Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/18/2001V MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE July 18, 2001 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Reagan Waskom, Don Rodriguez, Steve Ryder, Phil Murphy, Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton Board Members Absent Bonnie Pierce, Nate Donovan Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, Susie Gordon City Attorney's Office: Carrie Daggett Utilities: Gale McGaha Miller Guests Ray Martinez, Mayor Erick Hamrick, Councilmember Joe Martin, Citizen Dyce Gaton, US Forest Service Larry Pryor, Citizen Glen Carpenter, Citizen Jan Carpenter, Citizen Scott Martin, Citizen Agenda Review • Kelly Ohlson has several issues to discuss under New Business. • Randy Fischer said that Council adopted the Natural Areas Easement Policy, but that it is subject to review in six months. Joe Wright Reservoir Land Exchange Update, Gale McGaha-Miller McGaha Miller provided background information regarding the land exchange. This has been a 62-step process that has taken four years to complete. It will be going to Council on August 21, for the first of two readings. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 18, 2001 Page 2 • Ohlson: You did the right thing going through the administrative approach. This board previously opposed the legislative approach. • Ohlson: Is there anything in this document that the values of this board might be concerned about. The only thing that might be of interest from this board's values is the South Platt Recovery Project. Our involvement has to do with how water is managed in the upper Poudre River. We will not change the operation of Joe Wright, but one of the hangups in the exchange was that if the land is not federally owned, the feds wont be able to make sure the City participates in the South Platt Recovery Project. Our involvement has been to make annual payments of $4000. The City of Fort Collins will make a $61,288 lump sum payment into an interest bearing account. • Ryder: I have a question about the P bullet on the first page. This is to make sure that once we gain ownership we won't deny Fish & Wildlife access. It was the best legal mechanism we could think of. • Ryder: My concern was the purpose of the easement. Sometimes when you have a recreational use there are conflicts. The intent is that this is a drinking water supply. Iffor some reason we need to say "all boats off the water" we would have the ability to do so. • Fischer: One of our senators raised issues regarding if it's appropriate for communities or water providers to be required to participate in minimum stream flows. Do you anticipate any impacts from this? Could he throw a monkey wrench in to these agreements? That would basically take the conservation easement and render it null and void. • Daggett: The conservation easement is a contractual obligation. • Fischer: Can someone else file on the water rights we're abandoning? No, we're giving them to the Water Conservation Board. They can not turn around and sell. • Fischer: This other land exchange, for Parcel B, sounds rather convoluted. They're going through the same 62 step process. They're trying to acquire 13 acres. • Knowlton: Given the financial situation with Denver and Winter Park, are you confident that this can happen? We're sitting pretty on that piece. We can sell it, or we can keep it. It's no skin off our backs. • Ohlson: Are there any red flags this agreement might raise? • Gayton: The Forest Service feels the environmental issues have been adequately addressed with the documents in place. We sent the environmental assessment to the Sierra Club and asked for any comments. There were none. I can only assume they didn't have any issues to bring up. Trout Unlimited applauded the City of Fort Collins for going through the administrative process. • Murphy: I'll give you guys a pat on the back. It's an arduous process, I'm glad we finally came to agreement. • Ohlson: It was the correct decision. • Fischer: I was on the Water Board, it's amazing how perspective changes. I applaud the 1996 NRAB for bring up these issues. • Ohlson: Can we do a memo? I haven't heard any disagreement. We could give some history, and say we support it, and that we're pleased it went the administrative route. Randy Fischer will draft a memo. y Natural Resources Advisory Board • July 18, 2001 Page 3 Bureau of Reclamation — Request for Easement, Brian Pearson, Regional Manager of Bureau of Reclamation Pearson presented the details of the request to use a twenty acre parcel on the Pineridge Natural Area to stockpile 500,000 cubic yards of material generated from the repairs of Spring Creek Dam. Discussion • Larry Pryor: I will be surrounded on three sides by this project. But, in my mind it's more prudent to bring the material down here than travel on County Rd 38E. It will be much quicker and safer. Someone will get killed. It would also be cheaper and save the taxpayers money. Even though it will directly affect me, I'm willing to accept it. • Len Carpenter: I have several concerns. None of the options are very good. I feel to totally discredit the landfill idea is a little premature. The natural areas are there for a reason. The City of Fort Collins doesn't buy natural areas to store waste on. There's considerable resource value, wetlands along Spring Creek. I'm concerned about the prairie dogs. One of my main concerns is that the wind will prevail out of the west. There has to be some mitigation for dust. There are also visual