranches, healthy rivers, and wildlife habitat, and the creation of trails in the Montana headwaters of the Missouri and Upper Yellowstone Rivers. Montana Land Reliance Mission: The Montana Land Reliance partners with private landowners to permanently protect agricultural lands, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space. 97 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 18 Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances https://www.fws.gov/service/candidate-conservation-agreements-assurances#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20CCAA%3F,become%20candidates%20in%20the%20future. The Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances program started in 2005 by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. A CCAA is a voluntary agreement that provides incentives for non-federal landowners to conserve candidate and other unlisted species likely to become candidates in the future. For the length of the agreement, landowners agree to undertake specific activities that address the identified threats to the target species. In return for the participant’s voluntary conservation action(s), the Service issues an Enhancement of Survival Permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. The permit, which goes into effect if the covered species is later listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, provides assurances that, if the species is subsequently listed and no other changes have occurred, the Service will not require the permittee to conduct any additional conservation measures without consent. Additionally, the permit authorizes a specific level of incidental take of the covered species, should listing occur. The agreements created site-specific conservation plans tailor made to mesh with a rancher’s operation to protect riparian habitat, improve in-stream flows, protect fish passage, and keep fish from being lost in irrigation ditches. In return, ranchers who signed onto the program received peace of mind knowing they’d be protected should a judge decide that Arctic grayling belong on the endangered species list. Today, there are over 30 ranching families involved in the program that’s been instrumental in doubling grayling populations and improving riparian habitat for dozens of other native species. University of Montana Voter Survey on Public Lands https://crown-yellowstone.umt.edu/voter-surveys/2022/ The 2022 Voter Survey on Public Lands was commissioned by the University’s Crown of the Continent and Greater Yellowstone Initiative (COCGYI). The biannual survey has tracked opinions of likely voters in Montana since 2014 and seeks to understand how residents think about public land and natural resource issues. Some survey findings include: “Bipartisan consensus for wildlife corridors and enhanced conservation funding According to the survey, protecting wildlife migration corridors is a popular bipartisan priority. Eighty seven percent of Montana voters support constructing more wildlife crossing structures, 86% support providing incentives to landowners to conserve private lands, and 81% support managing larger blocks of public lands as wildlife habitat. The survey also finds very strong bipartisan support for continuing to direct tax revenue from the sale of recreational marijuana toward conservation programs administered by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Eighty-two percent of voters say the state Legislature should continue using recreational marijuana taxes to support wildlife conservation, create public access and maintain state parks and trails. Continued support for public land protection As in past years, the 2022 survey finds cross-party support for several citizen-initiated efforts to protect public lands. These proposals require Congressional approval and include: • More voters than ever, 83%, support the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act to expand protections on public lands adjacent to the Bob Marshall Wilderness. • 77% of voters support a proposal to protect a Wilderness Study Area in the Gallatin Range near Yellowstone National Park. • 71% of voters support the Lincoln Prosperity Proposal to increase protections on national forest lands, boost recreation opportunities and promote forest restoration near the town of Lincoln. This year’s survey also finds strong support for some national strategies aiming to protect public and private lands. For instance, 98 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 19 78% of voters support the president’s ability to protect existing public lands as national monuments, and 66% of voters support the America the Beautiful Initiative, a national policy that seeks to conserve 30% of America’s land and 30% of its oceans by the year 2030. Finally, when it comes to management of public lands, 79% of voters say it’s important for Native American tribes to have a stronger role in decisions that impact public lands when they are sacred or historically important to tribes.” Legislative Initiatives Farm Bill The farm bill, renewed every five years, is the federal government’s main package of legislation for agriculture and food policy. Tucked inside this critical bill are numerous conservation programs that spur healthier habitat, cleaner water, and more sustainable landscapes and provide a lifeline to fish and wildlife. The conservation provisions of the Farm Bill provide billions of dollars a year for voluntary conservation of soil, water, and wildlife habitat on private lands through delivery of financial and technical assistance to our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and non-industrial forest landowners. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide technical assistance in the development, implementation and evaluation of Farm Bill conservation programs and initiatives to meet shared conservation goals. Many of the programs are outlined here: https://www.trcp.org/farm-bill/ Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (Proposed) The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will allow the states, territories, and tribes to invest $1.4 billion annually in proactive, on-the-ground, collaborative efforts to help species at risk by restoring habitat, controlling invasive species, reconnecting migration routes, addressing emerging diseases, and more. The bill will: • Provide state and territorial wildlife agencies with $1.3B annually so they can implement their federally-approved Wildlife Action Plans. • Invest $97.5M annually in the wildlife conservation efforts led by Tribal Nations. • Allot 10% of dedicated annual funds towards the implementation of a competitive grants program aimed at fostering regional cooperation among states. • Leverage funds from state agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations to boost the power of federal conservation spending. • Provide greater regulatory certainty for industry and private partners by conserving species and avoiding the need to list them under the Endangered Species Act. Empower wildlife professionals to hold the nation’s wildlife in the public trust for generations to come by providing state and tribal agencies with the flexibility to conserve populations in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Part 4: Existing Sensitive Lands Models covering the Gallatin Valley Study Area See formatted PDF 99 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 20 Part 5: Models/Program Case Study Review Five case studies related to landscape level conservation models and programs from other areas were reviewed. Each case study highlights constituents that were involved, challenges the model/study was addressing, the impact of the model, and the overall model methodology. Case studies that warrant further evaluation to analyze how their program worked, or did not work, could be followed up with program managers interviews to assist in discussion of preliminary recommendations, including funding and implementation steps (code, etc.). Case Study One: Lake Chelan WA Community Open Space Vision (A Trust for Public Land Greenprint) Who prepared the model? • The Trust for Public Land GIS and Planning Unit  What other constituents were involved in its creation? • Core team included staff from Chelan-Douglas Land Trust, the Lake Chelan Trails Alliance, the City of Chelan, and TPL. • Technical Advisory Team – experts in the areas of focus for the plan including recreation, fish and wildlife, trail design, DNR, USFS, public utilities, and more (p. 50 in the report). The Technical Advisory Team of local experts provided strategic advice on data collection and modeling. • The report also lists others that were interviewed (p. 49) and participated in community meetings. • Overall, they reported engaging with over 1,000 people through a mix of engagement strategies including speak-outs, community meetings, ground truthing, interviews and community surveys.  What answer or problem what is the model attempting to elucidate? • To create a shared vision for land protection and stewardship. • They developed a shared mission statement: “To steward our valley’s open spaces in ways that improve access, protect environmental quality, and enhance the vitality of residents and visitors.” • Top open space goals identified during stakeholder and community outreach: 1. Protect water quality; 2. Promote community health through increasing access to trails, parks, and the lake; 3. Protect wildlife habitat; and 4. Preserve agricultural land.  What was the impact or long-term outcome of the model? • The constituents identified potential funding mechanisms (p. 42) and implementation ideas (p. 43) including working with willing landowners for voluntary land protection, develop new trails and improve existing, improve the park, recreation and open space plan, promote low impact development and green infrastructure, develop education programs, strategies to reduce lake pollution and more. • There is an online decision support tool here. • The plan was completed in March 2018. Follow-up is required with members of the core team to understand outcomes since 2018. I would recommend following up with the Chelan-Douglas Land Trust first.  Is the methodology described, and can you reference any publications? • The GIS team from TPL worked with community meeting participants and a technical advisory team to create maps for each of the open space goals listed above and an overall map combining the goals. Through analyzing and modeling spatial data, regional priorities were translated into objective metrics, and maps highlighting the areas where voluntary land conservation and public land management strategies could best meet community goals. • Detailed data matrix is here. It describes the base data used and is organized by priority goal and overall priorities map with detailed methodology descriptions for each criteria model. • The general project approach methodology can be inferred from the report. 100 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 21 Case Study Two: The Intertwine - Regional Conservation Strategy for the greater Portland- Vancouver Region  Who prepared the model? • The Intertwine Alliance—a broad coalition of public, civic, private, and nonprofit organizations dedicated to building a world-class system of parks, trails, and natural areas. The Intertwine Alliance was formed in 2009 to ensure that the region’s network of parks, trails, and natural areas is completed and cared for, and to help the region’s residents connect with nature and live active, healthy lives  What other constituents were involved in its creation? • A number of lead partners and other partners are listed on the website.  What answer or problem what is the model attempting to elucidate? • The Intertwine vision calls for the creation of “a bi-state regional biodiversity recovery and management plan that would, among other goals, identify significant natural areas for acquisition and protection, develop innovative strategies to conserve the region’s natural resources, and ensure that large and small refugia are interconnected in every neighborhood and watershed in the region.” • The vision calls for specific outcomes that would result in the protection of a diversity of habitat types, plants, and animals across the urban and rural landscape; acquisition, restoration, and management of habitat connectivity for fish and wildlife; and long-term protection of the ecological integrity of streams, wetlands, rivers, and floodplains. • They also include access to nature, climate change issues and development pressures.  What was the impact or long-term outcome of the model? • The desired outcomes of The Intertwine vision are as follows: o Ensure that the diversity of habitat types, plants, and animals is protected, conserved, and restored across the region’s urban and rural landscapes. o Acquire, protect, conserve, and manage functional habitat connectivity for wildlife (e.g., corridors, landscape permeability) and create connections between habitat areas. o Control invasive plant, animal, and aquatic species and reestablish native species. o Create a healthy urban forest canopy that contributes to improvements in stormwater management and air quality. o Maintain the long-term ecological integrity of streams, wetlands, rivers, and floodplains, including their biological, physical, and social values. • They are using the plan to make the case for Federal funding though it’s difficult to find statistics on exactly how much has resulted from the use of the plan. • They are using the plan to support local ballot and dedicated funding sources: https://www.theintertwine.org/endorsements-november-2022-ballot with the goal to create 1 billion in funding by 2024 for parks, open space, conservation and restoration.  