Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/05/2001f#� MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE September 5, 2001 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096 Board Members Present Nate Donovan, Bonnie Pierce, Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton Board Members Absent Kelly Ohlson, Don Rodriguez, Steve Ryder, Phil Murphy, Reagan Waskom Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, Karen Manci, Edith Felchle Guests Joe Martin, citizen Ramon Ajero, citizen Bill Miller, citizen Randy Van Buren, Colo Div of Wildlife Alison Banks, RMBO, citizen Edie Thompson, citizen Ray Martinez, Mayor Fred Haberecht, Jim Sell Design Agenda Review No changes. Kingfisher Point Habitat Restoration Project, Mark Sears, Karen Manci Mark Sears provided a brief background of the project. About two years ago the Corp of Engineers came and said they have a fund that does aquatic restoration, and wondered if we had any potential projects we'd like to see them get involved in. There would be a 65/35 split between the Corp and the City. The match can come from money, or land acquisition costs. We presented this project, and they felt it met all of their criteria. The project has since been approved by headquarters. Now they're here to start the feasibility study, which will take about a year. Steve Rothe, from the Omaha District of the Corp of Engineers introduced the Corp staff. Rothe said the purpose of this meeting is to explain the Corp process, the project, and Natural Resources Advis. _y Board September 5, 2001 Page 2 share information. A great number of hours has been spent with staff learning more about the site. This Corp team is from the Omaha District, and manages most of the Missouri River Basin. The authority we're working under is the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Section 206 of that law refers to assisting non-federal partners in conjunction with aquatic ecosystem restoration. It is a 65/35 cost share. The sponsor's portion can be real estate, or cash in kind. In this project the acquisition costs are significant, and exceed the 35% cost share by a large degree. We have a lot of learning to do before we know what we're looking at. We will look at all alternatives as we go along. All alternatives that are reasonable and practical will be carried through feasibility, and compared on a cost effective basis. Looking at alternatives is where the public involvement is tied in. In this study we'll collect data, and go into the plan formulation process. Rothe provided an overview of the proposed plan. Citizen Questions and Discussion • Edith Thompson: What happens when you put water into an area that's covered with lime. Does it change the water? What can live in that water? • Haberecht: The proposal doesn't have the water running through the lime. The lime is upland. The water is going through as it was before. During construction there will be some intermixing. One of the ideas was using the lime to fill some or all of the lakes, if lowering them is not feasible. It's essentially crushed limestone. There have been many chemical analysis. We'll keep it in mind. • Ramon Ajero: When we link these lakes back into the river system through pipes and a channel, will that have an adverse affect on the water quality of the outbound flow? • Rothe: We think there's quite a bit of exchange of water through these lakes already. Is there anything there known about the water quality right now? We'll have to ask the City about that. • Bill Miller: Is it correct that the new oxbow that you would construct will not become a new main channel? Will it take overflows when the river goes high, and otherwise have wet feet? • Rothe: That's right. Part of our analysis would be disaster prevention. We'd look at a worse case scenario. • Bill Miller: There would be no loss of current riparian habitat? • Rothe: In terms of water depletion you wouldn't see any impact. From what I saw today, I would expect there will be woody vegetation. • Miller: I'd like you to consider the construction of ponds that stay wet through most of the year, and maybe dry up as the summer goes on. • Rothe: There's an issue of water rights. If the water rights allow having ponds, it might be desirable. • Allison Banks: Do you have planned independent water control for the two ponds? It's not much more costly, and adds flexibility. • Rothe: It was mentioned that one or two of the pipes and channels would have water control structures. Natural Resources A isory Board • September 5, 2001 Page 3 • Allison Banks: I've seen situations where it becomes just one pond that's split. • Randy VanBuren: I'm an aquatic biologist with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. I manage small ponds for recreational fish, as well as native species recovery. I have a major concern. These ponds have the greatest potential for sport fishing in this corridor. Any articulation with the river will destroy these ponds from a fish standpoint. It's a major trade off. This area has some of the highest potential I can imagine. The river is infested with carp. If you articulate with the river, you're asking for problems. The shallow water will take away any sport fishing. The native fish restoration would require small, shallow ponds. If you let it articulate with the river, you'll invite carp and other predatory fish. I'm not sure what the limestone will do to the overall Ph level of the water. • Rothe: The recreational potential could be a major trade off. That's something we'll have to consider. • Randy VanBuren: Most of the native species will do well in a pond the size of this room. In big, open, deep ones, there's not enough habitat. • Rothe: Will you be our point of contact on this issue? • Randy VanBuren: Yes. • Dan Tweeton: Will the alteration of the levy affect the flood plain map for the adjacent properties? • Rothe: There are constraints we have to live with, we wouldn't want to do that. There's plenty we can do without altering the flood plain map. NRAB Questions and Discussion • Knowlton: What might happen during the feasibility study that would cause you to abandon this? • Rothe: The sponsor has veto power at any time, it could prove