ATTACHMENT I_CU Capstone Report on Landscaping and Native Plants

Regular Meeting, October 16, 2025 · item 5A: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8721 amending Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” Title 6, “Hea… · 42 pages

This is the text extracted from the file, without its layout, tables, or images. Use the original for anything that matters.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range Feasibility & Desirability Study

Prepared by MENV Graduate Consultant Team Erin Bucchin ∙ Ilana Gipple ∙ Jesse Stahl University of Colorado – Boulder

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Table of Contents Feasibility & Desirability Study.............................................................................................................. 1 Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 3 Climate Considerations............................................................................................................................3 Policy....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Current Industry.......................................................................................................................................7 Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 8 Methodology............................................................................................................................................8 Decision-making process.........................................................................................................................8 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................................8 Limitations...............................................................................................................................................8 Stakeholder Engagement Plan.................................................................................................................... 9 Goals & Plan............................................................................................................................................9 Our Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Stakeholder Analysis - 33 Respondents....................................................................................................17 Designers - 10 Respondents.................................................................................................................. 17 Installers - 9........................................................................................................................................... 19 Nurseries - 10.........................................................................................................................................21 Overlap.................................................................................................................................................. 23 Plant Decision Making............................................................................................................................... 35 Recommended Plant Lists..................................................................................................................... 35 Interaction with GIS tools & layers....................................................................................................... 36 Land Availability........................................................................................................................................ 37 Interaction with GIS tools & layers....................................................................................................... 38 Recommendations...................................................................................................................................... 39 Stakeholder Engagement....................................................................................................................... 39 Land Use Selection................................................................................................................................ 39 Policy Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 39 1. Colorado House Bill 22-1301............................................................................................................39 a. Redefining Controlled Environmental Agricultural facility as Agricultural Property...................... 39 Community & Coalition Building Opportunities.................................................................................. 39 Appendix..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix A. Survey & Interview Research Results............................................................................. 41 Appendix B. Thematic Coding Overview Appendix C. Survey & Interview Forms...............................................................................................41 Appendix D. Glossary........................................................................................................................... 42

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Executive Summary Climate Considerations As climate change worsens, Colorado will grow increasingly drier and hotter. This, combined with rising population and extreme water shortages in the Colorado River Basin, has led to an increase in waterwise, regionally native, and drought resistant landscaping as well as legislative changes through Senate Bill 24-005, House Bill 25-1113, and House Bill 22-1151. SB24-005 ostensibly criminalizes the use of non-functional and invasive turf, i.e. Kentucky bluegrass, on commercial, institutional, industrial and common interest properties, and instead encourages the use of waterwise plants and trees. HB25-1113 expands the language of SB24-005 to include multifamily residential housing beginning in 2028. As a result, our Capstone team aims to understand the supply gap of regionally native, and drought resistant plants for Coloradoscaping as landscapers, homeowners, and municipalities shift their practices in accordance with new legislation and demand for these plants increases, and propose solutions to fill this need. The industry has the opportunity to combine water conservation, environmental education, business and economics, and aesthetic Coloradoscaped design to transform Colorado’s Front Range. “Xeriscape” has become an increasingly popular term; it was developed by Denver Water and is an adapted landscape approach that emphasizes the use of plants suited to regional soil, climate, and water conditions for low-water planting. In recent years, a more novel term, “Coloradoscaping” has been introduced in the region. This term is intended to avoid confusion with “zeroscaping” or hardscaping, which is a landscape made up primarily of hardscaping with little to no plant life.While hardscaping does reduce water use it also reduces biodiversity and increases the Urban Heat Island Effect. Both xeriscaping and Coloradoscaping reduce water usage without increasing the heat of an area and they increase biodiversity. Well designed yards in this style are beautiful, colorful and dynamic and highlight the natural beauty of the area. This project answers the question, “Is there a market and industry demand for regionally native plants, and what commercial and political levers can be pulled to meet this demand?” To answer this question, 24 interviews were conducted and 8 surveys were collected from landscape designers, installers, design-build workers, nursery staff, Senator Karen McCormick and Western Resource Advocates, the Landscape Transformation Program Manager at Denver Water, the Turf Replacement Program Grant Manager at the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Boulder County CSU Extension Sustainable Landscape Specialist, and a member of the Colorado Nursery & Greenhouse Association. Additionally, 176 residents were surveyed on their landscaping practices and preferences. In depth quantitative and qualitative analysis, and data visualizations using GoogleSheets and ArcGIS Online were conducted culminating in this final feasibility report.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Policy The table below outlines recent legislation passed in Colorado to support water conservation initiatives in the face of rising temperatures and an ever drying Southwest climate.

Senate Bill (SB) 24-005

House Bill (HB) 22-1151

House Bill (HB) 25 1113

Executive Order (EO) D 2023- 018

Senate Bill (SB) 23-178

Relevant Passed March, Passed in the 2024 - Next legislature May Dates

Enacted in 2024 Regular legislative session

Signed in 2023.

Approved in May 2023 and effective in August 2023.

Legislati Prohibits use of on

Prohibits a local entity from installing, or allowing any person to install, plant, or place, non functional or invasive turf as a part of new development or redevelopment projects. It expands the language in SB 24-005 to include multi family residential housing. The bill requires all entities with local land use planning to regulate installation of

Directed the development of water eﬃcient landscaping policies for state facilities.

A unit owners' association of a common interest community may not prohibit the use of xeriscape, non vegetative turf grass, or drought-tolerant vegetative landscapes to provide ground covering to property for which a unit owner is responsible.

iteration 2022, signed begins in 2026 into law June, 2022.

Requires the Colorado Water non-functional Conservation turf, artificial Board develop turf, and invasive plant a Turf Replacement species (including but Program “to not limited to incentivize the Kentucky voluntary bluegrass) in replacement of order to irrigated turf conserve water and with water-wise adapt to landscaping,”. climate The program change. allocates $2 million to the Targets installation of Natural Resource these grasses Department to on finance the commercial, voluntary institutional, industrial and replacement of irrigated turf. common (HB22-1151, interest 2024, CO). properties, as well as street right-of-ways, parking lots,

Through this EO, a policy was developed that applies to water-wise landscaping for new construction and substantial renovation projects for state facilities. (The Wilson Group, 2024).

HOA guidelines must also not unreasonably require the use of hardscape on more than 20% of the landscaping area of a unit owner's property; Allow

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

medians, or transportation corridors, and excludes residential properties. In 2026, non-functional turf in all new construction and redevelopmen t projects is prohibited. Functional turf is defined as “located in a functional use area or other space used for community or recreational purposes,” (SB24-005, 2024, CO).