Is the methodology described, and can you reference any publications? • Chapter 3 in the Regional Conservation Strategy for Greater Portland-Vancouver Region describes the integration of many Federal, state, local and organization –driven plans into this overarching plan. • The data, tools, and maps come from the Biodiversity Guide for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region, a companion guide to the overall conservation plan. The Biodiversity Guide includes mapping and GIS modeling completed specifically for this project and provides important tools for conservation practitioners and decision makers: a narrative that describes the composition and patterns of biodiversity across the region, a land cover map at a scale suitable for analysis of urban and near-urban areas, and a data-driven GIS model of conservation priority areas. • An important benefit of the planning approach is the flexibility to analyze data at any scale, from the 3,000-squaremile region to the local and neighborhood scales. • The Biodiversity and Riparian habitat model approach is described in Appendix B on page 171 and is the most useful in describing the GIS methodology. They used a raster-based analysis format to map and analyze the region as square pixels in a rectangular grid. Each pixel was scored uniquely based on the 101 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 22 science-based criteria. They included a high-resolution (5-meter) regional land cover map and data on wetlands, bodies of water, food plains, soil types, and roads. • The interactive map viewer, data and documentation can be found here and was created by GreenInfo Network, a CA-based GIS organization. Case Study Three: Roaring Fork (CO) Watershed Biodiversity and Connectivity Study  Who prepared the model? • Colorado Natural Heritage Program  What other constituents were involved in its creation? • Watershed Biodiversity Initiative and science team members from organizations, federal, state and local agencies – list in Appendix A on page 76 here. • They are collaborating with local constituents and funders. Funders included Pitkin County, EPA, Town of Aspen and Carbondale.  What answer or problem what is the model attempting to elucidate? • Declines in elk, mule deer, big horn sheep and other common species in the watershed • They wanted a science-based approach to identify areas to protect or restore to improve biodiversity with a landscape perspective. The Roaring Fork watershed is almost 930,000 acres and houses 32,000 people.  What was the impact or long-term outcome of the model? • The study was just completed in 2022 but the intended outcomes are to use the decision support tool and maps to identify conservation and restoration opportunities on public and private lands, engage the community to support conservation actions and minimize conflicts and support collaborative conservation and public/private partnerships.  Is the methodology described, and can you reference any publications? • The took a unique approach and framed the study around key focal species that were in decline (elk, mule deer and big horn sheep) because their habits are the most threatened and protecting those lands could meet multiple biodiversity and connectivity objectives for many species. From the report: “Also, there was the thought among Project and Science Teams that, by identifying high quality, well-connected areas across the multiple habitat types used by these wide-ranging species, habitats important to many other species would be included as well.” • The key analyses and mapped outputs (models) of the study were 1) Habitat Quality for elk, mule deer, and bighorn, and 2) Conservation Importance—critical areas for focal species as well as other biodiversity values, culminating in 3) Conservation and Restoration Priorities across the landscape (See page 8 of the report for methods overview). • Study design is outlined on p. 23 of the report. Case Study Four: Santa Cruz County (CA) Conservation Blueprint  Who prepared the model? • Santa Cruz Land Trust with extensive input and support of partners  What other constituents were involved in its creation? • Two teams (referenced on p. ix): o Planning Team: Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Bay Area Open Space Council, and consultants o Technical and Planning Analysis Team that advised on the model: UC Davis Hopland Research and Extension Center; UC Berkeley Cooperative Extension; Creekside Center for Earth Observation; Green Info Network; MIG Inc., and other consultants • Funders are listed on page ix • Constituents are listed on pages x to xi.  What answer or problem what is the model attempting to elucidate? 102 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 23 • Conservation challenges in water shortages and pollution, habitat loss and fragmentation, climate change, and threats to the viability of local agriculture. • The goal was to identify strategies and specific actions to achieve four conservation goals in 1) biodiversity, 2) water resources, 3) working lands, and 4) recreation and healthy communities. • A key goal was to design a network of conservation lands that could build upon the existing protected lands (Conservation Lands Network Model).  What was the impact or long-term outcome of the model? • It will serve as a strategic tool over the next 25 years for the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County to 1) make informed conservation choices and investments; 2) enhance cooperation and coordination; 3) accelerate the pace and effective ness of conservation and 4) better position the County and region for state, federal, and private funding for land protection and resource stewardship. It is also to serve as a resource for conservation partners, non-profit organizations, landowners, and other community constituents to collaboratively advance conservation efforts. • The model identified nine multi-benefit conservation areas within the county (Figure ES1 on page xvi) that met the selection criteria and were most likely to contribute to multiple goals across the four conservation areas. These multi-benefit areas were prioritized based on four criteria: 1) scale of conservation impact and multiple conservation benefits; 2) challenges/threats; 3) opportunities/funding; and 4) ecosystem integrity and long-term stewardship. These are discussed in further detail on page 35.  Is the methodology described, and can you reference any publications? • Biodiversity planning process and methodology is located on page 48 while strategies are discussed on page 86. An overlay analysis was used with elements described on page 82. Conservation lands network methodology is described on page 65. Habitat connectivity analysis objectives are described on page 69. Climate change resilience strategies are described on page 78. • Water resource conservation goals are described on page 121. Water quality monitoring and interactive websites are listed on page 115. • Working Lands conservation criteria and goals are listed on pages 143 – 144. • Recreation and Healthy Community goals are listed on page 151 and criteria on page 162. • Appendix B is where Conservation Lands Network Model is described in more technical detail. It is summarized on page B-1 and was developed with the aid of Marxan, a computer program that has been utilized in conservation planning projects worldwide. Vegetation data sources used are outlined in Table B-2. Vegetation rarity categories were created. Fine filter data sources are outlined in Table B-4. Landscape units, planning units, and suitability and cost are described. Section B-6 discusses model parameters and settings followed by analysis and solution. • Appendix C discusses the Habitat connectivity analysis. • Appendix D outlined developed and protected lands in the Bay Area. Case Study Five: Bainbridge Island (WA) Conservation Plan and Update  Who prepared the model? • Bainbridge Island Land Trust (WA)  What other constituents were involved in its creation? • Listed on page 9 of the report linked above – a small set of constituents from the City of Seattle, University of WA, and consulting firms  What answer or problem what is the model attempting to elucidate? • The 2018 Conservation Plan Update is designed to build upon, not replace the 2012 BILT Conservation Plan, and refine the strategic initiatives for protection and restoration endeavors. In the 2012 plan, BILT recognized that the supply of conservation lands and habitats on Bainbridge Island was diminishing due to the continued press of development and land use patterns. In 2018, these concerns remain and are heighted due to population growth in the Puget Sound area and on Bainbridge Island. With a sense 103 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 24 of urgency and the need to focus efforts, the 2012 Plan identified two priority ecological systems worthy of our increased attention and action. As BILT worked to update our conservation priorities for now and the future, these priorities remain our focus wildlife networks and shoreline habitats.  What was the impact or long-term outcome of the model? • Many successes from the 2012 modeling process outlined on page 4 of the report and include: acquisition of large sections of land in the core area of the island (fee and easement), expanded protected lands around a nature preserve, shoreline restoration and public/private partnerships for land protection and management. • The Conservation Value Index model, described below, is used by the land trust to evaluate land protection opportunities and to strategically identify landowners for outreach and partnership purposes.  Is the methodology described, and can you reference any publications? • They performed a suitability analysis described mainly on page 27 and they called it a Conservation Value Index (CVI). They divided the island into a very fine grid and assigned each grid cell points based on each of the resource values that fall within it. Then the points for each of these resource layers can be added to give a cumulative score for each cell. A place with a high concentration of resources, such as wetlands, streams, rare species’ nests, and adjacent to an already-protected area, will show as a cluster of cells with high scores. For a parcel, the cell values could be summed across the area, or an average could be used to compare the value of one vs. another. • Descriptions and scores assigned to resource values can be found in the tables starting on page 28. Part 6: Example ArcHub Site Review A key task as part of this planning effort is to develop and work within a website platform that provides interactive mapping tools along with community outreach capabilities, document libraries, and the plan executive summary. ESRI’s ArcHub platform was chosen as the primary project website. Example ArcHub sites are provided below: https://www.californianature.ca.gov/ - Looks like a traditional website but it is entirely built in ArcGIS Hub. Multiple layers and data. Great organization, layout, and components. https://nwpark-cityofhoboken.opendata.arcgis.com/ - Intuitive layout and design - sleek, high-quality graphics, simple in design and engaging. Focused on a single park but could imagine how a similar organizing approach could be applied to a planning process. https://strategic-plan-ral.opendata.arcgis.com/ - Good example and layout for organizing a hub around a municipal/city strategic plan. Fairly dense but key elements from the comprehensive and other plans are made more accessible to the general public and partners through condensed narrative, graphs, charts, videos and maps. https://tenminwalk-lynnwoodwa.hub.arcgis.com/ - An example of an “initiative-based” hub. Linked to other sites and resources, give plenty of information on how to get involved, interactive maps, and more. https://coloradoriverbasin-lincolninstitute.hub.arcgis.com/ - An example of a “data portal” hub that is focused on making geospatial data, maps, and apps accessible to all-in-one location. This hub is based on a topic – the CO River Basin – and water issues. It was created by the Lincoln Institute to make data available from a story map that was previously created called “The Hardest Working River in the West”. They got over 40,000 hits on the story map and people asking for the data behind it, so the answer was to create a hub to deliver that data. https://downtown-energize-kentlands-symgeo.hub.arcgis.com/ - Focused on surveys right up front. Simple, sleek and has good graphics. 