and noise concerns. It's not an easy choice. As citizens we have a number of concerns. • Jan Carpenter: We've lived there for 15 years. In the last four or five years recreation has increased a lot. Also, there are wildlife issues. We have fawns, deer and mountain lions in that area. That's important to me. • Sears: When was this action proposed? Did you consider this when the dam reconstruction project began? When did we get to the point to ask for that site? It was early this year, winter, that we started looking at stockpile areas. We determined that stability berm was a factor. The volume grew late in the process. • Sears: I don't recall this issue being addressed in the environmental impact assessment. The finding was no significant environmental impact. The environmental assessment does mention this kind of activity as an additional process. • Sears: One of my concerns is if you've considered the amount of time it takes to restore a native grassland. What sorts of restoration have you done? I will rely on the advise of natural resources staff, and others. I'm told it could take ten years, but I'm also told there are undesirable grasses there too. • Sears: There's a compounding factor. The fact that there are prairie dogs there makes restoration more difficult. Prairie dogs move within the habitat that's available. Chances are they've used that site in the past. They're likely to move in, and that would likely cause any restoration efforts to fail. I would rely on expertise and guidance. If there's a methodology that is proven we will work with the experts. • Sears: It's virtually impossible to keep them out. I have major concerns. The Pineridge Natural Area is one of the only parcels of this type. It represents much of the ecosystem. We don't have land of this type to burn, it's not just vacant land. This parcel is irreplaceable. We can't impact it and restore it back to its previous state. • Scott Martin: I guess I agree with everything that Len and Larry said. I have an arena. How close will they get to the fence line? The footprint is about 25 acres. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 18, 2001 Page 4 • Scott Martin: I just got my property appraised and they doubled my taxes. I was told I would have to go down and oppose it, and would have to have a good reason. I didn't have a good reason at the time, but now.... Is this a 700 day contract? I would look for them to finish in less than 700 days. It's a two year imposition. The contractor is obligated for dust control. • Marilyn Hartag: Something that I don't hear you addressing is there's a much greater footprint affected. The Natural Resources Department has been taking aggressive steps to reintroduce the prairie dog environment, and bring raptors back in. I can't imagine that this wouldn't impact the entire 600 acres, and not just the footprint. There's dust and noise. I'm real frustrated that there aren't options in addition to the landfill. If that was a public building, or library, this discussion wouldn't be happening. Natural areas seem disposable. I doubt if you could restore it in ten years. On one end we're putting an emphasis on helping to restore it to a natural state, and a stones throw away we're destroying it. There are other places. I would ask you to take a serious look before you recklessly make a decision. • Paul Hudnut: I use Pineridge a lot. I'm surprised people are considering storing material there for two years. • Michelle Albers: I'm an avid user of this area, six to eight hours a week. I was distraught when I read the paper. I've watched the area change, and watch the animals. This sounds like it's more about money, this is a convenient place. Accidents can happen anywhere. I know trucks chew the roads up. But, how much easier is it to repave a road, than restore and keep Pineridge the way it is. Look how respectful Boulder is, they would not consider doing this. They wouldn't compromise. The options are limited, but I'd rather see them use the road. • Ohlson: I'll give you credit, this is the boldest proposal I've seen, and I couldn't view it as more inappropriate. I have more faith in the federal agencies than to believe they just found out there is a dirt hauling problem. I believe it's an attempt to put this into crisis. I don't believe this issue emerged in February, with a memo to the NRD in April. The bids are due in a month or two. How are they bidding if they don't know where the dirt will be stored? I appreciate the comment that trucks are hard on the roads, but it's easier to fix a road than a natural area. This process question really troubles me. We would never say we're going to store dirt on a golf course. A natural area is a far higher value than a golf course, it's not even a close call. Plus, twenty acres will be more like 45, and it'll be ten to twenty feet tall. Twenty acres is not the affected envelope, quit talking in that regard. We've been put in an unfair situation. I don't believe the numbers at all. I would never sign off on this, but if it gets to Council and they actually approve this it has to be real costs over the ten year program. The lost values, the scar restored, the equivalent of those 25 truck years, and on top of those expenses a minimum contribution of 1.5 million into the natural areas program. I hope the Council would never sign off on this. • Ryder: I share Kelly's concerns about process. The Bureau has a history of being a good partner. We're used to being well informed. It seems if we would have had this discussion