Goals

To allocate water typically used to maintain non-native lawns towards watering trees that increase shade cover and mitigate urban heat as temperatures continue to rise throughout the state, and the climate grows drier

a unit owner an option that consists of at least 80% drought-tolerant plantings; and not prohibit vegetable gardens in the front, back, or side yard of a unit owner's property.

non-functional turf starting in 2028 that reduces irrigation water demand for all residential “real” property. (HB25-1113, 2024, CO).

The association is required to create at least 3 garden design options for front yards in the common interest community. (SB23-178, 2023, CO) Create funding structures, monitoring requirements, use of third-party contractors to develop programs with best practices, and lawn requirements such as (1) minimum percentages of living plants (2) low/medium

Limiting the use of certain landscaping practices in new residential development.

To showcase how reducing turf is one method for water providers to conserve water supplies and improve climate resiliency.

Removing barriers to water-wise landscaping in common interest communities.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

(SB24-005, 2024, CO).

water-use plants (3) emphasis on pollinator-frien dly and native plants (4) and emphasis on creating and maintaining wildfire defensible space.

We contacted nine legislators within Colorado who were involved in passing the above bills. In a response from Senator Karen McCormick, Chelsea Benjamin and Lindsay Rogers of Western Resource Advocates offered that “Water conservation has been the primary driver behind these turf laws; however, they have also been motivated by other important environmental co-benefits such as improving pollinator habitat, reducing stormwater runoff, reducing fertilizer and pesticide use, reducing emissions from gas-powered mowing, drought-proofing landscaping investments and more.’ ‘There has also been a specific interest in ensuring that municipal users are doing everything they can to conserve water and reduce their impact on other water users (i.e., agriculture and the environment).” These bills also increase the need for plants that are drought resistant, pollinator friendly and regionally native. As the market responds to new requirements and the increasing cost of water, demand for these plants will increase. Using legislation in Nevada (AB 220) and California (AB 1572) as a guide, Colorado created its own turf replacement initiatives with the same goal of decreasing water usage, but through different methods. “HB22-1151 was adopted during the same session that Utah adopted a state turf replacement program (SB0118). While it wasn’t modeled after Utah, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and Utah Division of Water Resources (UT-DWR), consulted with each other on implementation once the legislation was passed,” stated Senator McKormick’s team. Our project identified a supply gap, and proposed political, commercial, and industry solutions to fill this supply gap through construction of a wholesale greenhouse venture, and create a new paradigm for landscape design sourcing. According to our interview with Landscape Architect, Respondent D001I, additional sourcing gaps stem from local nurseries closing on the front range (full interview transcripts are presented in Appendix A).

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

This legislation reflects a broader movement in Colorado toward water conservation as a result of lower flows and precipitation, alongside increasing temperatures and population growth. The Colorado Water Plan outlines how the State uses water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural support, and diverts 60% of its flow outside of Colorado (Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2023). The report also emphasizes water’s economic importance by stating “irrigated agriculture contributes $47 billion to Colorado’s economy annually,” and $19 billion stems from water-related recreation,”(Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2023). Interestingly, the report also outlines partner and agency actions for water conservation as well as tools such as “starting a new water initiative/project,” “developing frameworks and convening groups,” “advancing research and science,” “water efficiency and conservation programs,” “public outreach and education,” and “innovation,” (Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2023). As the grant administrator for the Turf Replacement Program Grants, CWCB is the key decision maker for deciding which projects were funded using HB22-1150 and is a leader among utilities, municipalities, and non-profits working in water conservation.

Current Industry

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Methodology Methodology Graph of people we reached out to and how - 33 respondents & their breakdown Our findings are summarizing in nature and do not reflect the individual practices of any one stakeholder. We have also anonymized respondents with specific ID numbers designating their stakeholder group and whether they completed an interview or survey.

Decision-making process Data Analysis Limitations Sample Size Our response rate was 37%, with 53 people taking either a survey, responding to email questions, or participating in an interview. Additionally, 176 respondents took our Resident survey, but we do not have metrics for response rate, as the survey was distributed on public forums. As such, our sample size is relatively low in terms of both the large quantity of landscape professionals in Boulder County that we reached out to (n=153), as well as the many landscape professionals we did not reach out to in our engagement process. Response Bias Because we conducted stakeholder engagement during the busiest season of the year for our stakeholders, it was difficult to speak with landscape professionals who do not already feel passionately about the use of regionally native plants on the Front Range. We did speak with some folks who are less interested in the topic, but many who do not already prioritize these initiatives in their business model, did not prioritize participating in our research as well. As a result, our results may be biased towards those who do see a need for increased regionally native plant supply. We recognize that conducting this stakeholder engagement during the winter “off season,” could have increased response rate and the amount of respondents who are less passionate about regionally native plants.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Stakeholder Engagement Plan Goals & Plan Goals: To identify and connect with relevant stakeholders in the landscaping industry who can help answer the question of whether or not a native plant greenhouse is a viable business venture. Due to the timing of this project coinciding with the busy season for the landscaping industry the response rate was limited. We would recommend that a similar project be undertaken during the off season (December-March) to gather a more comprehensive overview of the industry’s interest in regionally native plants. Below is a stakeholder engagement plan for future projects. It is based on our stakeholder engagement process and includes the changes we would make if doing this project again. Plan: See Appendix _ for a more detailed description. Main Body Version (short)

Preparation 1. Define research parameters and scope. a. This will keep the project from getting too wide reaching to reasonably complete. 2. Prepare a stakeholder engagement tracking document or use this template. 3. Compile the list of stakeholders

Create the interview and survey questions 1. Define the purpose of the stakeholder engagement 2. Conduct preliminary research on the industry 3. Write the interview and survey questions 4. Review the interview and survey questions 5. Separate the interview questions from the survey questions 6. Identify the high priority questions 7. Transfer the survey questions to your chosen survey platform 8. Transfer the interview questions to your chosen survey platform 9. Assign respondent IDs to everyone who responds to make it easier to track them a. See appendix _ for detailed instructions 10.Set up a booking page for respondents to self-schedule time to be interviewed

Stakeholder engagement process 1. Contact the first round of stakeholders

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

2. Suggested engagement schedule a. Day 1: Introductory email b. Day 4: Shortened follow-up email or a phone call c. Day 7: Send the survey 3. Respond to all emails in a timely manner 4. Confirm time and mode of all interviews within 24 hours of a booking