104 Gallatin Sensitive Lands Literature, Policy, and Case Study Review 25 https://ddot-urban-forestry-dcgis.hub.arcgis.com/ - A more complicated hub site but shows how it can be used to support a city’s tree program. It is a one stop shop for residents to learn about DC tree processes for permitting, planting, cutting down, etc. and includes a lot of multi-media like videos and interactive maps. 105 CONSTITUENT INTERVIEW SUMMARY Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan | Constituent Interview Summary 1 Draft January 20, 2023 Introduction As part of the community engagement process for the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan, the planning team conducted one-on-one interviews to gather valuable feedback from constituents regarding goals, challenges, opportunities, and values in the Gallatin Valley. The purpose of these conversations was to: • Start a dialogue with local and regional partners • Stimulate community-wide interest in the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan • Solicit candid feedback from those who know the Gallatin Valley best • Identify initial themes, opportunities, local values, and future visions and goals for the Gallatin Valley This summary outlines the questions asked and summarizes the feedback gathered. It does not represent a consensus and includes some opposing views and ideas. While the summary reflects a wide spectrum of ideas, agencies, and input, it may not reflect every idea in the Valley; there will be room for additional participation and input on ideas as the project moves forward. Methodology To date, a total of 52 people have been contacted for an interview. A total of 23 individuals were interviewed by phone/video conference in December 2022 and January 2023. These one-on-one discussions were held with members of the community representing a board array of interests. Completed interviews included members of the following organizations: • Craighead Institution • Gallatin County Government • US Forest Service • National Park Service • US Fish and Wildlife • Montana State University • Audubon Society • Gallatin Wildlife Association • Montana Freshwater Partners • HoloScene Wildlife Services • Sundog Ecological • Montana Outdoor Science School • Save the Gallatin Front • Gallatin Yellowstone Wilderness Alliance • Gallatin Watershed Council 106 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan | Constituent Interview Summary 2 • Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators • Gallatin County Board of Commissioners • Indigenous knowledge holders • Bozeman High School AP Environmental Science students • Landowners How Will this Information Be Used? The findings from the one-on-one interviews set the foundation for ongoing research and values analysis by revealing the most pressing issues to be addressed in the planning process. The key themes will be added to and compared to input provided through a study area-wide statistically valid survey, Working Group conversations, and public open house meetings. The candid conversations with community members also provide context and insights to issues otherwise not formally documented. These initial conversations are not representative of all perspectives in the Gallatin Valley and broad community engagement will continue to be a priority throughout the planning process. Key Quotes “My big concern in the Valley is that wildlife has nowhere to go.” “The Gallatin Valley has a lot of wildlife and wild lands. There’s access to clean water, clean air, and the freedom to go where we want to.” “Healthy nature means a healthy humanity.” “Europe has lost all of their wildlife and their open space. In some places in Europe, they are trying to restore and ‘rewild’ the landscape… We still have all of our natural resources. We don’t have to rewild anything yet. But if we don't hang on to what we have, we'll have to do it later.” “Water is obviously essential for everyone. It's essential for the wildlife. It's essential for the people who live here, and certainly for the agricultural community.” “This plan is needed around here before it all disappears.” “If we can plan our future, it will probably be a lot better than if we don’t plan it.” Summarized Feedback The following sections summarizes the feedback from all one-on-one interviews into broad topics. Topic 1 – Wildlife • Constituents emphasized the importance of considering both wildlife and wildlife habitat as key aspects of sensitive resources. • Constituents noted that the wildland urban interface (WUI) should be considered for wildlife. • Constituents identified the importance of migration corridors and habitat connectivity. 107 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan | Constituent Interview Summary 3 • Some constituents noted the importance of wildlife passages (over/under) for key highway crossings, such as concerns about wildlife being killed in car accidents along key areas of Highway 191. • Some constituents identified bird diversity as an important factor for wildlife values. • Some constituents identified ungulates (moose, mule deer, elk, pronghorn) as an important wildlife focus. • Some constituents identified endangered species (grizzly bear, lynx, hopefully soon wolverine) as an important wildlife focus. • Some constituents identified predators (wolves, mountain lions) as an important wildlife focus. • Some constituents identified Native fish (cutthroat, suckers, or whitefish) as an important wildlife focus. • Some constituents identified beaver as an important wildlife focus. • Some constituents identified bison as a future species for restoration consideration. • Some constituents expressed concern about a rapidly decreasing winter range habitat for species (e.g., elk). • Some constituents expressed concern about an increase in chronic wasting disease as concentrations of elk increase. • Some constituents highlighted the habitat interface of forest and grasslands as a key area for productive wildlife habitat. • Some constituents highlighted the foothills as productive wildlife habitat. • Some constituents noted the importance of assemblages of diverse habitats. • Some constituents expressed concern about the impact of recreation trails and dogs on wildlife. • Some constituents noted that trail corridors provide valuable corridors for wildlife to travel at night. • Some constituents noted the importance of building setbacks that allow wildlife space from development. • Some constituents noted the importance of wildlife habitat for wildlife of all sizes. • Some constituents noted the importance of protecting high ridges for wildlife movement and scenic qualities. • Some constituents noted the importance of focusing restoration efforts exclusively on areas with high wildlife values. Topic 2 – Water • Constituents emphasized the importance of considering water quality as a sensitive resource. • Constituents emphasized the importance of considering riparian areas and corridors as sensitive areas. • Constituents emphasized the importance of protecting headwater streams. • Constituents emphasized the importance of considering wetlands as sensitive areas. • Some constituents expressed concern that considerations related to water quality and quantity are siloed. • Some constituents expressed concern that the water table is being drawn down in the Gallatin Valley and that there is not enough water availability for the current population in the Valley. • Constituents emphasized the importance of implementing setbacks for riparian areas and wetlands. • Some constituents expressed the concern of using water quality as an indicator for sensitive lands because ecosystem health is not entirely linked to stream condition (e.g., glacial streams are devoid of life). • Some constituents identified lakes and ponds (both natural and man-made) as sensitive resources. • Constituents emphasized the importance of planning for extreme weather and extreme weather events (e.g., floods mega floods). • Some constituents identified the need to restore key riparian areas. 108 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan | Constituent Interview Summary 4 • Some constituents identified water resources as a priority considering the closed water system. • Some constituents expressed the need to terminate the County’s cash in lieu program associated with water resources and new developments. • Some constituents identified beaver as an important focus for promoting healthy water quality and riparian ecosystems. • Some constituents identified the importance of irrigation ditch infrastructure (ditches, headgates, and the means to maintain and manage them). • Some constituents noted that water quantity should be high enough for trout populations to travel and spawn. • Some constituents identified the importance maintaining green infrastructure, stormwater retention, ecological resiliency, groundwater recharge, which then supports the county’s water supply. • Some constituents noted that high value riparian areas can be identified with native aquatic indicator species (e.g., cutthroat, suckers, or whitefish). • Some constituents noted that high value riparian areas can be identified according to macroinvertebrate populations. • Some constituents noted that water must flow in perpetuity whether it’s a manmade or natural water course. • Some constituents noted the importance of critical mass for water delivery to farms and ranches. Topic 3 – Farms and Ranches • Constituents noted the phrase “Cows not condos” (i.e., don’t pave the land) • Some constituents emphasized the importance of farms and ranches for supporting irrigation infrastructure. • Constituents emphasized the importance of farms and ranches for supporting open space for wildlife and scenic qualities. • Constituents noted that the Valley has prime soil resources and Valley’s agricultural lands are unique because they produce the highest altitude wheat in North America. • Some constituents highlighted structural and perceived barriers farmers and ranchers face. • Some constituents noted that agricultural lands are not a top value for wildlife, but that they still provide valuable open space for movement, migration, and winter habitat. • Some constituents noted that agricultural lands adjacent to Bozeman should not be a priority because they will eventually be developed. • Constituents emphasized the importance of providing an incentive to not subdivide agricultural lands. • Some constituents noted the success of agricultural land management in the State of Oregon. • Some constituents expressed concern that “agrihoods” may not be a viable option for the area. • Some constituents emphasized the importance of local food production. Topic 5 – Vegetation • Some constituents emphasized the importance of protecting old growth forests. • Some constituents emphasized the importance of meadowlands. • Some constituents emphasized the importance of willow habitat. 109 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan | Constituent Interview Summary 5 • Some constituents emphasized the importance of aspen groves. • Some constituents emphasized the importance of cottonwood stands. • Some constituents emphasized the importance of native plants and other flowering plants. • Some constituents emphasized the importance of the interface between native grassland and forest. • Some constituents noted the importance of tree snags for predatory birds. Topic 6 – Recreation and Public Open Space • Some constituents noted the importance of tourism and outdoor pursuits to fuel and support the Gallatin Valley economy. • Some constituents noted that many people's identities are connected to their recreational pursuits, and the places they spend time in. • Some constituents noted that recreation opportunities initiate people and businesses to move to the Gallatin Valley. • Some constituents noted that excess easy access to recreation in certain areas is having a negative impact on sensitive resources. • Some constituents noted the importance of considering the social value of natural resources (i.e., recreation value). • Some constituents noted that recreation should be focused on the valley floor near existing development. • Some constituents noted that bike routes should be used primarily for commuting rather that recreation. • Some constituents noted that pocket parks do not provide valuable open space. • Recreation was a key value among the students. Many expressed that having access to recreation was why Sensitive Lands were most important to them. Topic 7 – Implementation Recommendations • Constituents noted the importance of utilizing zoning restrictions. • Constituents noted the importance of the proper spacing for subdivisions and homes. • Constituents noted the importance of developing a plan with teeth. • Constituents noted the importance of the City of Bozeman working collaboratively with Gallatin County and public land managers. • Some constituents identified a concern that environmental impact statements should be required in the Gallatin Valley because there are endangered species present. • Some constituents noted the importance of proactively protecting open space and sensitive lands in order to avoid costly restoration and “rewilding” efforts that would come later. • Constituents noted the value of utilizing conservation easements. • Some constituents noted that there should be incentives to promote the growth of native vegetation. • Some constituents noted that water diversion should be modified to improve the impact on fisheries. • Some constituents noted that engaging the community and maintaining healthy