earlier, we might have been able to work toward alternatives. I think in this situation the Board needs to represent it's charge, natural areas. We're here to r Natural Resources A visory Board • July 18, 2001 Page 5 make a recommendation, it's Council's tough decision to weigh public safety. The way we need to look at this is what we're representing. • Waskom: You have two lousy options, but one of them is unacceptable. That's the natural area. • Pearson: I've described this project as trying to rebuild a ship in a bottle. The more populated an area is the fewer options there are in moving massive quantities of dirt. These dams are stable and safe, but the state of the art has changed. I have an obligation to bring them up to the state of the art. The residents need to be safe. I recognize this is an imposition, and an arguably emotional issue. It's boiled down to the temporary disturbance of the natural area, versus hundreds of trucks on the roads. Cost is factor, but we must regard the safety of the public during construction. • Knowlton: I don't have too much to add. I agree with Reagan, you have two lousy options. It seems like the County said it's not their problem. I don't like that attitude. You mentioned the possibility you could make a deal with a landowner. I haven't done a door to door, but considering the topography, and the number of people who would be bothered, it fell off the consideration list pretty fast. • Knowlton: Of the two options, repairing the roads would be easier than fixing the natural area. • Rodriguez: I feel like everyone else, theses are poor options. Being consistent with the values that I've had since day one, this is not an appropriate use. I'm disturbed by the fact we have to inherit this problem. Maybe the City and County should reflect on this. • Murphy: I'm sympathetic about the safety issues, and the people impacted. I'm shocked that the amount of dirt is twice as much as the Walmart project. A lot of blood, sweat and tears went into purchasing these lands. Now, there's not only this, there's easements for water pipe. There's a lot of people who don't value these lands. I agree with what Kelly was saying, even given the safety issues. We can't put stuff on these areas. That's not what the citizens voted to tax themselves for. And, quite frankly, it takes much longer to rehabilitate these lands. Look at the stage coaches that have traveled across the land, those tracks are still there. • Fischer: I'm a civil engineer, so hopefully my remarks will have some credibility. I also think the alternatives haven't been adequately explored. I agree that by presenting only those two alternatives puts the City 4nd County in a very uncomfortable position. Those trucks don't have to go up that steep hill. There are some haul roads that were put in almost overnight. Haul roads could be built very readily that would take care of the traffic on the steep hill. The benches from the old quarries are almost ideal haul roads. I don't think we're being presented with all of the alternatives. Being presented with two alternatives is not going to cut it. This board will not tolerate being presented with two alternatives. We tried to make it mandatory to have three alternatives, but basically it was no specific number. Any alternatives need to be presented with cost estimates, not just lump sum numbers, and a lot more detail. I want to check those numbers personally, and make sure they're correct. I would do that in my role as an advisor, and guardian of natural areas and citizen tax money. That's a legitimate thing to ask for. Natural Resources Advisory t3oard July 18, 2001 Page 6 • Fischer: You've presented an either/or scenario. What about a combination? Haul some to the south end of the reservoir and use the quarry benches as part of the storage site. I don't like being presented an either/or, when there might be a win/win alternative. Start being creative and do some serious engineering. To me, this is more serious than the dam safety issues. 420,000 cubic yards of new material is going to be trucked to these sites. When you're talking about another '/z million cubic yards coming into the site, how significant is the additional 500,000 cubic yards on the roads? • Fischer: As far as the safety concerns on 38E, I would hope that during this project there will be flaggers. This project would not be allowed without serious traffic control. There should be a traffic control contractor managing traffic. The possibility of people driving out of control could be managed. There's no way I'll ever be for this proposal. It would set such an irresponsible precedent for the use of natural areas. We've invested millions of dollars in these properties. It wasn't free, we have taxed ourselves and decided this is an important piece of the fabric of our community. If that was a golf course today, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I can't accept that we've been presented with legitimate alternatives, and can't support this. • Ohlson: I take exception to your comment about emotion. I view it as intensity and passion, which doesn't overrule rational thought. It's not about emotion, it's about passion. Also, the ones who don't show emotion are the ones plotting to destroy it. This is based on science and fact, these little pieces of natural environment do serve a purpose. I do get passionate in defending these tiny little pieces. I won't apologize to those that my emotion offends. • Sears: One suggestion I had was the possibility to conveyor