Conducting Interviews 1. Research interviewees prior to the interview 2. Treat each interview as a professional meeting 3. Interviews: a. Dress professionally b. Be on time and honor the interviewees end time c. Be prepared to answer questions from the interviewees regarding motivations, your own opinions, and other pushback Appendix Version (long)

Preparation: 1. Define research parameters: a. Clearly define the area of research, including all stakeholder groups who might be beneficial to engage with, the size of the company and the geographic area that research will be limited to. b. Determine if the timing is right for connecting with your intended industry. The landscaping industry is busiest from May-October and timing stakeholder engagement correctly will have significant implications for the outcome of the stakeholder engagement. 2. Prepare a stakeholder engagement tracking document: a. Recommendation: Create a google sheet or excel document to track and organize the list of potential stakeholders you find. i. This document should track the name and size of the company, what they specialize in, contact information, and an address (if applicable). ii. Stakeholder engagement template. 3. Compile the list of stakeholders: a. Compile a list of any group, organization, company or individual who might be involved in the industry who would be valuable to talk to. b. With a goal of 20 interviews compile a list of at least 60 stakeholders. c. Create an influence/interest map to prioritize stakeholders. Use the attached template to complete this map.This should include the stakeholders who are potential competitors, stakeholders who are prominent in the industry, d. Identify the stakeholders who will be the most valuable to talk to. You will reach out to these stakeholders last to ensure you are prepared.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Create the interview and survey questions 1. Define the purpose of the stakeholder engagement: a. Clearly define the purpose of the project and the question trying to be answered. 2. Conduct preliminary research on the industry: a. Begin preliminary research to determine if similar stakeholder engagement has been done and what the state of the industry is. If there are similar ones, determine what information can be used from them to jump start the process 3. Write the interview and survey questions: a. Write the first draft of all questions. This should include questions for all your stakeholder groups as well as the interview and survey questions. 4. Review the interview and survey questions: a. Review the first draft of questions collaboratively. Discussing them with other people will expose weak points, repetitions, poorly worded and unnecessary questions. Schedule a longer meeting than you anticipate needing, this process can be lengthy but it is valuable and will determine the success of your stakeholder engagement. b. Avoid jargon when writing these questions and define all concepts that might not be clear to participants. 5. Separate out the interview and survey questions: a. During the editing process identify the questions that are specific to each stakeholder group and the ones that are for all stakeholders. b. Create 2 versions of each question, one that can be asked in an interview and one that will be asked in a survey. c. Identify the high priority questions. These are useful to have identified before interviews in case someone has a hard end time or if they are long winded and it is taking significant time to get through questions. 6. Transfer survey questions to your chosen survey platform: a. Transfer all survey questions into google forms (or your preferred survey platform), this is another opportunity to edit the questions. i. Google will automatically create a sheet document to collect responses. Each question will get one column and all the responses for that question will go in that column. We suggest creating tabs for each question and then writing the formula: ='Form Responses 1'!X(corresponding cell from the first tab) that will transcribe the responses from the first tab to the tab for the correct question. This will make analyzing the responses easier since you will be able to add columns for analysis notes as well as compile all qualitative data for each question in a more readable format.. 7. Transfer interview questions to your chosen survey platform. a. Recommendation: transfer the interview questions into a survey as well. This will be an internal document used by the notetaker. The corresponding google sheets

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

document should be set up in the same way as the survey document with a tab for each question. i. When adding in the interview questions to a survey form add a comments/gut reactions question spread frequently throughout. This will give the notetaker an easy place to make additional notes and comments while in the interview. 8. Assign respondent IDs: a. Identifying stakeholders is essential, any standardized method will work. i. Recommendation: Assign each stakeholder group and each interaction type a letter. For example our project had 3 main stakeholder groups, Nurseries (N), Landscape Installers (I), and Landscape Designers (D). We also had 3 main interactions with these stakeholders, Interview (I), Survey (S), and Declined (D). We identified stakeholders with respondent IDs made up of the stakeholder type, the order they responded to us, and the interaction type. If we had a nursery respond saying they would complete an interview and they were the third respondent their ID would be N003I. 9. Set up a booking page: a. Create a booking page with available interview times that can be sent to stakeholders to streamline the interview scheduling process. i. Note: A booking page has the potential to exclude stakeholders who might not be familiar with them or who aren’t as comfortable using technology. Keep this in mind and if you notice a lack of response from one group in particular try sending available times in the upcoming week instead of the booking page.

________________________________________________________________________ Stakeholder engagement process 1. Contact the first round of stakeholders: a. Begin contacting the first round of stakeholders. With a goal of 20 interviews aim to complete 9 initially; ideally these will be evenly spread across the stakeholder groups. These initial interviews present the opportunity to test the interview questions and gauge their accuracy and how interviewees respond to them. b. The high priority stakeholders should not be included in the initial round of interviews c. Recommendation: If this is your first time doing interviews, reach out to about 10 stakeholders at a time. This will slow the process down but will ensure nothing is missed. d. Note: Change methods and questions as needed throughout this process. 2. Suggested engagement schedule: a. Day 1: Introductory email including a brief introduction, what you are asking for, why they should want to participate, and a link to the booking page or an offer to set an interview up via email.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

b. Day 4: If there has been no response send a follow-up email with the same information from the introductory email but shortened. A phone call would also be appropriate instead of an email and might increase the response rate. c. Day 7: If there is still no response, send a final email acknowledging that they are busy people, thanking them for their consideration and asking if they would be willing to fill out a short survey, which should be sent with this email. d. If a stakeholder agrees to an interview jump to step 5, Confirmed interview. e. After 3 tries to contact them; continued attempts to contact stakeholders who are not responding will only annoy them and will most likely not result in any response. 3. Respond to all emails: a. If a stakeholder declines to be interviewed, send them a thank you email and ask if they would be willing to fill out a survey. b. If a stakeholder schedules themselves for an interview proceed to step 5, Confirmed interview. c. If a stakeholder responds and says they would be willing to talk but doesn’t schedule themselves, respond thanking them and with available interview times in the next week as well as a link to the booking page in case they missed it in the initial email and want to schedule themselves. 4. Confirmed interview: a. Once an interview is scheduled send a confirmation email thanking them for scheduling and confirming if the interview will be in person, on zoom or over the phone. Make sure all the necessary information for conducting the interview has been shared (a zoom link, verified an address, or a phone number). b. Recommendation: If the interview was confirmed more than 24 hours before it was scheduled to take place, send a reminder email 2 hours before it starts. This will both remind the interviewee and make the zoom link, or phone number easier for them to find. c. In one of the confirmation emails let the interviewee know that someone else will be joining to take notes. It could start the interview off in a bad way to surprise the person with 2 interviewers when they were only expecting one.