goodwill will help the implementation of the plan at the county level. • Some constituents noted the importance of factoring in climate change considerations in the model. • Some constituents recommended working at the legislative level for the implementation of the plan. 110 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan | Constituent Interview Summary 6 • Some constituents recommended consulting the Four Corners Plan. • Constituents noted the importance of not relaxing the rules related to development on sensitive lands and resources. Topic 8 – Indicators of Change • Some constituents noted that bird densities and population may be an indicator of change to sensitive resources. • Some constituents noted that monitoring water levels may be an indicator of change to sensitive resources. • Some constituents noted that monitoring acres of habitat may be an indicator of change to sensitive resources. • Some constituents noted monitoring groundwater depth may be an indicator of change to sensitive resources. • Some constituents noted that monitoring vegetative areas that hold groundwater (e.g., cottonwood stands) may be an indicator of changes to sensitive resources. • Some constituents noted that using key indicator species (e.g., cutthroat trout) would be good indicators of healthy habitat. These indicator species may also be effective for communicating with the public. • Students talked about finding ways to connect the project to populations who may not feel connected with it or who may feel like the plan will not impact them. • Students suggested partnering with youth groups like Montana Wilderness School and Big Sky Youth Empowerment and other organizations, such as Bienvenidos, MSU, MSU Native American Studies, High School Native American club. 111 STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY REPORT Prepared by: Draft January 19, 2023 112 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 2 KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 3 PRIORITY OF LAND USES AND NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................. 5 REASONS SENSITIVE LAND PROTECTION IS IMPORTANT TO GALLATIN VALLEY 6 MOST IMPORTANT WILDLIFE WHEN PROTECTING HABITAT ...................................... 8 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING WORKING FARMS AND RANCHES .......... 10 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING VEGETATION ................................................ 11 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS, LAKES, STREAMS, AND RIVERS ......................................................................................................... 13 ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ...................................................................................................... 15 DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT 113 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 1 BACKGROUND This report presents the findings of a community survey of residents of the Gallatin Valley. As was printed in the introduction of the survey: A strong connection between clean water, abundant wildlife, productive agriculture, and cultural heritage has provided a high quality of life for generations. As the Gallatin Valley continues to experience unprecedented growth, a regional approach to protecting sensitive lands can help us develop and live in greater harmony with the natural environment. The City of Bozeman is partnering across a wide variety of government agencies and non-profit organizations to protect important wildlife habitat and critical connections for wildlife and natural systems throughout the Gallatin Valley. The Plan will map sensitive land priorities, make intangible values and natural assets more tangible, and recommend how we can work together to protect the most sensitive resources. The survey determined residents’ reaction to:  The importance of a range of land uses and natural resources  The importance of sensitive land protection in the Gallatin Valley  The types of wildlife that are most important to protect  Protecting working farms and ranches  The most important things in protecting vegetation  The most important things in protecting wetlands and other waters  Final thoughts with an open-ended question The survey was conducted via U.S. Postal Service in November and December 2022. A survey was mailed to a random sample of 3,500 people who own homes in the study area which consisted of Bozeman, Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks, and unincorporated Gallatin Valley. People were also given the opportunity to respond electronically via a URL that was printed on the survey. To serve everyone in the study area, instructions were printed in Spanish on the front of the survey as to how people could respond to a Spanish version of the electronic survey. To further serve the community, the electronic survey was made available to all residents in the Gallatin Valley through a link on Project’s webpage. While the 163 responses to this survey have been kept separate from the results of the random sample because they are not as defensible as being representative of area residents, the results to this “open link” survey are statistically identical to the results of the random sample survey. Importantly, in the random sample survey, the distribution of completed surveys by area of residence was statistically identical to the actual geographic distribution of residence in the Gallatin Valley. Completed surveys were returned in a postage-paid envelope to Left Brain Concepts, Inc., a Denver-area market research and consulting firm. The survey was written by senior staff at the City of Bozeman and consultant team at Logan Simpson Design, Inc. Left Brain compiled and analyzed the results and prepared this report. The introduction asked a head of household, 18 years or older to complete the survey. A total of 406 surveys were completed – 348 via mail and 58 electronically. Because some responses came in after the cut-off date to prepare this report, 395 surveys are included in the results. The maximum margin of error for a sample of 395 is + 4.9% at the 95% level of confidence. Results were also analyzed (cross tabbed) by the following variables.  Area of residence in the Gallatin Valley study area  Length of residence in the Gallatin Valley study area 114 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As evidenced by “Priority of land uses and natural resources” below, Gallatin Valley residents are supportive of the concept of the Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. This is not always a given among residents of an area. Of the nine resources of wildlife, plant communities, waters, agricultural lands, migratory bird habitats, forested areas, native grasslands, and historic and archaeological sites, all but historic and archaeological sites were rated as high or highest priority by 56% or more of area residents. The primary reasons sensitive land protection is important to residents are water-related - quantity and quality – and wanting to maintain the Valley’s wildlife population and biodiversity. Residents are most interested in protecting deer, elk, moose and other ungulates, native fish and aquatic species, and protecting the connectivity between wildlife habitats. Regarding working farms and ranches, people are most concerned about local food production, conserving native plants and wildlife habitat, and supporting local livestock production. For vegetation, water is the most important issue to Valley residents. A distant second is protecting food sources for wildlife. Tied for third is providing shelters for wildlife, pollination, and protecting both native plant communities and forested areas. For wetlands, riparian areas, lakes streams, and rivers, people’s biggest concern is access to clean drinking water. Second is protecting diversity of wildlife habitat. Tied for third are native fish populations, access to water for farm and ranch irrigation, and resiliency to natural disasters and changing climate. Residents’ final thoughts when asked on an open-ended basis are a desire to avoid sprawl into agricultural and natural areas, wanting to maintain a balance between growth and preservation, and concerns about the availability of water. A total of 135 people provided these additional comments, which is 33% of the completed surveys. 115 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 3 KEY FINDINGS Priority of land uses and natural resources: The following land uses and natural resources are all important and will be considered within the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. However, the plan will require prioritizing some resources over others. Please consider which of the following provide the most important benefits to the Gallatin Valley or are at the most at risk. Using the scale, assign each category a priority level. (1 = lowest priority, 5 = highest priority). Combined responses of 4 and 5 were as follows.  Rivers, streams, and wetlands (96%)  Wildlife habitat (84%)  Linkage areas between wildlife habitats (71%)  Forested areas (73%)  Agricultural lands (67%)  Migratory bird habitat (65%)  Native plant communities (62%)  Native grasslands (56%)  Historic and archaeological sites (including tribal areas) (48%) Reasons sensitive land protection is important to Gallatin Valley: Why do you think sensitive land protection is important to the Gallatin Valley?  Protect water quantity and quality for aquatic life and recreation (56%)  Maintain the Valley’s renowned wildlife populations and biodiversity (52%)  Provide water quality and quantity for local residents (51%)  Provide water availability for agricultural users (34%)  Increase climate resilience to natural disasters (24%)  Preserve agricultural heritage (24%)  Maintain and create multi-use recreation areas (hiking, biking, horse riding, etc.) (22%)  Foster natural carbon sequestration processes and greenhouse gas emission (21%)  Preserve landmarks to maintain a sense of place (11%)  Provide and improve hunting areas (10%)  Preserve recreation opportunities to support the economic benefit of tourism (9%)  Provide and improve angler access (8%) Most important wildlife when protecting habitat: What types of wildlife do you think is most important to consider when protecting wildlife habitat in the Gallatin Valley?  Deer, elk, moose, and other ungulates (61%)  Native fish and aquatic species (57%)  Connectivity areas between wildlife habitat (46%)  Endangered, threatened, or rare species (grizzly bears, Canada lynx, etc.) (35%)  Migratory birds (34%)  Raptor nesting areas (33%)  Bears (19%)  Medium sized mammals (coyotes, foxes, etc.) (15%)  Rodents (chipmunks, squirrels, voles, etc.) (5%) 116 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 4 Most important when protecting working farms and ranches: What do you think is most important to consider when protecting working farms and ranches in the Gallatin Valley?  Supporting local food production (71%)  Conserving native plants and wildlife habitat (grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas) (50%)  Supporting local livestock production (49%)  Supporting crop production for regional and natural needs (45%)  Preserving agricultural heritage and sense of place (44%)  Facilitating natural carbon sequestration (23%) Most important when protecting vegetation: What do you think is most important to consider when protecting vegetation in the Gallatin Valley?  Water quality (64%)  Food sources for wildlife (46%)  Shelter for wildlife (32%)  Pollination (32%)  Native plant communities (31%)  Forested areas (30%)  Grasslands (23%)  Tree canopy to prevent heat island effect (14%)  Specimen trees (14%)  Endangered, threatened, or rare species (Ute ladies-tresses, etc.) (10%) Most important when protecting wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, streams, and rivers: What do you think is most important to consider when protecting wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, streams, and rivers in the Gallatin Valley?  Access to clean drinking water (67%)  Wildlife habitat diversity (49%)  Native fish populations (38%)  Access to water for farm and ranch irrigation (38%)  Resiliency to natural disasters and changing climate (38%)  Aquatic species biodiversity (31%)  Recreation opportunities (ex. Fishing, rafting, swimming, etc.) (20%)  Food for wildlife (15%) Additional thoughts (Open Ended Comments): What additional thoughts would you like to share about sensitive lands protection in the Gallatin Valley?  Avoid sprawl into agricultural and natural areas (33%)  Maintain a balance between growth and preservation (25%)  Water availability (20%)  Control growth in Gallatin Valley (16%)  Slow development of subdivisions (16%)  Riparian areas need to be protected from livestock and development (13%)  Need more conservation easements (7%)  Need water conservation measures in households (6%)  Protect wildlife corridors (6%)  Protect farm and ranch land (5%)  Restrict or prohibit further land development outside Bozeman city limits (4%)  Protect water rights (3%)  Protect land and water from pesticide use (2%)  Plant low-water yards and plants (2%) 117 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 5 PRIORITY OF LAND USES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Question: The following land uses and natural resources are all important and will be considered within the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. However, the plan will require prioritizing some resources over others. Please consider which of the following provide the most important benefits to the Gallatin Valley or are at the most at risk. Using the scale, assign each category a priority level. (1 = lowest priority, 5 = highest priority) Combining responses of 4 and 5, Gallatin Valley residents rated the importance of natural resources as follows.  