Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/05/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A October 5, 2005 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Glen Colton, Clint Skutchan, Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Rob Petterson, Nate Donovan Board Members Absent Joann Thomas Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Stokes, Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, Daylan Figgs Guests Ann Hutchinson Several CSU students Elizabeth Pressner Agenda Review Randy Fischer has a few items to bring up under "New Business". Public Comments None Review and Approval of Minutes: September 7, 2005 —The minutes of the September 7, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as written September 21, 2005 - With the following changes the minutes of the September 21, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved: • Show Jerry Hart as absent instead of present Soapstone Lease, Daylan Figgs Figgs showed a powerpoint presentation that gave history and background of the ranching/grazing operations at Soapstone and provided details regarding the new lease. • Petterson: Are the fees in line with what other grazing leases charge? • Figgs: Yes, private lease rates are somewhat higher. • Knowlton: How do you see this working when the area opens up to the public? Where's the grazing going to be, and how will it relate to the public? Natural Resources Advisory Board October 5, 2005 Page 2 of 8 • Figgs: We're still talking about that. Will it be intermingled, or will there be trail closures? There are places where cattle grazing may not be compatible, such as parking lots, day use areas, maybe campgrounds. The management plan needs to address that. • Hart: Can the lease permit be modified to reflect the management plan? • Figgs: Yes, year to year. We wanted to maintain flexibility. • Knowlton: Right now how much change is there to the grazing? Shorter periods of grazing, fewer cows? • Figgs: The number of cattle may go down by about 100. The length of the season is about the same. We looked at it pasture by pasture. It rotates differently and how we rest the pastures. • Knowlton: Was he amenable to the change? • Figgs: It was understood in the rfp process. • Stokes: We did a RFP. Four were submitted. It was a formal process with each bidder. We evaluated their responses. Folsom Grazing is the successor grazing association to Soapstone. They came in with far and away the best proposal. We all have to rate those proposals independently. • Skutchan: If you have to back off the grazing, what's the concern? • Figgs: They have indicated there is a bottom line point. There's a lot of other interest. Everyone's bottom line is different. • Sktuchan: That's a very specialized niche, it might be hard finding someone who can fulfill them. What is the back up plan? • Figgs: We would have to assess if all of the features are needed, stocking rates, etc. The back up plan would be to continue to look for a grazer. • Skuthchan: They have a year to back out? • Stokes: It's a relatively short term lease for grazing. Typically agricultural leases are longer. They have to tool up. Its all tied into other land in Larimer County. It gets complicated on their end. Our approach is to write the management plan for the next 3 years. This is a three (3) year term for us to get a little breathing space, and continue to have the property grazed. • Colton: Is all of the fencing in place? • Figgs: It's pretty much all in place. For rest phases we may have to add some fence. We're looking at fencing options. We're trying to lower the cost as much as we can. The fences will be wildlife friendly. The lessee understands it's a natural area, and not a ranch. • Staychock: Do you see any opportunities to use grazing animals that are not cows? • Figgs: We've had discussions about sheep, intense grazing in a small area. • Staychock: Would you use moveable fence? • Figgs: We had a discussion with a gentleman who has done sheep grazing. He uses moveable fence if needed, but usually can get away with a herder. • Donovan: Is there a target date for the public opening? • Stokes:2009. • Donovan: When you talk about pastures, would most or all of the animals that are part of the lease be on a certain pasture, or would they be broken up? Natural Resources Advisory Board October 5, 2005 Page 3 of 8 • Figgs: Usually on two to three pastures. It depends on the size. • Fischer: Who would be the decision maker on the staff level that would interface with the grazing association manager to make running decisions when its time to be moving things around? • Figgs: Primarily, me. • Fischer: I'm trying to get a level of comfort. Given climatic variables and the possible need to take cattle off earlier, who has the ultimate authority to say that? • Figgs: The City of Fort Collins does. Its spelled out in the lease. • Stokes: When we went through the midst of the drought, they removed 70% of the stock. They've been pretty conservative on how they manage that place. They've done a good job. • Fischer: What about predator control. If there's a perceived need to do that, who will make that decision? • Figgs: They're not allowed to in the lease. I suppose that decision would be made by discussions in the natural areas program. • Stokes: Its disallowed in the lease. They never expressed any concern. • Fischer: Is the term of the lease tied to when this opens to the public. Is the idea that we would not open to the public till the lease is finished, or the other way around? • Stokes: The lease is a 3 year lease. It starts in 2006. We hope to open to the public in 2009. We're hoping by 2008 we'll be ready to re -craft the lease. Our objective number 1 is to enhance the habitat. Grazing and fire are processes that are integral. What we'll do in 2008 is re-evaluate where we are, see how we can make it all work together. • Fischer: My point is I don't want to lock us into a position where we cant allow public access sooner. • Stokes: No, we wouldn't do that. • Knowlton: When will the overall management plan be finished? • Stokes: In 2008, so we can open in 2009. • Donovan: What state of drafting is the lease in? • Figgs: Its complete. • Donovan: Can we see it? (Donovan & Staychock would like email copies of the lease). • Staychock: When it comes to the master plan my concern is in the fencing. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to get volunteers to make the fences. • Figgs: We make sure there is free flow. Gates are commonly left open when there are no cattle present. Our goal is to make sure our fences are easily passed through by wildlife. • Staychock: How long has Frank been up there? • Figgs: About ten years. • Staychock: Is there some entity who has been there for a long time, that maybe we can gather input from? • Figgs: The people of Folsom have been ranching in Colorado for a long time. Two members have been there for over 40 years, several more for twenty years. There's a lot of history in the grazing association. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 5, 2005 Page 4 of 8 • Stokes: We're trying to collect stories, and doing interviews. We've applied for a state historic grant to do a cultural resource survey. We would like to do it simultaneously with the County on their Red Mountain Property. We plan to do more oral interviews. • Stokes: Keep in mind, one of our options is to work with the County to do a unified grazing plan. We'll be talking to them for the next couple years. • Skutchan: What about the Wyoming property? • Stokes: The Gallegos are pretty independent. They didn't bring in a rfp at all. The City of Cheyenne has talked about a unified management approach. The vision is we'll be able to have cross -boundary recreation access. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move the that Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council pass an Ordinance granting Folsom Grazing Association the right to lease 16,450 acres located on Soapstone Prairie Natural Areas as specified herein for the consideration of $115,344. The motion was seconded by Ryan Staychock and passed unanimously. • Hart: I would speed up the public access as much as I could. • Fischer: I would echo that. 2009 is too far out. It needs to get opened to the public. don't advocate opening areas before we're ready, but I would try to expedite the preparations for public access. There's a whole variety of reasons it would be beneficial to get it open. • Stokes: I agree. I have no objection to that. • Staychock: I would also echo that, and would suggest that we keep the grazing. Ordinance Creating the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board, John Stokes • Knowlton: Why do you need our recommendation? • Stokes: I don't necessarily. But this board had indicated some desire to see it at a regular meeting so that it could, if it desired, make a recommendation to Council. This will be an ordinance. There are four core functions of the new Land Conservation & Stewardship Board. • Knowlton: I'm wondering about the propriety of us doing that. Have other boards made recommendations about the creation of boards? • Fischer: We've discussed our own bylaws. We are the predecessors of that board. • Fischer: I'm not sure how the clause relates. It there something grammatically incorrect? Randy Fischer made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend Council adoption of the functions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board as stated here, with a possible clarification of Item 2. The motion was seconded by Jerry Hart and passed unanimously. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 5, 2005 Page 5 of 8 Natural Areas Program — Visual Identity, John Stokes We wanted to create a distinct identity, or brand, for our program. Field staff will be wearing sort of a uniform. There will be a dress code. People who are in the field will wear clothes that are the same. Staff that spends more time in the office will not have to wear a uniform every day, but we will buy shirts for them for public events. We had a staff retreat with senior staff in the natural areas program. We talked about positioning our program in the community. We need to do a better job. We need to get out and speak to service and church groups, let them know who we are and what we do. One major push for us will be the Bobcat Ridge property. We absolutely want to have it open in May, 2006. • Hart: Don't just concentrate on natural areas. Don't neglect the rest of NRD. It's important. You need to get that message out too. • Colton: Work with the Chamber and convention groups. I envision Fort Collins as more of a tourist destination. It would help our economic vitality. • Stokes: That was one of the most important things we had consensus around, quality of life and economic sustainability. • Skutchan: It seems like all of the time there's a push to bring in more revenue to support the tourism industry. It seems to always be filtered off to the ski areas. If you would work with the Convention and Visitors Bureau it would benefit them and US. • Stokes: Birders are an interesting group. We get birders from all around the country. • Skutchan: I would work with them in making a viable relationship. They could be a great bullhom. • Staychock: I like the logo. • Skutchan: It needs to be enclosed. It doesn't jump out at you. New Business Randy Fischer said there a few things he'd like to see on future agendas. He only two meetings left. • Fischer: I'm concerned about what happened at the final design of the Spring Canyon Community Park. There were several disturbing things. The staff report failed to mention a key buffer along the Spring Creek Corridor. I got the feeling that the design went forward without consideration for the buffer. Park's planning staff said things like Spring Creek didn't exist. The long and short of it is they put one of the more intensive uses with 20 feet. The buffer should be 100 feet. The regs allow the decision to be made to adjust it in our out. I've never seen a buffer get bigger. Several of us worked on a committee to change the LUC so that things that encroach on a table buffer more then 20% had to go to P&Z. That was gotten rid of with the understanding that the decision maker would use the performance standards to make sure the buffers weren't adversely affected. I asked the decision maker how he felt the performance standards were being met, and I got gibberish. It's indicative of the fact that we have no buffer regulations, because its left up to the decision maker. This is Natural Resources Advisory Board October 5, 2005 Page 6 of 8 not what was envisioned by anyone when we worked in good faith with staff. Its something this board may want to deal with in some fashion. I think I would like to have Doug Moore and the natural areas people who were part of this decision making process go through the process with us and explain the rationale for why the buffer was completely negated. Since we cant comment before they're approved, in