physically infeasible engineering wise, or the biological output may not merit the cost. I believe the potential project to be there. • Knowlton: Is funding an issue? • Rothe: The federal funding looks good. • Donovan: On the concept map, is the oxbow generally in the historic location? • Rothe: Yes, I'd say Fred nailed that, based on old photos. • Pierce: Are the underlying soils clays, and clay loam? • Haberecht: It's a silty loam. • Fischer: Are we planning to do anything with the lime waste on the northwest part of the project site? • Rothe: At this time, it's not in our project boundary, but Mark has mentioned this. • Sears: We'd like to see it included in the project. • Fischer: Do the people on your team have the expertise to do the river stability study, to make sure there are no unintended consequences. • Rothe: I believe so. We're very sensitive, it comes up every time we have a project adjoining private land. We have the tools, expertise and the sensitivity. • Fischer: We'll have to tackle the issue of fishing. My sensitivities lie in the realm of habitat restoration. I don't know that in this area we can have both. In my experience, you often times aren't able to achieve both things at the same time. If Natural Resources Advisc.y Board September 5, 2001 Page 4 we're restoring an ecosystem, what will we do to manage the human element? The plan shows the trail going through the riparian/wetland area. That seems counter to restoring the ecosystem. Human impacts often times negate the habitat value. We have to be realistic about what the habitat value will be. Sears: Our initial intention was to not manage this for sport fishing. We feel we have a lot of opportunities for sport fishing in the City. It's not high on the list for this project. The only access for the public we want is the regional trail. We need to talk to Randy VanBuren some more, he has good input. Our desire, and Steve's desire, fit closely - ecological restoration. Maybe we can develop sport fishing in other locations. Randy VanBuren: Ninety percent of this plan is great. Fischer: I don't know much about fish, I know more about birds, but where there is fishing traffic you can forget about the birds. The fisherman are on the shore at precisely the wrong time. Ute/Longview Farm Declaration of Covenants, Edith Felchle Felchle said that GOCO requires that anything in which they have monies invested must have a conservation easement, or a declaration of covenants. The declaration of covenants requires an ordinance. Without this document, we wont get the GOCO money. What it does, is provide very strong protection on the property. Because we're going through this process on a number of projects, we've hammered out template wording. Virtually all of our concerns have been addressed. Felchle said the board had raised a couple of questions. These issues are mostly dealt with at the management plan level. That is the reason the management plan was included in your packets. The management plan has to be reviewed every five years, while the declaration of covenants is a long term document. The only allowed hunting is goose hunting, which is addressed in the management plan and ag lease. We can talk to the County about that. Another question relates to pesticides. I did get a look at their pest management plan. It looks very similar to the City IPM. They look specifically at various habitats. All use types that are appropriate for the areas; wetland or upland. They are only used as necessary. • Fischer: I don't have a great deal of concern about this. I appreciate you coming back, I'm sorry that the people who asked the main questions aren't here tonight. I do have some concerns about the management plan, but we can address those at another time. • Knowlton: This appears to be a complicated situation, with the three jurisdictions, and I complement you on it. I'm certainly willing to say that I'd recommend Council to approve this. • Fischer: I have a level of comfort knowing the Legacy Land Trust is involved. • Donovan: Is the Land Trust required to have properly noticed meetings? If they're going to monitor a publicly financed project, there needs to be open meetings. We are required to provide annual reports on the condition of the site. Natural Resources AdGisory Board • September 5, 2001 Page 5 • Fischer: My big concerns are what kinds of easements they'll want to put through here. We'll have our hands full. Since there wasn't a quorum, attending board members individually supported Council approval of a resolution for the signing of a Declaration of Covenants. Sauer/GOCO Grant Agreement, Edith Felchle Felchle said that GOCO requests a resolution, signed by Council, authorizing grant agreements, and provided background information regarding the agreement. Since there wasn't a quorum, attending board members individually supported Council approval of the request. Review of Minutes: July 18, 2001 The minutes were approved as written, pending quorum approval at the October meeting. Committee Reports Solid Waste: • A spreadsheet was included in the packets showing the difference in operating costs at the new Rivendale site with and without the collection of paperboard. • There was a field trip to the landfill showing the new spray -on daily cover material. It has the potential to save airspace and costs. • The County's EAB is interested in working with us to improve the rate of recycling. Natural Areas: • Mark Sears provided an update on the Natural Areas program: acquisitions, the Nix project and easement requests. Announcements Linda Knowlton said there is an open house on the I-25 Subarea Plan on Wednesday, September 12, from 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. at the Plaza Inn on E. Mulberry. Review Action Log Mark Sears and Randy Fischer will review the futures list and update the action log. Review Future Agenda Items: September 19, 2001 (Work Session): Hwy 14 Relocation/Truck Route, Mark Jackson Open Lands Master Plan, K-Lynn Cameron October 3, 2001: CO Redesignation, Brian Woodruff I-25 Regional Plan, Joe Frank I-25 Subarea Plan, Ken Waido November 7, 2001: Open Lands Master Plan, K-Lynn Cameron Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.