Interviews 1. Research interviewees. a. Research the person being interviewed and the business/organization that they work for. This will help build rapport throughout the interview and could lead to some interesting additional questions. i. While doing this research make note of any information that will require changes to the wording of a question or that might make a question unnecessary/irrelevant. 2. Professionalism in interviews a. Dress in business casual.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

b. Arrive on time. Being late starts the interview on a bad note and shows little care or respect for the time of the person you are interviewing. This is true in all circumstances, but it is especially true when someone is volunteering their time to speak with you. c. Lead the interaction. Take charge of the situation, whether it is on zoom or in person, don’t wait for the interviewee to direct things. d. Ask if the interviewee has a hard stop time, if they say yes honor this, do not go over time. Use the high priority questions if someone has a hard end time, if there is still time at the end come back to the skipped questions. 3. Conducting the initial interviews: a. Begin with brief introductions. This is a good time for casual conversation and can help ease any nerves. b. Let the conversation flow, if that means asking questions out of order that is ok. c. If an interviewee seems uncomfortable answering a question don’t press them, make a note of this and after the initial interviews are complete reevaluate if that question should stay for the next round of interviews. d. Within 24 hours after the interview send an email thanking them for taking the time to speak with you. 4. Review the interview questions: a. After completing the first 9 interviews take time to go over the questions and further refine them. b. Consider the flow, wording and intention behind the questions and reflect on what worked in interviews and what felt off. 5. Final round of interviews: a. Reach out to any remaining stakeholders, including the top priority ones.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Our Methods After interviewing our first 9 stakeholders, we met as a Team and made changes to our engagement process to increase response rate. While the edits are incorporated into the final Plan, they are also explicitly outlined below. - Emails - The first emails we sent had the subject lines that were vague and confused as sounded a little like spam.Wespam., we had no responses from emails with the original subject lines. We decided to change the subject line to be: CU Boulder Professional Masters Capstone Interview Request. This generated a better response rate. - HWe figured that highlighting that we are graduate students from CU would get more people’s attention and increase the chances they read our email. - The initial email bodys we sent out had a similar problem to the subject lines so we edited them to highlight who we were and give a brief overview of what we were doing versus marketing an problem to them to invoke interest. - We contacted people approximately every 3 business days, three timesfor a total of 3 contacts. In the last email we sent a survey for them to fill out if they didn’t have time for an interview. - When we started our stakeholder engagement,At the beginning when we had an interview set up we would send a confirmation/thank you email with a zoom link a day or so beforehand. We had 2 interviewees not show up though so we are now sending a reminder email an hour or so before the interview to bump the link in their inbox and remind them of the interview. - If the zoom link was sent the day before we haven’t been sending the reminder email, we don’t want to over communicate with our stakeholders and annoy them. - Calling - We tried calling people for our 3rd contact and had some success, mostly they gave us someone to contact and that person never responded. We did get one interview from calling stakeholders. Calling might be the most useful for the stakeholders that either only have contact forms (because it seems strange to send 3 contact forms) of the ones where the email used seems like a shared email (like an info@ email) - Interviews - We changed the order of the designer interview questions to inquire about the turf replacement legislation first and get a baseline understanding before asking the rest of the questions combined the installers' question about where they source their plants and where they source their regionally native plants into one. - We removed repetitive questions in all of the interviews to make them more concise and flow better.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

- We identified non-priority questions and marked them to know which questions to drop if time is running short or a stakeholder doesn’t have a full 30 minutes. - If a stakeholder’s experience in installation and design is equal or ambiguous, the interviewers offer the interviewee the opportunity to choose which interview template they feel more comfortable speaking to

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Stakeholder Analysis - 33 Respondents Designers - 10 Respondents Use Challenges: 71% of designers said that there were challenges to designing with regionally native plants, with Client Preferences like norms, tradition, and aesthetics mentioned the most, n=6. It is also notable that closures and consolidation of existing nurseries on the Front Range is a challenge, with one designer outlining “It's a hard business - you're not making a lot of money, or the nurseries are sold to developers, and owners are aging,” and a representative from CNGA stating “The industry is losing some of the old time intellectual wisdom,” “there is also venture capital and private equity in the industry. But he also knows of a few new upstarts, saying, “the trend is big organizations step in, then small people come in and fill in the gaps and then the big organization buy them up, and then the cycle continues.” Use due to client or designer preference?: Of our designer respondents 85.9% of designs include regionally native plants with designer preference being the driving force in that decision. Criteria for use of RNPS: The top criteria are aesthetics (n=7), function (n=5), availability (n=3), success (n=3), ecological (n=2), maintenance (n=2). “It would be awesome to have a big box store with native plants” “Switching to native grasses is the most implementable thing on a mass scale.” D024I Sourcing Designers made 100% of the sourcing decisions. The top barriers mentioned to sourcing were cost (n=2), and availability (n=2). Several designers mentioned enjoying this part of the job. "We would probably spend 10% more if availability and selection were solid."

Figure x. Sources Mentioned by Designers. "We would probably spend 10% more if availability and selection were solid."

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Client Preferences Shift in client preferences due to new legislation: Four designers said they have noticed a shift in client preferences due to new legislation, and four said they had not noticed a shift. When asked about misconceptions or concerns clients had regarding xeriscaping/Coloradoscaping, the majority mentioned (long-term) maintenance.

Common misconceptions or concerns: Top misconceptions are: maintenance (n=6), aesthetics (n=3), xeriscaping vs zeroscaping (n=2), cost (n=2). There is a misunderstanding that using regionally native plants requires less maintenance than a more traditional lawn. Aesthetic preferences are tied to clients moving from other climates and seeking familiar aesthetics without understanding the necessary inputs (water, money, time, etc.) in a drier climate. Designers note that clients confuse xeriscaping with zeroscaping, and believe that xeriscaping requires complete transition to hard rock, gravel, and succulents, rather than a transition to low-water and Colorado climate-adaptive plants and trees. With regards to cost as a misconception, designers also note that landscaping has a high upfront cost that many clients cannot afford. “A challenge is that a lot of people who are in tune with having a native landscape are not the people who can afford to change their entire property. Shifting slowly, seeing a ground swell for people wanting to make a change and people realizing that they can change their small piece of earth. Socioeconomic value of changing to native landscape. Education needs to happen, every beautiful project adds to the popularity and makes more people likely to switch.” D025I Education There was no consensus in designer responses on education that would combat the misconceptions around regionally native plants and xeriscaping which supports our finding that there is a need for more streamlined education as Colorado industry and legislation promotes water-wise lawn transformations. There was mention (n=2) of Resource Central’s Garden in a Box as being a good starting point for increasing exposure and education around xeriscaping. Designers recommended the following tools and approaches: Coordination with Denver Botanic Garden, Increase Cost of Water, Maintenance, HOA Programming (n=2), Community Programming, One website with accurate and unbiased resources for the public, Provided Alternatives, Public Awareness, PSA “More demonstration gardens would be good.” D018I You have to set the example, they have to see it in person. Boulder looks like the east coast, has the resources to pay the water bill. -D044S Policy Knowledge