that material to the top. We just readdressed that. There's not a lot of confidence it is technically feasible. There have been situations where it was done before that have been economically disastrous. The other thought is that there really isn't the land that would be needed. • Sears: If we take the Pineridge alternative away then you would be forced to look at something else. If you'd look at conveyors, or haul roads you could end up with a more cost effective and safer alternative. • Sears: Of the 420,000 cubic yards, do we know how much will be hauled to this site? 116, 000 total cubic yards. • Sears: Do you have enough staging area existing on site, or would you need to use Pineridge? Part of the quarry will be used for staging, there's a limitation of 75 trucks per day. The usable space in the quarry will be tied up with sand and gravel. • Sears: Another option might be to do it in vertical strips, instead of doing the dam face all at once. There are alternatives that haven't been researched. I still have a hard time feeling that 20 acres is big enough. I would suggest that if we're going to have to go this route, the Bureau look at leasing 45, or even more, acres, and then going out and hand selecting sites that would be the least difficult to restore. There are small isolated wetlands that could be avoided. • Fischer: The brome grass is where the prairie dogs are expanding to. • Sears: There's frustration from a staff level about the late date of this. When this was first brought up on the phone we invited the bureau to come and visit. We were never v Natural Resources Advisory Board • July 18, 2001 Page 7 given that opportunity. We were very frustrated when we were placed in the hot seat dealing with these issues. The timing of this has been very frustrating. • Ohlson: Would you please communicate that to Council? Staffs frustration that it was brought without enough time to adequately investigate alternatives. • Sears: It's coming down to why wasn't the Bureau more proactive early on. Brian recognizes he put us in an awkward position. It really is going to be a difficult position for the board, staff and community. It's really late, we obviously need to find a solution. • Fischer: I get so tired of hearing that the NRAB is again opposed to something. I resent being put in a position where we have to oppose something. I thought at the time it was a white wash of the environmental impact study. There is no discussion about stockpiling dirt. That was a tremendous oversight on the part of the people who prepared this. I really resent this, we'll be branded in the papers as being the bad guys again. So be it, we don't have any other choice. I would like to express that if there's any way we can come out winners, let's do that, and find that. We can't let this precedent be set. • Knowlton: I have a process question. If, in fact, this was not addressed in the EIS, could this be violating NEPA? There will be an addendum. • Boaz: I'd like to address how the contractors will bid. We'll require them to bid on two separate schedules. One is hauling to the reservoir, and one is hauling to the natural area. • Murphy: Is all the talk about alternatives null and void? We will revisit them, but this isn't the f rst time they've been considered. • Boaz: We've talked about most of them. We have it narrowed down to the final two remaining alternatives. There are a number of things we've considered along the way, but didn't present because they weren't acceptable. • Murphy: There's a part of me beginning to get outraged. It would be nice to know why those options can't be considered. I'm hearing they just don't work. Here's some people throwing out what sound like valid alternatives, and I don't hear or read anything as to why those things are not acceptable. I don't want an in depth engineering discussion. Something has to be presented to someone with an engineering background. Beth, is it fair to say we could reintroduce these to the project management team? • Boaz: We've talked about the combined methods, storing in the quarry, vertical storage, are there any others? • Ohlson: For the benefit of our guests, and the mayor, this isn't a group made up of emotional environmental activists. There are academics, lawyers and engineers on this board. When we drove the funding of natural areas we did it so we wouldn't be having the impacts of privately owned lands affecting them. Now we're going to cover it with dirt. There's something I'm missing. We didn't buy natural areas to store 50,000 loads of dirt for two years. • Martinez: Can we agree that the dam needs repairing and it is a health and safety issue? Natural Resources Advisory board July 18, 2001 Page 8 • Fischer: I don't know, the risks are so small. I'm not qualified to say. Everyone is under the assumption that the dam will get fixed. I don't think that's the issue. • Ohlson: As citizens we expect our government to do the jobs they are hired for. It's ludicrous to come at this late date with two alternatives. It seems to me you're missing the boat with the environmental assessment, that it's so poorly done. We could have been here all along. You can do better than that. You should put your heads to the grindstone. I know there are ways you can get those materials that you haven't talked about tonight. • Hudnut: How far would you need to drop the water, dry it out and store the material there? We're operating Horsetooth at about 40,000 acre feet, it's normal is around 150,000. From an operational standpoint we have to