Rivers, streams, and wetlands (96%)  Wildlife habitat (84%)  Forested areas (73%)  Linkage areas between wildlife habitats (71%)  Agricultural lands (67%)  Migratory bird habitat (65%)  Native plant communities (62%)  Native grasslands (56%)  Historic and archaeological sites (including tribal areas) (48%) Differences by demographics Agricultural lands Residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks gave almost twice the ratings of 5 than residents of Bozeman (62% vs. 32%). There were no other differences by demographics therefore additional tables are not presented for each land use cross tabbed by area of residence and by length of residence in the Valley. PRIORITY OF LAND USES AND NATURAL RESOURCES 5 = Highest priority 4 3 2 1 = Lowest priority Rivers, streams, and wetlands 80% 16% 2% 1% 1% Wildlife habitat 57% 27% 11% 3% 2% Linkage areas between wildlife habitats 47% 24% 18% 7% 4% Agricultural lands 43% 24% 19% 6% 8% Forested areas 37% 36% 21% 4% 2% Migratory bird habitat 34% 31% 24% 7% 4% Native plant communities 28% 34% 24% 10% 4% Native grasslands 28% 28% 30% 10% 4% Historic and archaeological sites (including tribal areas) 22% 26% 28% 14% 10% 118 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 6 REASONS SENSITIVE LAND PROTECTION IS IMPORTANT TO GALLATIN VALLEY Question: Why do you think sensitive land protection is important to the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3) From the list of twelve issues posed to area residents, results were as follows.  Protect water quantity and quality for aquatic life and recreation (56%)  Maintain the Valley’s renowned wildlife populations and biodiversity (52%)  Provide water quality and quantity for local residents (51%)  Provide water availability for agricultural users (34%)  Increase climate resilience to natural disasters (24%)  Preserve agricultural heritage (24%)  Maintain and create multi-use recreation areas (hiking, biking, horse riding, etc.) (22%)  Foster natural carbon sequestration processes and greenhouse gas emission reductions (21%)  Preserve landmarks to maintain a sense of place (11%)  Provide and improve hunting areas (10%)  Preserve recreation opportunities to support the economic benefit of tourism (9%)  Provide and improve angler access (8%) Differences by demographics Provide water availability for agricultural users Residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks noted this more than twice as much as Bozeman residents (51% vs. 24%) Increase climate resilience to natural disasters Bozeman residents cited this almost three times more than residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks (33% vs. 13%) Preserve agricultural heritage People in unincorporated areas reported this twice as much as Bozeman residents (33% vs. 16%) Respondents who have lived in the Gallatin Valley for 20+ years cited this more than twice as much as people who have lived in the Valley for less than 20 years (30% vs. 13%) 119 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 7 REASONS SENSITIVE LAND PROTECTION IS IMPORTANT IN GALLATIN VALLEY Area of residence Years in Gallatin Valley Total Bozeman Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks Unincorp. < 20 years 20+ years Protect water quantity and quality for aquatic life and recreation 56% 60% 49% 57% 58% 56% Maintain the Valley's renowned wildlife populations and biodiversity 52% 57% 51% 49% 59% 48% Provide water quality and quantity for local residents 51% 52% 58% 47% 52% 51% Provide water availability for agricultural users 34% 24% 51% 37% 27% 37% Increase climate resilience to natural disasters 24% 33% 13% 19% 26% 24% Preserve agricultural heritage 24% 16% 24% 33% 13% 30% Maintain and create multi-use recreation areas (hiking, biking, horse riding, etc.) 22% 26% 25% 14% 23% 21% Foster natural carbon sequestration processes and greenhouse gas emission reductions 21% 25% 15% 22% 20% 23% Preserve landmarks to maintain a sense of place 11% 12% 13% 9% 13% 10% Provide and improve hunting areas 10% 7% 13% 13% 7% 12% Preserve recreation opportunities to support the economic benefit of tourism 9% 11% 7% 5% 8% 9% Provide and improve angler access 8% 6% 15% 6% 8% 7% 120 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 8 MOST IMPORTANT WILDLIFE WHEN PROTECTING HABITAT Question: What types of wildlife do you think is most important to consider when protecting wildlife habitat in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3) From eight types of wildlife and one wildlife-related issue posed, Gallatin Valley residents’ responses totaled the following.  Deer, elk, moose, and other ungulates (61%)  Native fish and aquatic species (57%)  Connectivity areas between wildlife habitat (46%)  Endangered, threatened, or rare species (grizzly bears, Canada lynx, etc.) (35%)  Migratory birds (34%)  Raptor nesting areas (33%)  Bears (19%)  Medium sized mammals (coyotes, foxes, etc.) (15%)  Rodents (chipmunks, squirrels, voles, etc.) (5%) Differences by demographics Deer, elk, moose, and other ungulates Protecting this wildlife is more important to residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks than Bozeman residents (74% vs. 55%) Endangered, threatened, or rare species (grizzly bears, Canada lynx, etc.) Protecting these species are more important to residents of Bozeman than people in other areas in the Gallatin Valley (47% Bozeman, 23% Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks, 26% unincorporated areas) Protecting these species is more important to people who have lived in the Gallatin Valley for less than 20 years than those who have resided in the Valley for 20+ years (46% vs. 29%) 121 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 9 MOST IMPORTANT WILDLIFE WHEN PROTECTING HABITAT Area of residence Years in Gallatin Valley Total Bozeman Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks Unincorp. < 20 years 20+ years Deer, elk, moose, and other ungulates 61% 55% 74% 62% 56% 63% Native fish and aquatic species 57% 56% 62% 56% 60% 55% Connectivity areas between wildlife habitat 46% 51% 32% 46% 48% 46% Endangered, threatened, or rare species (grizzly bears, Canada lynx, etc.) 35% 47% 23% 26% 46% 29% Migratory birds 34% 33% 43% 31% 34% 33% Raptor nesting areas 33% 28% 34% 40% 32% 35% Bears 19% 24% 17% 13% 19% 20% Medium sized mammals (coyotes, foxes, etc.) 15% 15% 23% 12% 16% 16% Rodents (chipmunks, squirrels, voles, etc.) 5% 5% 8% 5% 7% 5% 122 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 10 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING WORKING FARMS AND RANCHES Question: What do you think is most important to consider when protecting working farms and ranches in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3) Gallatin Valley residents noted the following concerning protecting working farms and ranches.  Supporting local food production (71%)  Conserving native plants and wildlife habitat - grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas (50%)  Supporting local livestock production (49%)  Supporting crop production for regional and natural needs (45%)  Preserving agricultural heritage and sense of place (44%)  Facilitating natural carbon sequestration (23%) Differences by demographics Supporting local livestock production This is more important to residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks mentioned than Bozeman residents (73% vs. 44%) Facilitating natural carbon sequestration This is a bigger issue to residents of Bozeman than residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks (31% vs. 13%) MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING WORKING FARMS AND RANCHES Area of residence Years in Gallatin Valley Total Bozeman Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks Unincorp. < 20 years 20+ years Supporting local food production 71% 75% 77% 60% 74% 68% Conserving native plants and wildlife habitat (grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas) 50% 56% 45% 46% 48% 52% Supporting local livestock production 49% 44% 73% 46% 51% 47% Supporting crop production for regional and natural needs 45% 37% 54% 50% 43% 46% Preserving agricultural heritage and sense of place 44% 40% 36% 54% 39% 47% Facilitating natural carbon sequestration 23% 31% 13% 19% 24% 23% Providing scenic views 12% 11% 14% 11% 14% 10% 123 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 11 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING VEGETATION Question: What do you think is most important to consider when protecting vegetation in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3) Responses totaled the following regarding protecting vegetation in the Gallatin Valley.  Water quality (64%)  Food sources for wildlife (46%)  Shelter for wildlife (32%)  Pollination (32%)  Native plant communities (31%)  Forested areas (30%)  Grasslands (23%)  Tree canopy to prevent heat island effect (14%)  Specimen trees (i.e., large cottonwoods following streams/rivers, isolated stands of pine, unique species, etc.) (14%)  Endangered, threatened, or rare species (Ute ladies-tresses, etc.) (10%) Differences by demographics Native plant communities This is more important to residents of Bozeman than residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks (39% vs. 18%) Grasslands Protecting grasslands is more important to residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks than Bozeman residents (34% vs. 16%) 124 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 12 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING VEGETATION Area of residence Years in Gallatin Valley Total Bozeman Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks Unincorp. < 20 years 20+ years Water quality 64% 60% 75% 64% 57% 68% Food sources for wildlife 46% 48% 59% 41% 52% 44% Shelter for wildlife 32% 30% 36% 33% 31% 33% Pollination 32% 32% 39% 29% 35% 31% Native plant communities 31% 39% 18% 28% 34% 30% Forested areas 30% 28% 38% 31% 30% 30% Grasslands 23% 16% 34% 28% 21% 24% Tree canopy to prevent heat island effect 14% 19% 13% 8% 13% 15% Specimen trees (i.e., large cottonwoods following streams/rivers, isolated stands of pine, unique species, etc.) 14% 15% 14% 11% 11% 15% Carbon sequestration 11% 13% 7% 13% 13% 11% Endangered, threatened, or rare species (Ute ladies-tresses, etc.) 10% 12% 9% 8% 15% 7% 125 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 13 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS, LAKES, STREAMS, AND RIVERS Question: What do you think is most important to consider when protecting wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, streams, and rivers in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3) When asked to note what is most important when protecting wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, streams, and rivers in the Gallatin Valley, results were as follows.  Access to clean drinking water (67%)  Wildlife habitat diversity (49%)  Native fish populations (38%)  Access to water for farm and ranch irrigation (38%)  Resiliency to natural disasters and changing climate (ex. Wetland areas can mitigate the impacts of flooding) (38%)  Aquatic species biodiversity (31%)  Recreation opportunities (ex. Fishing, rafting, swimming, etc.) (20%)  Food for wildlife (15%) Differences by demographics Access to water for farm and ranch irrigation As would be expected, this was more important to residents of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks than Bozeman residents (53% vs. 28%) 126 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 14 MOST IMPORTANT WHEN PROTECTING WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS, LAKES, STREAMS, AND RIVERS Area of residence Years in Gallatin Valley Total Bozeman Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks Unincorp. < 20 years 20+ years Access to clean drinking water 67% 69% 73% 65% 62% 72% Wildlife habitat diversity 49% 51% 45% 51% 54% 47% Native fish populations 38% 41% 45% 30% 40% 36% Access to water for farm and ranch irrigation 38% 28% 53% 44% 32% 42% Resiliency to natural disasters and changing climate, (ex. wetland areas can mitigate the impacts of flooding) 38% 48% 31% 30% 42% 37% Aquatic species biodiversity 31% 31% 22% 35% 34% 29% Recreation opportunities (ex. fishing, rafting, swimming, etc.) 20% 19% 27% 19% 23% 19% Food for wildlife 15% 15% 24% 12% 19% 13% 127 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 15 ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS The survey asked for respondents to share any additional thoughts. The open-ended responses were summarized into the categories below. A total of 135 people provided these additional comments, which is 33% of the completed surveys. Question: What additional thoughts would you like to share about sensitive lands protection in the Gallatin Valley? Responses to this open-ended question were as follows.  