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Knowledge about turf replacement: 71.4% of designers interviewees had knowledge of turf replacement legislation, 29% thought the legislation would impact their business. “The problem is that people in the Cities don’t know[anything]. They aren’t aware of low water blends [turfgrass] and it’s problematic. There should be much more education for planning departments.” Respondent D001I “ goes back and forth with people who don’t understand plant species but still try to dictate rules”. Designers who do mostly commercial projects anticipate the turf replacement legislation impacting their business more than designers doing mostly residential projects.

Installers - 9 Use What factors influence your choice to use regionally-native plants: Client preference (includes aesthetics) (n=14), success (n=5), Ecology (n=9)

Add a count table with the list of counts.

It is also notable that benefitting ecology was mentioned three times as a motivation for the use of native plants. I023I will go out of their way to source native plants, and will pay more for natives because they are really good at growing in this region. Several installers mention attracting pollinators as a priority for their choices. 100% of installers are open to increasing their use of regionally native plants. Reservations about using regionally native plants: Client preference (aesthetics, tradition included) (n=5)

Add a count table with list of the rest

Lack of options for regionally native shade tolerant plants. On average, Installer respondents use regionally native plants in 62.1 % of their projects . It is notable that one interviewee specializes in growing non-native Bearded Iris, but prioritizes the use of native plants non-commercially around their property - this outlier impacted the reported average. If you create a system where it's efficient to replace lawn with native pollinator habitat and xeriscape, it's a good place to be, and you can make a lot of money. It's a win win.You can make money and a difference. I050I Sourcing Key factors influencing decisions in sourcing: Availability (n=5), Quality (n=4), Scale (n=3), reliability (n=3). The timing of supply is misaligned with demand cycles. Covid was also noted as a factor when considering the 5-7 year growing bubble, and the huge demand boom in 2020.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Barriers to sourcing regionally native plants: 55% said there were barriers to sourcing, 45% of respondents said there were no barriers to sourcing. Availability (n=2) was the biggest barrier that respondents mentioned. Add a count table with a list of the rest Where do you primarily source your plants from? Interviewees only-Harlequins (n=6), Green Spot (n=3), The Tree Farm (n=3), Tree Source (n=2) Survey-local/regional nurseries “A lot are catching up to us, wish people would be more thoughtful, mimicking but not doing it right, others calling themselves sustainable when they're actually not, one of the first joiners of "sustainable Angie's List", better than nothing but fears of false reporting, there's no oversight.”I017I Client Preferences Clients requesting regionally native plants:

Has there been a change in client preference due to the new legislation: 43% of the respondents we asked this question (n=7) said there has been (to varying degrees) an increase in client preference for regionally native plants due to turf replacement legislation and 57% reported that there has not been. Common client misconceptions: Client preferences (aesthetics included) (n=8), plant function (n=3)Landscaping is intentionally not a need for the higher end, people want to be surrounded by beautiful landscapes which requires bending the earth to their will. A lot of people really like the idea of a well designed and built up landscape. I054I Add a count table with a list of the rest Education Do you proactively discuss the benefits of regionally native plants with clients? 75% of installers said they do proactively discuss the benefits of regionally native plants, when asked (n= 8). It is notable that four respondents mentioned ecology and sustainability as a motivation for these conversations, and one respondent noted that if there was more education around regionally native plants, they would have an increase of clients making requests for native plant installations. “…so it becomes a goal to change peoples' perceptions of what makes a nice landscape” -I030S Ecological education (n=4), Providing examples (n=3), Water conservation education (n=2).

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

He's not trying to make a botanic garden, but does think it would be interesting within the City. I015I Policy Knowledge Installer’s knowledge about turf replacement legislation: 60% said yes they are familiar with the new legislation. 70% of respondents think it will impact their business. The only time respondent I049I uses municipal recommended plant list is when he is doing city planning “those considerations are quite frankly bad considerations”

Nurseries - 10 Use Business benefit to supplying to installers: 57% of the people we asked the question to (7 out 10) said there was no business benefit Business benefit to supplying to homeowners: 75% of the people we asked the question (8 out of 10) said there was a business benefit Aesthetics are difficult to overcome with homeowners. Sourcing Change in regionally native plant availability: 67% said they have noticed a change in the availability of regionally native plants, reasons for this include closures, policy, lack of land availability to build new nurseries (top reason, n=2) Climate change mentioned as a barrier Important considerations when sourcing regionally native plants: Trust (n=2), cost (n=2), native (n=2), consistency (n=2), supply ease (n=2) “Growing Garden only sources seed from the City of Boulder and she trusts them because seed savers dedicate their whole life to seed saving. It feels like a real honor to receive seed stock. It's cool that the City funds staff time to do seed saving. She can't imagine getting online and trusting that the seeds you order are actually native to Colorado, so she doesn't buy online at all.” -N002I Quality of plant is important “The research [the Capstone Team is] doing is very important. We absolutely need to be using more native plants for 1. the general environment here in Colorado and 2. dealing with a finite resource in the face of continued climatic change - we need plants that endure.” - N032I Nurseries that self grow plants:

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

17% said only self grow (1 respondent), 50% said a mix, 33% only outsource plants Gully Greenhouse mentioned 2x as a place that people outsource from, Nurseries that self grow regionally native plants: 17% only self grows (1 respondent), 33% said they have a mix, 50% only outsource Avoiding hybridization was mentioned 2x as a reason for sourcing decisions, scale/capacity was also mentioned frequently (3x) as a reason for sourcing decisions. I002I mentioned OSMP seed collection as a program they are part of, a good example of public/non-profit partnership. 50% if our interviewees rely on outside partnerships to fulfill their sourcing needs. How would a consistent supply of native impact nurseries: Out of 3 respondents, 2 said this would have a positive impact on their business, 1 said no but that was HPEC who doesn’t want to source from outside sources. % of inventory that consistent of native plants: 22% of inventory is regionally native 28% of inventory is drought resistant 13% of inventory is firewise