serve the water needs of this area. • Hudnut: There have been points where they move the ocean out of the way. Can you block off the bottom and dump the dirt in front of the dam? This is not a cheap alternative. Is it your idea to snooker Fort Collins and dump in a natural area? Dumping along Pineridge is not going to be a cheap alternative. • Knowlton: We feel like you're trying to snooker us. You came up with two alternatives, and you think we'll buy one. I don't think the County should say we're out of it. • Pearson: The traffic to get to the dump goes through roadways that are more heavily used. They were concerned about the level of traff c. There were concerned that the landfill already has a high volume of trucks, and dust abatement problems. The way we looked at it was that hauling to the landfill, or hauling to the south end of the reservoir, the major adverse impacts were to the County. We thought it was fair to let the County make the determination of which one. Phil Murphy made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommend to Council to reject the use of Pineridge Natural Area as a storage site for material from Spring Creek Dam, and that other alternatives be explored thoroughly, and that cost estimates be provided for storage of material. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. New Business • Ohlson: Is it true that zero of the dollars, and zero of the projects in the budget requests made it to council? Gordon: We didn't get anything, neither did CPES as a whole. Ohlson: We need to do a follow up memo. • Fischer: What is the process for the budget? Gordon: The City Managers recommended budget will be proposed in August, with a final budget in October or November. Carrie Daggett: The Finance Committee is scheduled to meet this Friday, that's one stage before a public hearing. • Ohlson: Why is that when we have a well paid professional staff that no one ever reads the City Council packets? In most departments there are people designated to bird dog them, and that's appropriate. If it hadn't been for me getting the Canal Natural Resources Advisory Board July 18, 2001 Page 9 Importation memo again it wouldn't be in the packets. My patience is gone, it should never happen. The memos almost never end up in the packets. They shouldn't be in the read before packets, they should be in the regular packet. I've tried for years to get these in, in an appropriate time. The people in NRD don't bother to read the packet. It's indicative of the of the lack of edge in the department. • Fischer: It is frustrating, it kind of mutes our effectiveness. Without Kelly bringing it up (Canal Importation), I wouldn't have thought about it. I ended up hand carrying the memo to Diane to get it in the packet. We need to develop a process by which we could recycle NRAB memos. We do put a lot of time into these things. • Ohlson: Did the walkthrough at Meadow Springs ever happen? Not yet, it is scheduled for mid -August. • Ohlson: Is there anything happening with Pay As You Throw? I'm now dealing in . five year chunks. What about recycling in multi -family housing, and increasing commercial recycling. Would like to attend the next Solid Waste Committee meeting. With the City having more than one full time person in Solid Waste, you'd think there would be some movement. I don't what they do. • Fischer: Regarding solid waste, there has been interest expressed to try to continue meeting together with the County in some capacity. It seems there is so much we could do, and nothing ever happens. Loveland is head and shoulders above the City of Fort Collins. • Ohlson: I would like staff to do a better job in modeling Ron Phillips and Mike Powers. You didn't appear as a proponent of the easement policy. I viewed you as being there just to answer questions. Phillips and Powers are always there as proponents. • Ohslon: We have to be careful of what we say to the press. There was a quote "we can throw away to our hearts content", what the average person heard is don't worry about what you throw away. Gordon: That was taken out of context, I have no control over Sally Bridges. Review of Minutes: June 6, 2002 The minutes were unanimously approved as written. Committee Reports SolidWaste: The next meeting is August 6, 2001 at noon. Trails: Met Tuesday, July 17 at Lee Martinez Park. The question was whether we thought the existing trails were adversely impacting the resources. The consensus was they do not. The next meeting will be in September. Mark Sears said we have developed a Pineridge task force to look at interpretative signage as well as directional signage. Linda Knowlton will represent the trails committee. The initial kickoff meeting is Friday. Announcements • Ohlson: It would be nice to have a cover letter included with the memo on Canal Importation. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 18, 2001 Page 10 • Sears: The next Natural Areas committee meeting will be August 16. There will be an update on the natural areas program. • Sears: City Council approved the acceptance of the Udall donation. • Ohlson: Everyone who spoke during the Pineridge discussion did a great job. • Waskom: How are you updating us about acquisitions? I don't feel like I get enough information. Sears said he prepares an acquisition summary every month. Review Councils Six Month Planning Calendar No comments. Review Action Log No comments. Review Future Agenda Items The August meeting will deal mostly with easements. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.