Avoid sprawl into agricultural & natural areas (33%)  Maintain a balance between growth and preservation (25%)  Water availability is a major concern (20%)  Control growth in Gallatin Valley (16%)  Slow development of subdivisions (16%)  Riparian areas need to be protected from livestock & development (13%)  Need more conservation easements (7%)  Need water conservation measures in households (6%)  Protect wildlife corridors (6%)  Protect farm and ranch land (5%)  Restrict or prohibit further land development outside Bozeman city limits (4%)  Protect water rights (3%)  Protect land and water from pesticide use (2%)  Plant low-water yards & plants (2%) 128 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 16 ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS Area of residence Years in Gallatin Valley Total Bozeman Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks Unincorp. < 20 years 20+ years Avoid sprawl into agricultural & natural areas 33% 38% 20% 34% 34% 35% Maintain a balance between growth and preservation 25% 22% 33% 27% 39% 20% Water availability is a major concern 20% 18% 7% 27% 20% 21% Control growth in Gallatin Valley 16% 16% 20% 15% 9% 20% Slow the development of subdivisions 16% 16% 7% 17% 16% 16% Riparian areas need to be protected from livestock & development 13% 18% 7% 10% 11% 14% Need more conservation easements 7% 11% 7% 5% 2% 10% Need water conservation measures in households 6% 9% 7% 3% 9% 5% Protect wildlife corridors 6% 5% 13% 5% 9% 5% Protect farm and ranch land 5% 5% - 5% 5% 5% Restrict or prohibit further land development outside Bozeman city limits 4% 55 7% 2% 2% 5% Protect water rights 3% 5% - 2% 5% 2% Protect land and water from pesticide use 2% 4% - 2% 5% - Plant low-water yards & plants 2% 2% - 3% 2% 2% Maintain water quality 2% - - 5% 5% - 129 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 17 DEMOGRAPHICS The following demographic questions are optional but help us better understand who we are hearing from and meet our goals of reaching out to a representative sample of the population. Which of the following areas best describes where your property resides within the Gallatin Valley Study Area? (Select one) How long have you lived in the Gallatin Valley? (Select one) What is your relationship to the Gallatin Valley? (Check all that apply) What is your age? Which range best describes your household income? (Select one) Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Select one) How would you describe your race? (Check all that apply) The distribution of completed surveys by area of residence was statistically identical to the actual geographic distribution of residence in the Gallatin Valley study area. Differences by demographics Length of residence in the Gallatin Valley As would be expected, a higher percentage of residents in unincorporated areas have lived in the Valley 20+ years than residents of Bozeman (73% vs. 52%) People who have lived in the Gallatin Valley for less than 20 years noted household incomes of over $100,000 more than residents of 20+ years reported (49% vs. 26%) 130 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 18 DEMOGRAPHICS Area of residence Survey Respondents City of Bozeman 50% Town of Belgrade 10% Town of Manhattan 3% Town of Three Forks 2% Unincorporated area 35% Length of residence Survey Respondents 0-1 year 1% 2-5 years 11% 6-10 years 12% 11-15 years 8% 16-20 years 7% 20+ 61% Relation to Valley Survey Respondents Full time resident 85% Retired 23% Work full time 14% Business owner 12% Part time resident 7% Own short-term rental property 2% Work seasonally 1% DEMOGRAPHICS Age Survey Respondents Under 18 - 18-24 1% 25-34 7% 35-44 13% 45-54 12% Over 55 67% Income Survey Respondents < $20,000 2% $20K - $34,999 7% $35K - $49,999 8% $50K - $74,999 19% $75K - $99,999 21% Over $100K 43% Race Survey Respondents White 97% American Indian or Alaska Native 1% Asian or Asian American 1% Some other race 1% 131 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan – Statistically Valid Survey Report DRAFT Page 19 Hispanic? Survey Respondents Yes 1% No 99% 132 Appendix A Survey Instrument 133 Connecting our Landscape, Heritage, and Future on Common Ground STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY Comparta sus comentarios sobre la vida silvestre, los espacios abiertos y la agricultura en el Valle de Gallatin. ¡Participe en nuestro cuestionario en español! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GallatinVEspanol Background A strong connection between clean water, abundant wildlife, productive agriculture, and cultural heritage has provided a high quality of life for generations. As the Gallatin Valley continues to experience unprecedented growth, a regional approach to protecting sensitive lands can help us develop and live in greater harmony with the natural environment. The City of Bozeman is partnering across a wide variety of government agencies and non-profit organizations to protect important wildlife habitat and critical connections for wildlife and natural systems throughout the Gallatin Valley. The Plan will map sensitive land priorities, make intangible values and natural assets more tangible, and recommend how we can work together to protect the most sensitive resources. We are looking for YOUR feedback to learn what the residents of Gallatin Valley value most when it comes to identifying and protecting sensitive lands. Your feedback will be used to help prioritize the most critical aspects of the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. Help chart the future by sharing your vision and values for the Gallatin Valley. This survey should be completed by a head of household who is 18 years old or older and responds for the entire household. Please return the survey via the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope by November 21, 2022. You may choose to respond online instead at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GallatinV. All answers will be collected by an independent third-party and remain anonymous. This survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. 134 Study Area: This map displays the geographic scope of the Gallatin Valley, or the general area that will be analyzed for sensitive lands opportunities. The circular boundary is not a hard line but a way to focus analysis and discussion of plan recommendations. When answering the survey please keep the extent of the study area in mind. 135 1. The following land uses and natural resources are all important and will be considered within the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. However, the plan will require prioritizing some resources over others. Please consider which of the following provide the most important benefits to the Gallatin Valley or are at the most at risk. Using the scale, assign each category a priority level. Highest Priority 5 4 3 2 Lowest Priority 1 Wildlife Habitat 5 4 3 2 1 Native Plant Communities 5 4 3 2 1 Linkage areas between Wildlife Habitats 5 4 3 2 1 Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 5 4 3 2 1 Agricultural Lands 5 4 3 2 1 Migratory Bird Habitat 5 4 3 2 1 Forested Areas 5 4 3 2 1 Native Grasslands 5 4 3 2 1 Historic and Archaeological Sites (including tribal areas) 5 4 3 2 1 2. Why do you think sensitive land protection is important to the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3)  Maintain the Valley’s renowned wildlife populations and biodiversity  Protect water quantity and quality for aquatic life and recreation  Provide water availability for agricultural users  Provide water quality and quantity for local residents  Preserve agricultural heritage  Maintain and create multi-use recreation areas (hiking, biking, horse riding, etc.)  Preserve landmarks to maintain a sense of place  Increase climate resilience to natural disasters  Foster natural carbon sequestration processes and greenhouse gas emission reductions  Preserve recreation opportunities to support the economic benefits of tourism  Provide and improve hunting access  Provide and improve angler access 136 3. What types of wildlife do you think is most important to consider when protecting wildlife habitat in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3)  Deer, elk, moose, and other ungulates  Bears  Raptor nesting areas  Migratory birds  Native fish and aquatic species  Rodents (chipmunks, squirrels, voles, etc.)  Medium sized mammals (coyotes, foxes, etc.)  Endangered, threatened, or rare species (grizzly bears, Canada lynx, etc.)  Connectivity areas between wildlife habitat  Other (please provide): ________________ 4. What do you think is most important to consider when protecting working farms and ranches in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3)  Preserving agricultural heritage and sense of place  Supporting local food production  Supporting local livestock production  Supporting crop production for regional and national needs  Conserving native plants and wildlife habitat (grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas)  Providing scenic views  Facilitating natural carbon sequestration  Other (please provide): ________________ 5. What do you think is most important to consider when protecting vegetation in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3)  Food sources for wildlife  Shelter for wildlife  Pollination  Native plant communities  Tree canopy to prevent heat island effect  Water quality  Carbon sequestration  Specimen trees (i.e., large cottonwoods following streams/rivers, isolated stands of pine, unique species, etc.)  Endangered, threatened, or rare species (Ute ladies-tresses, etc.)  Grasslands  Forested areas  Other (please provide): _______________ 6. What do you think is the most important to consider when protecting wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, streams, and rivers in the Gallatin Valley? (Select up to 3)  Access to clean drinking water  Native fish populations  Aquatic species biodiversity  Wildlife habitat diversity  Food for wildlife  Access to water for farm and ranch irrigation  Resiliency to natural disasters and changing climate (ex. wetland areas can mitigate the impacts of flooding)  Recreation opportunities (ex. fishing, rafting, swimming, etc.)  Other (please provide): ________________ 137 7. Final Question What additional thoughts would you like to share about sensitive lands protection in the Gallatin Valley? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 138 Demographics The following demographic questions are optional but help us better understand who we are hearing from and meet our goals of reaching out to a representative sample of the population. 1. Which of the following areas best describes where your property resides within the Gallatin Valley Study Area? (Select one)  City of Bozeman  Town of Belgrade  Town of Manhattan  Town of Three Forks  Unincorporated area within the Gallatin Valley Study Area 2. How long have you lived in the Gallatin Valley? (Select one)  0-1 year  2-5 years  6-10 years  11-15 years  16-20 years  20+ years 3. What is your relationship to the Gallatin Valley? (Check all that apply)  Full Time Resident  Part Time Resident  Business Owner  Work Full Time  Work Seasonally  Retired  Own short-term rental property 4. What is your age?  Under 18  18-24  25-34  35-44  45-54  Over 55  Prefer not to answer 4. Which range best describes your household income? (Select one)  Less than $20,000  $20,000 to $34,999  $35,000 to $49,999  $50,000 to $74,999  $75,000 to $99,999  Over $100,000  Prefer not to answer 5. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Select one)  Yes  No  Prefer not to answer 6. How would you describe your race? (Check all that apply)  American Indian or Alaska Native  Asian or Asian American (ex: Chinese, Asian Indian, Korean, Japanese)  Black or African American  White  Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander  Some other race (write in) _______________  Prefer not to answer Thank you! Thank you for taking the time to participate in the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan Survey. To learn more about the study and see how the survey results will be used to inform the study, visit gallatinvalleyplan.bozeman.net 139 NATIONAL MODELS NATIONAL MODELS Many regional, state, and national organizations collect data on rare Many regional, state, and national organizations collect data on rare and sensitive species and natural habitat or their threats. Natural and sensitive species and natural habitat or their threats. Natural resource models attempt to identify lands that best support the long-resource models attempt to identify lands that best support the long-term survival of a suite of targeted species and natural communities. term survival of a suite of targeted species and natural communities. This section identifies existing models that address current growth This section identifies existing models that address current growth management and resource conservation decisions that relate management and resource conservation decisions that relate to natural resource, economic, agricultural, wildlife, and cultural to natural resource, economic, agricultural, wildlife, and cultural factors. They tend cover a larger spatial scale, which informs general factors. They tend cover a larger spatial scale, which informs general observations of sensitive land trends and inputs. observations of sensitive land trends and inputs. The models shown in this section are: The models shown in this section are: • • Publicly availablePublicly available• • Based on desktop scientific references and need ground-Based on desktop scientific references and need ground-truthing;truthing;• • Do not account for land ownership and political boundaries;Do not account for land ownership and political boundaries; • • Informative for land-use planning and conservation strategies; Informative for land-use planning and conservation strategies; andand• • Do not have legal meaning or in any way represent an attempt to Do not have legal meaning or in any way represent an attempt to regulate or limit the use of private property. regulate or limit the use of private property. Existing Sensitive Lands Model & Methodology Summary Natural Heritage Map Viewer Montana Natural Heritage Program This viewer allows users to select from one of the following tasks: Generalized Species Observations, Land Cover, Land Management, Wetland, Riparian Mapping, and Photos. While this isn’t a model, it’s a great resource that displays state-wide management and environmental data and provides the option to summarize self-selected study areas. Of note, you can draw your study area to acquire breakdowns of land ownership, land use, wetland coverage, species, important plant and bird areas, and more. Learn more at https://mtnhp.org/ TNC Resilient Lands Mapping Tool The Nature Conservancy This model identifies climate-resilient places and the movement paths species may take to get there by using biodiversity value (rare species, intact habitat, or exemplary natural communities) and site resilience (the ability of a site to support biological diversity and ecological functions even as it changes in response to climate change) to map climate-resilient places. Learn more at https://maps.tnc.org/resilientland/ Anderson, M.G., Barnett, A., Clark, M., Prince, J., Olivero Sheldon, A. and Vickery B. 2016. Resilient and Connected Landscapes for Terrestrial Conservation. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science, Eastern Regional Office. Boston, MA.. Resilient and Connected Network (Near Bozeman, MT) Land Management Summary of Gallatin Valley Conservation Carbon Map Trust for Public Land This model uses inputs to focus on conservation to maximize climate benefits. Specifically, this tool looks at what and where threats are to carbon-rich landscapes from development, insects, disease, and wildfire risk. This tool summarizes forest carbon storage, sequestration rates, development risk, insect and disease risk, wildfire hazard potential, rare ecosystems, and intact habitat cores at the state, county, and watershed scale. At the county level, you can click on parcels to view their spread of attributes relating to carbon, threats, and co-benefits. Learn more at https://web.tplgis.org/Breakdown of Bozeman Parcels This summary presents examples of existing resource models that have been used to inform growth management and This summary presents examples of existing resource models that have been used to inform growth management and resource conservation decisions - both nationally and locally. resource conservation decisions - both nationally and locally. 140 EPA EnviroAtlas Environmental Protection Agency This model seeks to effectively measure and communicate the type, quality, and extent of goods and services that humans receive from ecosystems so that their true value can be considered in decision- making. EnviroAtlas houses and combines an extensive collection of spatial data, including modeled results, field research, and results of literature reviews from a variety of government and non-government sources. This information characterizes the benefits derived from the natural environment, community infrastructure, demographics, and health outcomes. This model is a holistic resource that contains economic, environmental, and social models which can be overlayed to create comparisons across factors. Examples of models include ecosystem markets, engagement with outdoors, health and economic outcomes, water supply, runoff, and flow, and more. Learn more at https:// enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/interactivemap/ Montana Agricultural Potentials System (MAPS Atlas) Montana State University This model is a computer-driven geographic information system designed to improve decisions made by people who manage land resources. The model divides Montana into about 18,000 cells, each representing slightly more than 3 miles north and south by 2 miles east and west. The model combines the following environmental attributes into a database: precipitation, growing season, temperature, land use, soils, and physiography. MAPS Atlas is best used for combining general attributes for environmental assessment and site selection. Learn more at https://www.montana.edu/places/maps/ Big Game Hunting Recreation Demand (Near Bozeman, MT) Sample Custom Maps Created by MAPS Atlas 141 LOCAL MODELSLOCAL MODELS The next step is understanding how existing models evaluate The next step is understanding how existing models evaluate specific factors at a localized scale, and if those inputs and specific factors at a localized scale, and if those inputs and outputs can be incorporated into the Sensitive Lands Model to outputs can be incorporated into the Sensitive Lands Model to avoid a redundancy in efforts. Four more models are outlined in avoid a redundancy in efforts. Four more models are outlined in this summary to inform successful modeling practices, as well this summary to inform successful modeling practices, as well as outline where gaps may lie in our environmental, economic, as outline where gaps may lie in our environmental, economic, agricultural, wildlife, and cultural data. These reviews will help agricultural, wildlife, and cultural data. These reviews will help facilitate discussions on inputs and outputs of the Sensitive facilitate discussions on inputs and outputs of the Sensitive Lands Model and how it will operate.Lands Model and how it will operate. Habitat Suitability for Biodiversity Model Montana Natural Heritage Program The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) uses inductive and deductive models to predict and represent habitat suitability and ecological system association with individual species. The goal of the inductive model is to predict current distribution and relative suitability of general year-round habitat for species. The model uses observation data for an individual species combined with 44 statewide biotic and abiotic environmental layers. The model is constructed using a maximum entropy algorithm. Entropy maximization modeling functions by calculating constraint distributions with a multiplier and then applies those constraints to the environmental layers to estimate a predicted suitable habitat distribution for the species based on the general observations as a base range. Deductive modeling represents how ecological systems are either commonly or occasionally associated with a specific species year-round from statewide land cover classifications, species observations, and characteristics of used habitat documented in literature. Species are either classified as commonly associated, occasionally associated, or not associated with each ecological system. This was based on the degree to which structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species outlined in literature. The output is a spatial dataset of categorical habitat suitability based on ecological system associations within the species presumed range. MNHP will provide the database for Habitat Suitability and Biodiversity for statewide species. This database can be used as an input to represent wildlife factors in the Sensitive Lands model. Learn more at https://mtnhp.org/models/ Deductive Grizzly Bear Habitat Associations Model Wildlife Resource Value on Private Land Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks MFWP’s Resource Value on Private Land model is an example of a lower level model that identifies core wildlife habitat and prioritizes value for wildlife based on an overlay of layers. For example, “High Value for Wildlife” encompasses riparian areas, wetlands, cottonwood galleries, and native habitat based on land cover. While “Lower Value for Wildlife” uses landcover, cadastral, and structure data to outline subdivisions and agricultural land to represent land use with poor habitat quality and corridor connectivity. In addition, the model utilizes species of concern habitat to highlight a core wildlife habitat classification. This data was compiled for the recently adopted Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021). Learn more at: https://gallatincomt.virtualtownhall. net/planning-community-development/pages/plans-policies .Wildlife Resource Value on Private Land 142 Modeling an Aspirational Connected Network of Protected Areas Across North America Kevin Barnett and R. Travis Belote, The Wilderness Society This is a multi-scale connectivity model that utilizes least-cost and circuit theory to prioritize corridors with the least human-modified lands between large protected areas of North America. Least cost theory assumes organisms have perfect information of their landscape resistance to movement, and therefore traverse “optimal” routes that minimize the distance between a source and the destination. Circuit theory assumes organisms have zero information of landscape resistance beyond their immediate surroundings, in other words are “random walkers”. The model first maps least modified corridors that link protected areas in the network using least cost and circuit theory approaches. A resistance surface layer is used to represent human-modified land that essentially dissolves out land that doesn’t contribute to corridor connectivity (development, agriculture, transportation corridors, dams, etc.). A set of linkages is then mapped that connect all protected areas while minimizing total network resistance. Next, a betweenness centrality metric was used to prioritize individual linkages within each corridor. Regional networks of protected lands were then able to be identified with their mapped priority linkages. The Sensitive Lands Model could utilize a constraints layer (human modified lands, steep slopes, predicted future climate temperatures, etc.) to first uncover lands that don’t act as quality habitat as a starting point, while also highlighting opportunities for connectivity and protection through remaining lands in the Gallatin Valley. A gap in our data might be a raster layer highlighting current and predicted climate temperatures to showcase which lands might show more resilience to increasing temperatures, and therefore act as better habitat for wildlife. Another data gap is a ridgelines and a valley bottoms layer (we might need to create these). Ridgelines offer important connectivity at high latitudes, and valley bottoms offer important connectivity at all latitudes. Learn more at https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eap.2387 Farms Under Threat 2040: Choosing an Abundant Future American Farmland Trust Farms under Threat 2040 models the conversion rate of farmland to development through three scenarios: Business as usual (historical conservation rate from 2001-2016 conversion rate), runaway sprawl (50% higher than business as usual), and better built sites (50% lower than business as usual). The outputs of this model are 3 scenario projections from 2016-2040 representing the amount of acres lost to Urban/Highly developed and low-density residential land uses. Utilizing certain or all outputs from the Farms Under Threat 2040 model could be a great indicator of susceptible farm lands to development pressure. The model doesn’t take into account water scarcity, which they indicate would be a good additional input to consider when predicting the transition of future land uses. This is a gap in our data as well. Water scarcity could satisfy our natural resources input for the sensitive lands model. Learn more at http://development2040.farmland.org/ Continental Protected-Area Connectivity Farms Under Threat 2040: Business as Usual Projection Farms Under Threat 2040: Runaway Sprawl 143 Memorandum REPORT TO:Sustainability Board FROM:Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director SUBJECT:Food System Stakeholder and Priority Mapping Work Session #2 MEETING DATE:March 8, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Food System Stakeholder and Priority Mapping Work Session #2 STRATEGIC PLAN:6.3 Climate Action: Reduce community and municipal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, increase the supply of clean and renewable energy; foster related businesses. BACKGROUND:On November 9, 2022 the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board held a Work Session on the City's approach to cultivating a robust local food system, as described in Solution N. of the Bozeman Climate Plan. Feedback from the Board has been incorporated into the attached draft Scope of Work, which will be advertised through a Request for Proposals. Before publishing an RFP, additional feedback is requested from the Board, as follows: Is this the right approach? What questions/suggestions do you have? Are there interview question themes to add or reconsider? Additional supporting resources regarding food system resilience can be found within the Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future "Planning Guide for Local Governments". Please note that this resource may require visitors to answer a few questions before downloading the PDF guide. As previously stated in the November 9, 2022 staff memo, this item will help address the following Climate Plan action items, further defined as Item #5 in the Sustainability Board's adopted Work Plan: 6.N.1 Support the Formation of a Local Food Council 6.N.2 Help Develop a Food System Assessment and Security Plan 6.N.3 Encourage Local Agriculture and Preservation of Working Lands 6.N.4 Support Local Food Production, Processing, and Distribution UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. 