hindsight I'd like to look at what was done and see how the buffer regulations are being applied. Its disturbing to see how they were applied in this case. I'd like to get Doug Moore here and go through the whole process. I didn't understand most of what was said. • Donovan: I am also deeply disturbed by this. I'm one who is generally optimistic, but I'm skeptical. I need some assurance there wasn't a wholesale lack of action by the people who are supposed to be protecting the buffers. I'm very surprised there wasn't even discussion by staff. I understand that for certain staff it not being their purview to talk about the buffer standards. But there are people who should be determining if the buffer standards apply. I would like to know the rationale. The City decision was either suppressed, or something else happened. This has shaken my confidence in the ability of the City to make decisions that take that into account. • Knowlton: What's the timing? Is this an after the fact review? No attempt to overturn? • Fischer: It still has to go through final design. It could be modified somewhat. • Donovan: There is a portion of the property that is in the natural areas property that will have design done. I think its been mentioned before. Its appropriate for this board to weigh in. Part of the work was to restore the stream channel. Its ironic because it went forward with the idea that work would be done to restore the stream channel. • Hart: That was my questions. I seem to recall a lot of discussion about the restoration of the channel through that park. • Donovan: That's the disconnect. If the channel is being restored that's an admission that it exists, or are you creating the channel? That's the quote from staff. If no corridor currently exists and you're creating one, you're not required to buffer something that you create. • Donovan: We expressed concern in the Cottonwood Glen Park. We said please don't get so close to the trees that you damage them. Then, the grading to create the detention was feet from the big trees. So... • Fischer: I'd like to get this on a future work session, maybe in the next couple of weeks. • Stokes: I'll check with Doug and see what he can do. I don't want Doug to come in here and get waxed. That would be no fun and not appropriate. I would ask that if Doug comes in and makes a presentation that it be a respectful discussion. You can disagree, but I don't want him to feel like he's coming in to get waxed. • Fischer: That's not my intent. I want to understand how this decision was made. We might have input to give Doug on future decision making. I'm not going to tell him how to do his job. And its not a hatchet job. I would like to see recent developments. I saw Ann roll her eyes when I said I've never seen a buffer get bigger. Buffers can Natural Resources Advisory Board October 5, 2005 Page 7 of 8 be shifted in or out, but they're never shifted out. Maybe there have developments where the buffer has been shifted out, maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to see that. • Skutchan: There have been times when I've been uncomfortable. But we should never shy away from bringing in staff. I would hope we don't steer away from addressing issues for fear we're going to hurt staff feelings. We cant steer away from issues being addressed because we fear for staffs emotional state. • Donovan: We did have an incident a couple years, the staff person felt offended by the comments. It blew up into a situation that was not good. • Skutchan: That's part of the job. • Donovan: It works both ways. • Hart: The NRAB should look into the park issue and see what's happening with the Spring Creek corridor and figure out if there's a way we can protect the corridor. The whole issue of the buffer standards is far more significant. We better find out, and pretty quick. • Staychock: For a future agenda item I'd like to know where the City stands, it's plan for snow removal. It's a huge natural resource concern. • Knowlton: That's not a natural resources issue. • Stokes: It's a Facility and Streets issue, and maybe an emergency management issue. • Staychock: Where's it going to be taken? • Stokes: They pile it up. • Fischer: They have been stockpiling snow on natural areas. • Staychock: Sand, mag chloride. I dont think anyone in the city knows the effects. I don't know if many public citizens know. • Stokes: We could ask Ron Phillips from Transportation to come. • Colton: There's also the stormwater runoff issue. That's an environmental issue. • Fischer: We had a discussion about the future of the NRD as it pertains to the budget. I think its more systemic than just the budget. We talked about what the plan is for the department. It seems to be getting smaller and smaller. • Petterson: John, you said you have a vision you'd like to share. • Stokes: We can talk about that. I think I described it to the board before. • Knowlton: It was interesting to read in the minutes. Does the adoption of the budget affect your vision? • Donovan: He wasn't successful with his bold new vision. • Fischer: What was the outcome of the decision for cardboard pickup? • Stokes: We should know the answer on the 101h of October. I'll send an email Tuesday morning. • Fischer: What about the Strategic Five Year Plan for Recycling? We hired a contractor. We need to get them on the agenda real soon. Everything is on the table. What it would take to achieve a goal of 50% diversion. I would encourage you to come prepared for discussion with ideas. • Skutchan: I'm on the Trails Committee but cant make it because of the timing. I'd like to see an overview of the connections between trails. What's been updated and developed over the past five years, and projections of the next five years. I just feel I need to be caught up. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 5, 2005 Page 8 of 8 • Stokes: We'll get Craig Foreman from Parks to come in. We recently wrote a really detailed memo to council. • Knowlton: It seems since Parks took over the chair of that committee we haven't been meeting. It bothers me. We used to meet every month. I cant remember the last time we met. We should be meeting more regularly. • Colton: I hope he has the signs up. • Stokes: They will be up pretty soon. • Colton: This board should meet to see what we want to focus on as we go forward. • Knowlton: It might be better to talk in January. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:00. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor i ( -o z-a-s-'