Figure x. Sources Mentioned by Nurseries Client Preferences Customers inquiring about regionally native plants: 70% said yes customers are inquiring with 50% of the respondents mentioning that customer intrigue has increased significantly over the past few years. It is notable that consumers are also asking for qualities in plants that overlap with regionally native species, without specifically requesting “regionally native plants”. Likelihood that people would pay more for plants from a regionally native plant greenhouse: 57% (7 out of 10 were asked this question) said no, customers would not pay more Clients unintentionally buying regionally native plants:

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

40% said yes (5 interviewees asked this question), “customers are asking for drought tolerant beyond anything else, and because they assume natives are drought tolerant that is where the increase stems from” - No27I Customer Misconceptions around Regionally Native Plants Six respondents (n=6) reported aesthetics (including two mentions of tradition (n=2)) as a common customer concern or misconception, and 4 respondents (n=4) reported Seasonality as a common customer concern or misconception. Education 56% of the nine respondents (n=9) who answered this question, do currently offer education for the public, though only four (n=4) mentioned education specifically around regionally native plants. These include waterwise landscape design courses, Colorado Certified Nursery professionals program that discusses regionally native plants and where they are found, offering regionally native plant literature, “Why native plants?” classes, and education on native seeds & propagation. 40% of respondents stated that an increase in examples (increased number of xeriscaped yards, better marketing, demonstration gardens, etc.) of regionally native plants would mitigate common misconceptions among consumers. Policy Knowledge 80% of respondents are aware of Turf Replacement legislation to varying degrees of understanding. Three interviewees (n=3) indicated that they believed this legislation will have a positive impact on their business. All survey respondents indicated they have not taken steps to alter their business model in response to changing legislation. “It will change our landscaper's business and in response, it will change our business. Regulatory drivers always change business.” - N032I “Any change in the right direction is positive.” N046I

Overlap This section contains common themes across all stakeholder groups.

Use Insert Who is driving demand gauge - 0-3 scale : client - industry Designer preference is the driving reason for regionally native plant inclusion in designs, 85.9% of designs use regionally native plants, 78% of designers use regionally native plants because of their own preference for them. This is supplemented by 22% of those choices being influenced by client preferences. It is notable that this contrasts with installers who mentioned that client preference drives their use of regionally native plants in landscape projects. Both designers and installers, however, report that one of the biggest challenges/reservations around use of regionally native plants is also client preference.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

6 nursery respondents indicated that there was only a business benefit of selling regionally native plants to residents, but 7 of respondents reported there was not a benefit to selling specifically to Installers. This indicates that the residents interested in regionally native plants are not also hiring installers to complete there project. There is thus an opportunity to alter the market by increasing interest in regionally native plants for people who hire installers to work on their projects. Sourcing Nurseries, installers, and designers indicated that availability or supply of regionally native plants is a top barrier to sourcing regionally native plants. Nurseries and designers responded that cost was a top barrier to sourcing as well. Figure x. Stakeholders indicated an interest in sourcing from a Nursery specializing in Regionally Native Plants. It is notable that closures and market consolidation was mentioned in multiple interviews across stakeholder groups, and while one of our survey respondents was experiencing closure at the time of their survey response, we were not able to substantiate closure of specifically mentioned nurseries. “The nurseries are closing down - losing small, medium, large greenhouses. It's been happening since before the pandemic, but we are losing native plant nurseries everywhere. Many in Utah and California. It's a hard business - you're not making a lot of money, or the nurseries are sold to developers, and owners are aging.” -D001I “The industry is losing some of the old time intellectual wisdom.” -A038I Consolidation of nurseries, Brightview (huge commercial landscaping company), Site One (largest nursery supplier, irrigation supplier and landscaping material supplier in the country), there is also venture capital and private equity in the industry --A038I But he also knows of a few new upstarts, the trend is big organizations step in, then small people come in and fill in the gaps and then the big organization buy them up, and then the cycle continues.” -A038I Additionally, there were 3 number of respondents who indicated that they have considered or planned to open a regionally native plant nursery to fill the supply gap themselves. Respondent N016I “talked to 3 people who are wanting to open a native plant nursery- one in Southwest Colorado o and 2 on the Front Range.” He said “On the logistics side, we have the benefit of being a non-profit. Space is always the issue, and you have to make it count to pay the

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

bill, so when you have a native plant that takes 120 days of pretreatment before sowing, 2 years before you can plant it, it's not going to work. We don't have this same pressure. There are so few of these native plant nursery folks to share knowledge with and there's a tension with the market. We’ve seen landscapers come back to [our nursery] because big nurseries don't have the patience” for growing these plants.

Figure x. Count of Sources Mentioned by All Stakeholders. Client Preferences An overarching theme throughout all surveys and interview responses was that aesthetics, including but not limited to standards of beauty, norms from other climactic regions, misconception about xeriscape plant varieties, and native plant growing cycles, is one of the biggest barriers to increasing demand for these plants in residents.“Would say that people are leaning more towards xeric style landscapes, especially younger people. Older people say they moved here from somewhere else and like their green grass and aren't aware of the consequences. People are obsessed with their lawns. - I020I X respondents reported that consumers are asking more for drought-resistant species versus explicitly requesting regionally native species, and often confuse these as the same term. As mentioned above, concern for specifically native plants can be secondary to concern about water conservation among consumers. As people move from other regions to the Front Range, combatting traditional planting preferences is critical. Still an apprehension to xeriscape and natives, people don't want to have landscapes that look like Arizona. I054I One respondent stated “Demand for natives stays about the same. Customers don't realize plants are not awake in April. They ask for natives early when the plants are not ready mostly because people are antsy to get planting. There is a shorter growing season for annuals in Colorado. Customers ask early in the season and then seem to forget about natives.” N027I

