Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 05/05/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE May 5, 2004 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Preent Joann Thomas, Clint Skutchan, Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Glen Colton, Nate Donovan, Ryan Staychock, Randy Fischer Board Members Absent Arvind Panjabi (resigned from board effective immediately) Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, John Stokes Transportation Planning: Mark Jackson, Kathleen Reavis, Ron Phillips Utilities: Cliff Hoelscher, Brian Janonis Agenda Review Nate Donovan suggested making the CDOT/Carpenter Road item an action item. Guests CSU student Minutes: The minutes of the March 3, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as written. The minutes of the March 17, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as written. The minutes of the April 7, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as written. The minutes of the April 16, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as written. CDOT/Carpenter Road Swap Mark Jackson provided background information saying that CDOT has held formal discussions with Weld County, Larimer County, Greeley and Fort Collins to suggest a change in several highways considered regionally significant roadways. County Road 32 has been designated as significant. CDOT has proposed to assume jurisdiction of County Road 32 between I-25 and College Avenue. Currently Larimer County controls 3.2 miles and Fort Collins controls 1.3 mile. It's important to the region for mobility purposes. • Donovan: On the ability to obtain other funds, what is the process CDOT would go through now to decide which roads would be improved? Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 2 of 12 • Jackson: It has to be reflected on the regional transportation plan. This has been included. Then it goes through the prioritization process with the state funding pool. That's when they look for federal funds from other sources. • Knowlton: Does CDOT have the $14 million for 2004? • Jackson: No. • Knowlton: Would NEPA apply if CODT improves the road, but no federal funds are used. • Jackson: Any state funds are tied to federal funds and would come under the NEPA guidelines. • Staychock: NEPA requires them to discuss a range of alternatives, but does not require an agency to choose the environmentally preferred option. • Jackson: NEPA requires an EIS if the impacts will be significant. CDOT has already determined the impacts are significant. • Fischer: It doesn't require a plan change or mitigation, it just identifies preferred alternatives. • Jackson: The NEPA process is more rigorous than anything the City or Council has. NEPA is the environmentalist's friend. • Hart: It's a good process, but it doesn't guarantee good solutions • Fischer: I have deep concerns about this. Tell me about the MOU, who is that between and what opportunities will we have as a City to put things in the MOU that would help us protect the environmental values. And, would you speak to the idea that this does offer potentially the ability to get other funds. • Jackson: I'm not sure about the second part. This road is not important only to the City of Fort Collins. CDOT recognizes that, and the MPO recognizes that. Would the ability of the City of Fort Collins to put in money help? Yes, it always helps. • Jackson: The MOU is very preliminary. We've seen the MOU that was executed between Weld County and CDOT. It's a one page deal. We haven't started crafting one yet. The environmental concerns are elements that we express to CDOT every time we talk with them. We've seen internal messages that say this is sensitive. It's on CDOT's mind already. • Fischer: I would not support it if it's not in the MOU. We need some really strong environmental protection language in the MOU if we're to have any measure of success to mitigate and minimize the impact a six lane highway will have on the more than $10 million investment out there. • Staychock: I was more than a little disappointed when I found out these discussions were going on prior to the last meeting, and it wasn't brought up. I disagree with Carpenter Road being of regional importance. We have the Harmony corridor and Mulberry. I don't even think Carpenter Road goes west of College. I understand the regional significance to the east of I-25. • Jackson: With regard to the conversation between CDOT and Larimer County, we weren't party to those. To the degree you feel that I was not forthcoming, the conversations that we thought might be going on were anecdotal at best. At the time I gave you the best information I had. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 3 of 12 • Jackson: And, with regard to being regionally significant, the current travel patterns and the forecast shows that this is the primary ingress and egress for folks who live south of Harmony Road. The travel patterns vary throughout the corridor. It's the southern most access point for the highest growth area. • Staychock: I disagree, and will not support this. • Skutchan: It is a regionally important corridor. I live south and drive it every day. What's the reality of it being six lanes instead of four? • Jackson: The danger in planning is lines on a map. They take on a life of their own. Will it ultimate carry six lanes of demand, yes. Is it immediately needed? It's close to capacity right now. Would four lanes suffice for several years to come? Yes, but the lines allow us the ability to obtain right of way. • Skutchan: I understand you have to plan for the largest project possible. As far as on the MPO list, where's it at? • Jackson: I don't know. • Skutchan: When will they have an idea of where it's at on the regionally significant issues? • Reavis: Within the next month or so. • Skutchan: You mentioned the Weld/CDOT MOU, is Highway 392 on it? • Jackson: There's a number of roadways they're looking at in Weld County, and a couple in Larimer County. • Skutchan: Are there any examples that would have similar characteristics? • Jackson: What they're looking at is swapping out minor roads for bigger roads. • Hart: Aren't the difficulties at the intersection of the I-25 ramps? You don't have a problem till you get to the ramp. Have you thought about that improving the road will put more traffic on the ramp. • Jackson: Yes, the intersection of the I-25 ramps is difficult. • Hart: Is the plan to take the bend out? • Jackson: There is no plan yet. These are conceptual alignments. They'll look at alignment options. • Donovan: They show six lanes on the MSP, but is it physically possible to put six lanes in? • Jackson: It may not be. Can you mitigate the standard to lessen the impact. • Fischer: What are the state standards for a six lane arterial highway? What standards do they have? How do their standards mesh with ours? Do they have a context sensitive design policy? • Jackson: Yes, it's one of the first in the country. • Fischer: How can we evaluate that, and make an educated decision about which jurisdiction would be best? • Reavis: CDOT will work with city standards. They recognize our local street standards. • Fischer: Would that apply only to the 1.3 miles in the city limits, or the whole thing? • Reavis: It should apply to the whole thing. • Jackson: There will be a phenomenal amount of public input that is required throughout the entire project. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 4 of 12 • Hart: How much right of way do we have out there? • Jackson: I don't know the current configuration. • Hart: Do you have any feel for when it would have to go to four lanes? • Jackson: Four lanes is coming in the next five to ten years, given some of the things we know are planned. • Hart: Do you feel good that this change in jurisdiction would enable the State to pay for construction? • Jackson: If you look at the corridor in total, and combine that with the attention the interchange at 392 is getting, that gets people's attention. Think of things that are being planned for the region. Greeley is supposed to be one of the highest growth areas in the state in the next ten years. Ryan Staychock made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommend to Council to reject the proposed jurisdictional change of Carpenter Road/County Road 32 to CDOT. Linda Knowlton seconded the motion. • Hart: You state one of the benefits is that the state will take over maintenance. How much is that? • Phillips: $10,000 to $15,000 a year. That doesn't include major maintenance. CDOT is looking at an overlay. • Hart: I'd like to get an idea of the urgency of this. It seems like its going pretty fast. I think we should talk about doing this corridor analysis whether it happens or not. What's the urgency? • Phillips: Some of the doors will close. They're talking to Weld and Larimer counties on other trades. There may be nothing left to trade. • Colton: So you're saying this may help get funding, but there are no guarantees. • Jackson: There are no guarantees in any transportation funding at this point of the game. But, if this moves forward and becomes part of the federal system the importance is elevated. • Staychock: I appreciate local governmental control. The City of Fort Collins can do a better job than the state, especially when we have so much invested. We don't have the money, they don't have the money, I don't see the urgency. • Knowlton: I have to agree with Glen. The last sentence of your memo says that City staff recommends doing the corridor analysis regardless of the jurisdictional changes. It doesn't seem like saying we need a little more time should be a deal killer. • Skutchan: I get the feeling we're jumping the gun here. I don't understand the urgency. Wouldn't we get a chance to see the MOU? We're putting the cart before the horse here. We're saying no. We could have we want while being able to leverage the funding. I agree the study could be valuable. The MOU would be helpful to make a decision that's not based purely on emotion. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 5 of 12 • Donovan: We might be able to have input on the MOU, and that might be a good thing. But, as Council decision making goes, if input isn't given before the study session, often its too late. The direction is given and the ball is rolling. • Skutchan: Will you have a MOU before May 25? • Jackson: We'll start crafting one as soon as we can. • Skutchan: Where is Windsor in this? • Jackson: They're not a player, they don't have any relevant roadways. • Skutchan: I commend you for coming. I'm afraid the "conspiracy theory" has convoluted the opinions of this board. • Colton: I don't know about the conspiracy theory. I don't feel comfortable saying yes or no. I propose doing the corridor study and seeing the traffic pattern analysis. I'm trying to figure out where is all of this really coming from? From two to six lanes, I would like to see more about that. I would really like to understand the whole NEPA thing. • Fischer: Ron's (Phillips) testimony at council on the night of the TMP was that you were not that concerned about the City's ability to pay to get that job done. You made statements that there were street oversizing fees that could pay for that. Would you elaborate on that? You kind of made it sound like a slam dunk. • Phillips: I not sure the interpretation was entirely accurate. There was a question of six lanes over four lanes, how would we pay for six. If this is on the MSP that will affect the street oversizing formulation. • Fischer: Doesn't street oversizing come from development on the road. • Phillips: No, it's from anywhere in the community. What developers pay for adjacent to the development is the local street portion. Where we don't have development taking place it's a capital expense. • Fischer: How much of the land has been already developed, or is protected? There's protected open lands, conservation easements and development from I-25 to College Avenue. Where are you going to get the extra right of way, especially in the area that's in Fort Collins? • Phillips: I'm not sure I agree with your comment that most is already developed. • Fischer: My point is the right of way argument doesn't wash. Things have already happened that will preclude the right of way. • Phillips: We've made mistakes in the past, that doesn't mean we should continue making mistakes. • Jackson: There are processes to acquire right of way, some of it is determined by alignment. • Fischer: No one pays attention to the argument that the corridor is protected or developed. The right of way argument doesn't wash. I've heard from a couple sources there are alternative road alignments that would be considered. Can you show me those? • Phillips: No, we'd need to do a corridor study. It's not practical to go there at this point. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 6 of 12 • Knowlton: I would like to make a friendly amendment, that unless an independent corridor analysis performed by the City shows that such transfer would benefit the City. • Donovan: Ryan, do you accept that? • Staychock: I would accept that. • Donovan: Is the City a required signatory, or could Larimer County and CDOT continue if the City does not sign the MOU. Can all or part of it be transferred? • Phillips: Possibly part of it, but I doubt if they would do that. • Donovan: Would the City have to participate on the part that is in the City of Fort Collins? • Phillips: It's a negotiated process between the transportation commission and the negotiating body. • Colton: What impact, if any, would this have on the fact that both the County and City collect impact fees, as far as the regional impact fees? • Phillips: I think no impact. • Jackson: Calculations might have to be done. • Skutchan: I won't be supporting this motion. I see this as an important corridor. I happen to be one who uses it. I believe the State is more capable to proceed in a rapid fashion. We need to balance the impact on the natural areas. As we get closer to the June 15 MOU we could bring this back to the NRAB when there's a clear understanding of what this will entail. • Hart: I don't understand the push to get this thing done. It doesn't seem the City has a good handle on the corridor. Do we have the right of way? Can we get it? At what cost? What's the need for updating this road? We don't have adequate information to know what the real factors are. • Colton: If the City looks at expanding the GMA it could bring the whole length of that road under city jurisdiction. I don't see the urgency. • Hart: It's not like we don't have a long relationship with CDOT. There's the rest stop. We can work with agencies on an ongoing basis. I'm not ready to make a recommendation. • Fischer: I'm more comfortable with this being under City control. We know the players, and have more control over it if it remains in city hands. We already have a mechanism to pay for improvements to the road. I'm not in a big hung to see this go to six lanes. I will support the motion. • Donovan: Before we vote, do we want to send a memo crystallizing the comments in addition to the motion? Does that sound ok? Members agreed to a memo being drafted. The motion passed with seven votes in favor and one vote (Clint Skutchan) opposed. Halligan Reservoir Cliff Hoelscher reviewed a power point presentation providing background information and detailing the proposed expansion of the reservoirs. • Donovan: Do we have to get a permit from the Forest Service? • Hoelscher: We have to get one from the Corp of Engineers. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 7 of 12 • Donovan: But, it would be just one application. • Hoelscher: We can do one EIS. We can look at the north fork in a regional manner. There would likely be two permits, one for the City of Fort Collins, and for Greeley. The EIS will take two to three years. Hopefully we'll have a permit by 2007. • Donovan: Will the EIS still be valid for Seaman? • Hoelscher: It will probably have some conditions, a re -review of certain parameters. • Fischer: I was surprised to learn the decision has already been made. • Hoelscher: When Council adopted the Supply and Demand policy they authorized us to look at enlarging it to 40,000 acres. • Fischer: When did this become the Halligan/Seaman project? • Hoelscher: The Supply and Demand Policy said we would work with the City of Greeley. We get the ability to exchange water back and forth. We can maintain a level in Halligan which we could use in a severe drought situation. It allows us to increase flows in the north fork as well as the main stem by cooperating with Greeley. We're in the process of modeling different scenarios. • Knowlton: Where do the cost savings to the City of Fort Collins come from? • Hoelscher: It comes from having partners who share in the cost of an enlarged Halligan. If we do it ourselves we bear the brunt of all expenses. • Donovan: Was the cost projection if we went alone based on 40,000 or 32,000? • Janonis: It was based on 12,000. • Colton: Since Council said to look at options up to 40,000, does this look at only 40,000 or the other options as well. If the City did this on their own would the dam be in the same location? • Janonis: The COE will make a determination of what are the least environmentally damaging alternatives. The COE will make the decision if we can enlarge Halligan, or it could be some other alternative. • Staychock: Right now its at 6400 acre feet. If we increase it to 40,000 do we have the water rights? • Hoelscher: Yes. • Janonis: We're very fortunate. We have a lot of good water rights. People question why we're not under mandatory restriction. We could cut our water demand in half, but we cant store water at the end of the year and save it for next year. We're concerned. This year we're running back to the same people, it makes us very vulnerable to fluctuations of water patterns. • Colton: Say the 40,000 gets permitted. City Council could make a decision to go to 14,000. • Janonis: The COE and the federal government will permit the least cumulative environmental impacts, the least damaging. I don't know how the permitting process will turn out. They'll have a record of decision, the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging practical alternative). • Colton: Do we lose all control? • Janonis: The COE doesn't care, they have a responsibility according to NEPA to look at the least damaging. It could be something we don't like. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 8 of 12 • Stokes: They have several projects coming forward. They will decide which is the most environmentally benign and benefit the most people. • Janonis: We're trying to take an approach that will provide a human and ecological solution. We're trying to incorporate the aspects that will make it the least environmentally damaging. • Skutchan: hi partnering and making it the Halligan/Seaman project it diminishes the impact. The cooperation allows for more storage with less environmental impact. The cooperation could be a benefit. • Janonis: That's our intent, to improve stream flow and habitat. There are a lot of angles that will be explored. • Skutchan: Is contamination and return water from Greeley something they look at? • Janonis: We have joint operating agreements to maintain minimal stream flows. Those are the types of things they look for. They look for us to work together. We've hired Miller Eco Services to start habitat modeling. • Colton: Do they just look at stream flows, or the environmental impacts of growth of population? • Janonis: They look at population growth, and that you're doing reasonable, good conservation programs. They look at everything. There's a project south of here where they looked at feral cat populations due to increased development on wildlife. • Hoelscher: There's a reason it will take two to three years for permitting. • Janonis: I hate to sound pessimistic, but its very clear to us we don't have much control once we enter the pennitting process. We are trying to work with the environmental community to develop a good project for everyone. • Stokes: During the winter months they shut that dam down to two cf s or less. Before the Conservancy got there they shut it down completely. The flows are truncated in the winter, any peak flows are cut off. The vegetative communities are different above and below the dam. There's probably not a lot you guys can do about that, the one thing you can do is put more water in the river during the winter months. • Hoelscher: We could release water from Halligan and recapture it in Seaman. We could trade with Greeley to replace that water in a reservoir up in the main stem. Sometimes during the winter the main