144 ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:The Sustainability Division has $20,000 allocated in FY23 to support this effort. Attachments: Draft Scope of Services Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project.pdf Report compiled on: March 3, 2023 145 Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project Project Description A community food system is one in which food production, processing, distribution, and consumption are geographically integrated and benefit the environment, economy, and social and nutritional health of a particular community1. Enhancing a robust, resilient, and equitable local food system is a critical aspect of supporting the resiliency goals, emission mitigation goals, and cross-cutting themes adopted in the Bozeman Climate Plan. Local food systems are essential to supporting community resiliency by providing the capacity to ensure a sufficient supply of accessible food during disruptions to the larger food system. Food accessibility is not only a requirement for human survival but is also deeply connected with human health and well- being. Enhancing a robust local food system can expand equitable access to nutritious food throughout the entire community. Buildings a robust local food system requires partnerships between a wide variety of private, non-profit, and public sector partners. To better understand the role of local government and identify strategies to support the local food system, the City of Bozeman Staff, the Bozeman Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board, and the Bozeman City Commission first need to more fully understand the local food landscape in the Bozeman area. To deepen this understanding, the City is partnering with a consultant to conduct a Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project. The Project will assess the current local food landscape by mapping the vast network that supports everything from production to processing, sale, consumption, and waste recovery of food. Interviews directly with constituents throughout the network will identify food system entities, assets, and key players that make up the local food system. The mapping process will also play a critical role in information gathering and developing partnerships. Through this process, the Project will identify and evaluate the barriers and challenges throughout the many facets of the local food system. Including, identifying gaps within the local food system that hinder the ability to produce and sell food locally. Resilience and equity will be key focus areas when evaluating food system challenges. The Project will dial in on resiliency by assessing how well equipped the food system is to respond to stressors and potential shocks to the system. Equitable food access in Bozeman will be evaluated by identifying populations that are at most at risk for food insecurity, current systems that support these communities, and gaps that do not exist in the local system to support these communities. Disaster justice will be addressed by identifying populations that are most at risk during disturbances to the existing food system. In addition to the partner mapping process, the Project will include a literature review that will evaluate current policies and programs that impact the local food system. The literature review will also include a research collection component to compile existing research and data related to the local food system. 1 USDA Office of Community Food systems: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cfs/usda-ocfs-infographic 146 Utilizing the findings from the mapping process and the literature review, the Consultant and City staff will develop recommendations for the City on actions to better support a more robust local food system. Recommendations will build on existing work in the community and align with goals adopted in current City plans. Strategies developed will aim to: • Build resilience within the local food system • Advance equitable food access and reduce food insecurity • Support local food enterprises and bolster the local economy • Foster relationships and links between rural and urban communities • Increase community awareness and support for local food • Positively impact human health and well-being through the nutritional and mental health benefits of local food Scope of Services (consultant) 1. Steering Committee Development (Spring 2023) Overview: A small steering committee will guide the project and provide input throughout the course of the project. The steering committee may consist of academic partners, government agency representatives, farmers, related experts, etc. Deliverable: The Consultant will establish a 2-4 person steering committee and coordinate communication with the steering committee. Details: a. The Consultant will collaborate with City Staff to identify potential steering committee members and City Staff will approve the final committee. b. The Consultant will determine if, when, and what amount of financial compensation for the steering committee is appropriate. The Consultant will be responsible for any compensation and should identify related expenses within their proposed budget. 2. Develop Constituent Interview Plan (Spring 2023) Overview: A strategic and targeted approach to constituent interviews shall be taken to obtain relevant and valuable information to inform the City moving forward. Deliverable: The Consultant will develop a list of 20-30 local food system entities to interview and a list of strategic interview questions (see appendix A for examples). This will be reviewed by the steering committee and City staff. Details: a. A targeted and intentional approach to developing the constituent interview list will be critical to ensure key players from across the many facets of the food system are represented in the Project. b. Interview questions should be developed strategically to align with the purpose and goals of the project. c. Recognizing that many of the potential constituents are extremely busy and workload is impacted seasonally; the Consultant will navigate the best flexible approach to working with constituents and propose an estimated timeline for conducting the interviews. Interviews can be conducted in person or virtually. 147 However, in-person is preferred. Interviews can be conducted individually or in small groups. 3. Conduct Constituent Interviews (Summer – End of Year 2023) Overview: Constituent interviews are the core of the Local Food System Preliminary Mapping project and will guide the recommendations to the City. Deliverable: The Consultant will coordinate interviews with the constituents and City Staff. The Consultant will guide the conversation. The Consultant will be responsible for taking notes and compiling results. Details: a. City Staff will participate in the interviews with the Consultant. However, the Consultant will facilitate the conversation and keep the discussion on topic. b. The selected Consultant will determine if, when, and what amount of financial compensation for interviewees is appropriate. The selected Consultant will be responsible for any compensation and should identify related expenses within their proposed budget. 4. Literature Review (End of Year 2023) Overview: Final recommendations for the Preliminary Mapping Project should build off and align with existing City goals and plans. Through a literature review of existing City plans and policies, the Consultant will identify opportunities to enhance and reshape existing efforts and policies; as well as opportunities for new policy and program development. The Consultant will also identify conflicts within City plans and policies related to food systems. The Consultant will also identify existing data and research that is available on the local food system. Deliverable: The Consultant will review City policies, plans, and existing programs including but not limited to: The Bozeman Strategic Plan (2018) the City of the Bozeman Community Plan (2021), Bozeman Climate Plan (2020), Parks Recreation and Active Transportation Plan (2023), etc. The Consultant will also identify and review existing data sources and resources that are available and related to the local food system. Details: a. Conflicts between currently adopted plans and the local food systems should be documented. b. City staff will assist with the literature review. 5. Final Report, Recommendations, and Public Presentations (Early 2024) Overview: Recommendations and tools developed by the selected Consultant will be geared toward use by local government and the local food system community. Deliverable: The Consultant will develop a final report that will include a synopsis of the interview process, key findings from the interviews, a detailed partner and asset map, and specific recommendations for how local government can support a robust local food system. The Consultant will participate in 3-4 public presentations to share the findings with the community. Details: a. The interview synopsis should include an overview of the process, who was interviewed, and key findings from the interviews. 148 b. The partner and asset map should reference entities beyond those interviewed directly and should be modeled in a way that it can be continuously updated over time. Deliverables 1. Establishment and coordination of a 3-5 person steering committee. 2. Development of a constituent interview plan that includes a list of interviewees and interview questions. 3. Conduct constituent interviews. 4. Complete a literature review. 5. Final report summarizing report and recommendations. 6. Public presentations to share findings (3-4 presentations). Appendix A Interview Question Examples Broader Landscape • What are the largest barriers to cultivating a robust local food system in the Gallatin Valley? What are the most vital opportunities? • What are the key food system assets in the community? What is missing or is at risk? • How do you define agriculture? What does the future of agriculture in the Gallatin Valley look like? City Impact and Approach • What barriers do City policies, programs, or actions create and/or enhance? In the past, what barriers has the City created? • Are there any local government policies, programs, or actions that support the local food system? • What do you think the City’s role in enhancing the local food system be? Understanding that the City plays a specific role and has limited resources, what is the most important for the City to prioritize? • How do you think the City should approach the actions in Solution N of the Bozeman Climate Plan? • What is the City’s role as a convener of local food system players? • What policy should the City advocate for at the state level? • How can we better engage the Bozeman community with our local food system and production of their own food? What resources can we provide? Resiliency and Equity • What populations in our community experience food insecurity and what populations are most at risk for food insecurity? 149 • How can we help make local food more accessible to populations at risk? How can we strengthen existing systems? • What is needed to secure our local food system during times of crisis when we don’t have access to larger systems? What do we currently have? What is missing? What assets or organizations are most at risk? • What are the biggest stressors challenging the resiliency of our local food system? What types of shocks and disasters would have the biggest impact on the food system? What shocks and disasters are we most at risk for? Potential Interview Populations • Producers • Processors • Distributors • Small business/ food entrepreneurs • Retail/ grocers • Restaurant/ catering professionals • Food bank/ food assistance • Compost/ waste management • Nutrition/ health professionals • Institutional culinary professionals • Education (pre-K, K-12, experiential educators) • Research and higher education • Government (Extension, City, County) • Agricultural organizations (AGAI, FFA, 4-H) • Conservation professionals (TPL, GVLT, etc) • Economic development (Prospera, etc) • Financing institutions • Concerned/ engaged community members (diverse representatives, faith-based advocates) • City-County board of health – nutrition health, mental health 150