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Education It is notable that lack of installer education was explicitly mentioned by three of our respondents across stakeholder groups as being a major gap to fill. As demand for native plants increases, there is a need for workforce development to parallel changing consumer needs. “Improper planting practices lead to untimely demise, so he teaches classes on that in the industry. Needs to be a lot more education on this. He is very passionate. Things are really expensive when you have educated and certified companies getting undersold by less educated installers. It hurts the health of the plants. His prices are 3x those of less qualified arborists. His colleagues see this too. Lack of education, credentials, and insurance companies hurt plants and make a quick buck, and it's super unfortunate. It's gotten worse over the years.” - I049I “Change starts with the landscape professionals, people/customers are willing to listen and be led if they are told what works and what doesn’t” -A038I “When landscapers understand how it is financially beneficial to them to recommend water wise plants, that is when the biggest change will happen. Education needs to happen from profit motive standpoint. A surprising amount of professional landscapers don't know much about the plants they're planting - it is architectural or memorized method installs, not functional.” “ Landscapers are seasonal - there is almost zero barrier to entry - no licence required, and after a few years, suddenly they have a crew and they only plant x species because it doesn't die & they need to make their money quick. The industry is trying to make the most amount of money from April -October. Education needs to happen without preaching to people - this turns people off quickly. Education means something different to landscapers who do not have a college education. They are business and trade people. They have to be wickedly intelligent to solve problems in the field with no support every day. It has to be a framing thing. As quickly as people are processing information these days in our society, education needs to be done in a way that they can understand the value quickly - this should be done from a profit motive lens. “ N032I

While there is stakeholder consensus around a need for education around the value and maintenance of regionally native plants for the public, there was little consensus around who is responsible for educating, and what that should look like.

Figure x. Respondents noted that creating “real life examples” of regionally native landscapes or lawns would be a good tool for combatting lack of awareness and misconception in consumers. “What we do with the yard is a social thing. They want to fit in with the street culture. What is

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

important is when we change what's visible even just in a few places, it gives more people permission to do the same thing. Seeing a neighborhood with a miserable HOA community with Eccinechia, Fringe sage in the median, they can see that this is what we do here, what the expectation is.” N016I Client misconceptions about maintenance requirements were mentioned across all stakeholder groups. Many respondents mentioned the idea of “right plant, right place” as an important consideration when choosing plants. They consistently pointed out the importance of function in an ecosystem, and how a shifting climate has changed the amount plants adapted to the Colorado foothills environment. Focusing on drought-resistant and hardy plants that contribute to green space and cooling in Boulder County is a strategy to creating resilient landscapes beyond committing to sole use of strictly regionally native plants, whose definition is widely contested. Figure x. Stakeholder Use of the phrase, “Right Plant Right Place”. Via email correspondence, Respondent A036I emphasizes this asking, “Are we talking Colorado native, Western native, North American native, Boulder County native, etc.?” By increasing the types of plants acceptable to landscape transformations, the ability to implement transformation projects is increased as well.

Policy Knowledge Industry is slow to respond - count mentions - industry is so compartmentalized because all these groups do need to make a profit. Across all industry groups, a gap between decision makers and industry impact was mentioned as a huge barrier to business success in a changing market. Insert count. Ensuring that environmental policy does not hinder the work of environmental professionals is critical in increasing supply and meeting demand for regionally native plants. “We need more policy people who listen and learn. On the industry level, that's really lagging. Installers 10 years ago didn't believe in rain gardens, and she is still fighting with them about downspouts. Trying to distribute water into the garden - a lot of this is industry training too.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

There are so many communication levels that need cross education and loss of siloing. She attends conferences for aspects of the field she isn't directly involved in.” - D001I “Big disconnect within landscape industry; it's just the bread and butter for many; each person would like to do something, but there's no progress; small operators are busy providing multiple services, so there's no progress; ALCC members, regardless of how much they talk about green, so set in its ways; if ALCC moves the industry might move; there are conferences but no industry involvement.” - D011I “ We do need to be very thoughtful about policy - very well meaning progressive policies are closing the doors on industry that we depend on.” “Nurseries are closing- not because they're bad at business, but because of these policies. Need to think of engaging rural spaces.”- N002I

Residents - 176 Respondents Demographics

Figure 1. Location breakdown of residents.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Figure 2. Average resident household income.

Figure 3. Resident housing type breakdown.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Figure 4. Resident Perception of Climate Change Breakdown. Use

Figure 5. Breakdown of landscaping decision-making in residents.

Figure 6. Breakdown of preferred landscaping types, missing responses with only one selection.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Figure 7. Breakdown of residents hiring industry, missing responses with only one selection.

Figure 8. Types of landscaping being hired for, missing responses with only one selection.

Figure 9. Breakdown of monetary investment in hired landscaping.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Sourcing Client Preferences

Figure 10. Resident motivations for lawn conversions, missing responses with only one selection.

Figure 11. Breakdown of plant type purchases, missing responses with only one selection.

Figure 12. Resident barriers to lawn conversion, missing responses with only one selection.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Figure 13. Breakdown of willingness to pay for Coloradoscaping or drought-tolerant landscaping.

Figure 14. Breakdown of influence of climate change concern on landscaping choices. Education

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Figure 15. Types of educational materials residents are interested in regarding xeric lawn conversion, missing responses with only one selection. Policy Knowledge

Figure 16. Breakdown of resident Colorado Turf Replacement legislation participation. “This is not the landscaping issue of immediate concern in the neighborhood where I live. The only landscaping issue of importance to me right now is the possibility of being forced by city regulations or laws to modify my landscaping because of wildfire risks (e.g., prohibiting vegetation within 5 ft of a residence). It is unlikely that the city will impose limits on water use in the near future; but if it were to do so, that might also cause me to consider landscaping modifications to lessen the need to water my lawn.” -R059S

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Plant Decision Making Recommended Plant Lists Within SB23-178, the Colorado legislature recommends CSU Extension’s xeric and native plant lists as tools for landscape transformations within HOAs. The legislative intention is to provide HOAs with options for the landscape designs they are mandated to create for residents. Below is a combination of native plants that CSU Extension recommends, and plants restricted as well as recommended by the municipalities within Boulder County. We have also cross referenced these lists with the plants mentioned when we asked nurseries and designers “what plant species are most requested by clients?” and to installers, “what plant species are you most often making replacements for?” as well as residents on the front range. Throughout our stakeholder engagement process, several interviewees noted that there is a gap in native plant availability as well as a gap in understanding or appreciation of native plant aesthetics which can decrease consumer demand. By creating a curated selection of supply, designers and installers will be able to increase the variety and amount of regionally native plants in their projects, and thus increase acceptance from clients. The lists below are intended to inform which native seeds and plants should be selected to best fill the needs of the landscaping industry. They are alphabetized within each category and within each municipality. Plants Restricted by Code Ordinances These lists include grasses, flowers, shrubs, and trees restricted by the Town of Lyons, Boulder County, City of Boulder, City of Louisville, Town of Erie, and City of Lafayette. Plants Recommended by Code Ordinances These lists include grasses, flowers, shrubs, and trees recommended by the Town of Lyons, Boulder County, City of Boulder, City of Louisville, Town of Erie, and City of Lafayette. Plants Not Recommended by Installers We asked installers in interviews and surveys what top 5-10 plants they replace most frequently. This list represents the answers to these questions. Desired Natives (from Industry Interviews) This list accounts for any regionally native plant mentioned by nurseries, installers, and designers in interviews or surveys that the respondents mentioned using in projects, wanting to increase use of in projects, or are desired but missing due to availability in the market. Desired Natives (from Resident Survey) We asked residents what their favorite plants in their yards are, and this list contains the plants native to Colorado included in those survey responses.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Desired Adaptive Non-natives This list outlines all of the plants desired by residents as recorded in the resident survey that are non-native, but have a drought resistance alternative sold by Plant Select, CSU Extension’s seed and plant source. Fire-resistant Natives The resident survey revealed an interest from residents in firewise plant alternatives. Plants Restricted by Code Ordinances