stem freezes up and stops flowing as well. • Janonis: Our meetings with the DOW indicate that what's holding back the aquatic species is the freezing. We are modeling increasing flows for habitat. • Hoelscher: They'd have to operate in the best interests of the cities. Secondarily, we can enhance the ecology of the river. • Staychock: Are we tapping into the CSU water experts? • Janonis: There are a lot of resources at CSU. We're kind of committed to a few consultants. When it gets to the independent 3rd part we want to have saved a pool of highly qualified folks. • Stokes: NRD has agreed to put about $1.8 million into Roberts Ranch easements. About 2200 acres of that is to the north of Halligan. It would back up to the boundary of that property. Its one of the reasons we thought it would be appropriate to put some resources in that project. It's an interesting opportunity to restore about a mile to a mile and a half of the river. We should take a field trip up there and look at it. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 9of12 • Skutchan: When is the public outreach scheduled to get started, and what does that consist of? • Janonis: In the next couple months. I hope to talk more seriously with groups such as the Sierra Club and Trout Unlimited, and find out their concerns. Once we get into the NEPA process it's all run by a third party consultant. • Skutchan: It's important to put this in the context of other projects going on. It sounds like a pretty viable option. It's important for the public at large to understand the concepts. • Hoelscher: Remember the City's GMA. When that reaches ultimate buildout the City of Fort Collins will only service about one half of the citizens. Some of the districts currently service some of the citizens. • Colton: It makes sense to work with them. But if we help them create more development outside of the GMA that's not good. • Janonis: We've been trying for years to get a watershed protection on the Poudre. The forum voted to initiate a sister group on the Poudre so they're going to get a watershed protection group on the Poudre. There's real cooperation. • Colton: Keeping the water in agriculture is a good use. Announcements Stokes: About a week and a half ago it became clear to staff that some of the problems with the Soapstone deal were fatal. We recommended terminating the agreement with the sellers. We've actually pulled something together that is much better. It entails the City buying the land in Colorado, and we get some restrictive covenants on the 3000 acres that border us in Wyoming. We have the right of first refusal. We need to have the paperwork complete by Friday. I feel good. We'll know by Sunday if this will proceed to closing on May 20. Instead of a Natural Areas Committee meeting there might be a field trip to Soapstone on May 27. Arvind Panjabi is officially off the board. LUC Buffer Standards Stokes briefly reviewed proposed changes to the standards. • Skutchan: Can we talk about the reasons for these distances being determined? • Stokes: Everything we look at says that flushing distances are in excess of 1500 feet. Our current standard is 1320. We got with Jerry Craig and said what can you guys live with in an urban environment? We've noticed some hawks adapt and can thrive, and some cant. • Fischer: We should mention that there is not scientific data to support that number. No research has been done on urbanized raptors. • Staychock: In the literature that was cited some of them were up to a mile. But, those were rural birds. Actually what we're trying to do is be flexible for the development review process. It's important to recognize we're giving up a lot. We're reducing the size. The scientists, Jerry and Brent, determined these numbers. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 10 of 12 • Stokes: We want a system for classifying and ranking wetlands. We're not getting good conservation or good development. We would like to say, we'll allow you to mitigate but we have to get something good in return. There are communities, most in the Northwest, that have some good classification and ranking systems. • Skutchan: Is there anyway you can get federal dollars to study the wetlands? You might want to try. • Stokes: We're still working on the text of this document. The lawyers are marking it up. There's one more version coming down the pipe. We could have one more look at the next meeting on the 19`h. It would have to be a special meeting. • Knowlton: I'm inclined to take the advice of our members who have been on this committee. I'd be happy to do this tonight. • Donovan: I think I'd like to see the language. • Stokes: We didn't get very good direction from Council. One member of Council doesn't like buffer standards or the notion of mitigation. • Fischer: David Roy asked what I thought at the Council work session. I feel it's a compromise, there's a lot of give and take. This is an outright gift to the development community. We're giving up a significant portion of the buffer zone for raptors, without any scientific information to stake out that position. The thing Gerry Craig has made clear is it can not go any lower than the 450'. We've gone through this process in good faith to get something that staff felt comfortable with, and meet their objectives. When we first started meeting my intention was to make sure it didn't go in a really bad direction. It hasn't done that. Pretty much the whole thing is intact. 