Interaction with GIS tools & layers Words, words, words graphs graphs graphs

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Land Availability Land and water access are the largest limiting factors to building a supply of regionally native plants on the Front Range. To build in Boulder County, land needs to be secured on land zoned for Intensive Agricultural Uses, a category of principal use (LLUC 4-502). By right, this includes property zoned as Agricultural, Light Industrial, or General Industrial. By Special Review permission, a nursery could also be built on properties zoned as Forestry or Rural Residential (Boulder County, 2019). See below for a map of these property zones. Figure x. Insert Boulder County Zoning Map. According to a report published by the USDA educating novice growers on how to open a native plant nursery, “greenhouses used to grow seedlings in containers are best at high latitudes or elevations where extremely short growing seasons make bareroot production impractical,” (Dumroese et al., 2021), suggesting that on the Front Range, it would be beneficial for a successful nursery to prioritize mainly container growing seedlings - both indoor and outdoor. Because Boulder County is typically warmer than the mountainous regions of Colorado, there may be potential for some Barefoot growing as well ie. Plants grown in open fields in native soil, but this would require more intentionality around soil and water quality (Dumroese et al., 2021). The USDA provides a comparison of limiting factors and how they influence choosing between Container and Barefoot Nurseries. Below is an annotated graphic noting which limiting factors are at play with the proposed Native Plant Wholesale Nursery.

Figure x. Factors influencing nursery type preference (Dumroese et al., 2021). City of Boulder OSMP Agricultural Land Leasing In supporting the City of Boulder’s local agricultural heritage, leasing a property when it is “put up for bid” is an option. “Once available to lease, public notice is provided of the available land and water, along with a stewardship model describing OSMP’s general parameters for

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

agricultural use of those resources.” According to OSMP’s 2017 Agricultural Management Plan, facilities can be constructed on OSMP land if necessary to support approved activities as specified in an Open Space management plan (and in accordance with the Charter Sec. 176).” They note that while it is currently uncommon on leased OSMP land, “the interest to diversify the types of agricultural operations on OSMP lands has been accompanied by a growing interest in additional agricultural structures being permitted, especially greenhouses and hoophouses.” (City of Boulder OSMP, 2017). However, we do not recommend pursuing this option as the City policy has determined Greenhouses as “not necessary for open agriculture,” because they create a tightly controlled environment where plants are not typically grown in the grown, and additionally because they do not meet energy efficient standards (City of Boulder OSMP, 2017).

Floodplains-in unincorporated Boulder County there are restrictions to the types of buildings that can be constructed in floodplains - https://bouldercounty.gov/property-and-land/land-use/planning/land-use-code-update/dc22-0004/

BuildSmart Boulder County-there are restrictions to new residential builds and additions in unincorporated Boulder County-not sure how they apply to greenhouses - https://bouldercounty.gov/property-and-land/land-use/building/buildsmart/?utm_source=c hatgpt.com

Potential locations? https://www.landwatch.com/boulder-county-colorado-undeveloped-land-for-sale/pid/420823990

Interaction with GIS tools & layers -

Flood plain-this could limit where a greenhouse could be built, it might be a good layer to add to the map - These regulations only apply to unincorporated areas - Boulder County floodplain maphttps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bfbf09da0dd247b6a8347e82fa236c91 -

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Recommendations Stakeholder Engagement Land Use Selection 1. Ceres Greenhouse Grant Resources a. USDA Urban Agriculture Innovation Production grant - awarded to help farmers, gardeners, and other urban area stakeholders fund food access b. Community Development Block Grant - City of Boulder - link of support for low income communities c. Property Assessed Clean Energy Program grant - dept. Of energy d. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension (SARE) is government-funded organization that administers grants for education and research relating to sustainable agriculture.

Policy Recommendations 1. Colorado House Bill 22-1301 a. Redefining Controlled Environmental Agricultural facility as Agricultural Property 2. City Building Code Standards - ensure that resiliency standards and requirements have exceptions for greenhouses to reduce closures 3. Use of stakeholder engagement plan during the off season to better connect with industry folks who are not currently passionate about these initiatives 4. City of Boulder Landscape Planning Board

Community & Coalition Building Opportunities 1. City of Longmont Ceres Native Plant Nursery & Native Plant Propagation Program 2. If you can get residents to care about regionally native plants, there will be an increase of consumer demand for regionally naitve plants and if you get installers & designers to care, you can target the rest of the consumers who just want a pretty lawn and someone else to make it pretty for them (with regionally native plants) - go into cost savings, water savings, etc.

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Appendix Appendix A. Survey & Interview Research Results Interviews Installers Interview (Responses).xlsx Designer Interviews (Responses).xlsx Nursery Interview (Responses).xlsx Additional Stakeholders Interviews.xlsx Surveys Installers Survey (Responses).xlsx Designer Survey (Responses).xlsx Nursery Survey (Responses).xlsx Resident Survey (Responses).xlsx

Appendix B. Thematic Coding Overview Appendix C. Survey & Interview Forms Installers Survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/17IXP_lsgxRUfrfdNDVE0JDcaLr0RwjQzrQbajxRLH3s/edit#r esponses Designer Survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1QIB-4KDfsnq8O2CjcuAJyn9llU5YZoVNN7AkfDnUvHQ/edi t#responses Nursery Survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1QKmd1qH6v7W9B7Wug-aWYndgR4UyGcGKH8sWNrP5Z OU/edit#responses

Attachment I - Filling the Regionally-Native Plant Supply Gap on the Front Range – A Feasibility & Desirability Study prepared by University of Colorado Graduate Students

Property Owners Survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zcf4breEaNWJ3i-qKEOZTrtZCqPuqcwSD8MmIUAK8tg/edit #responses

Appendix D. Glossary