1 wish we could have negotiated harder on the 80/20 thing. I think some of the suggestions I had for strengthening the code in other areas were not well received by staff. There are gaping holes in the performance standards, there's a lot of wiggle room. There are too many statements the applicant will minimize the impact, without any real definition of what that means. It was pointed out by a person on the P&Z Board that we have ten pages of code for someone who wants to put a sign up, but for the environmental stuff we just say minimize the impact. There are some things I'm uncomfortable with, but I don't feel like those things are up for discussion anymore. We gave up some, staff got what they want. • Stokes: Yes, I think so. • Fischer: I have a concern that opening this up has a potential for this to go a direction we don't want to see it go. One of the council members made a point of saying this is why we buy open space. It's key to realize that land conservation is a combination of enforcement of regulations and the purchase of key areas. That's been part of the policy for a long time. • Stokes: I'm not sure that council understood the long legislative history. We did touch on that, but may want to make it more explicit. • Fischer: Even City Plan says that wildlife habitat and natural features should be woven throughout the community. • Colton: You might want to pull other regulations that help protect the public good, such as historic preservation. • Stokes: The raptor issue is the one giving staff the most heartburn. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 11 of 12 • Fischer: I would say, based on the good faith effort with the subcommittee, that I would recommend board recommend council adoption. The latest version lays out what John was talking about regarding the mitigation. If they want to encroach on the 450' buffer they have to either buy us land of equal value for habitat, or pay a fee in lieu of the land. • Stokes: $10,000 is what we're looking at. There's not a dollar figure in the code. There would be a schedule of fees. The fees are set by the City Manager, or Council. What Kelly (Ohlson) recommended was that the fee be adjusted annually. This figure wasn't pulled out of thin air. If you look at undeveloped land around here, $10,000 to $15,000 is what it costs. • Staychock: Changes to the code can be made in the fall and spring. We've discussed looking at the outcomes, are we getting better outcomes? Are the developers engaging in discussions that are relevant? We can review the progress after six months. • Stokes: Randy suggested a peer review. I'm glad to bring those to you. It might also come back in another way. It has to do with the potential enhanced role of the NRAB and AQAB with respect to development review. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the NRAB support the recommendations of the task force and staff recommendation to the proposed changes to section 3.4 of the Land Use Code The motion was seconded by Ryan Staychock. The motion passed with seven votes in favor, and one member, Clint Skutchan, abstaining due to the fact that he has not seen the document. John Stokes thanked Ryan and Randy for sticking it out, saying there have been a lot of meetings and a lot of discussion, and that it hasn't been easy. Nate Donovan said that when discussions begin about the NRAB's role in development review that Cameron Gloss must be involved. This should probably happen at the August meeting. Committee Reports Trails: The committee met at Nix on April 20 and looked at the possible rerouting of the trails from Timberline past Nix. Solid Waste: our people attended the meeting immediately prior to this meeting. Susie is looking for volunteers to help out with the Computer Recycling event on Saturday, May 15. Rivendell is going great guns. SWR sponsored a workshop called "Do the Rot Thing". The City is assisting Wild Oats in opening a recycling drop off site at their location on Foothills Parkway. Gerry Hart said there is a lot of interest in the Resource Recovery Faun. Mark Sears has been asked to sketch out ideas for the vision of the property. John Stokes said there is a problem in terms of management plans being stacked up for Bobcat Ridge, Fossil Creek, Foothills, Soapstone and the Resource Recovery Farm. We've talked about the possibility of hiring that out to a sub -contractor. Announcements • Ryan Staychock will not be able to attend the June 2 meeting. Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004 Page 12 of 12 • Clint Skutchan asked about the possibility of organizing volunteers to assist in the clean up of ditches. This might be discussed at an Education Committee meeting, and it was suggested he contact the Stormwater Utility for additional information. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor These minutes were unanimously approved at the NRAB Regular meeting June 2, 2004.