Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation And Stewardship Board - Minutes - 07/12/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A July 12, 2006 For Reference: Bill Bertschy - 491-7377 Mayor Doug Hutchinson - 416-2154 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Bill Bertschy, Michelle Brown, Gregory Eckert, Michelle Grooms, Vicky McLane Greg Snyder Board Members Absent Paul Hudnut, Linda Stanley, John Stokes, Karyl Ting, Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Geri Kidawski, Mark Sears Guests Mike Dahl — Platte River Power Authority (PAPA) (presentation review) Agenda Review No changes Bertschy welcomed the public, and briefly explained the Land Conservation Stewardship Board (LCSB) as being an advisory board to Council. Public Comments Raymond Schultz, 625 Holyoke Court — Mr. Schultz said that when we purchased our homes ("we" includes other homeowners along the ridge that Mr. Schultz spoke to who are not present this evening) we already knew the train tracks existed and we were aware of the current power lines. So we made our decisions to purchase the property based upon that. We also knew that the City was in the process of purchasing that property as natural area, and felt at that point that nothing would possibly be built on there except a walking or cycling trail, although that was never discussed. I also want to identify that I am a Real Estate broker and have been for 34 years here in Fort Collins residential real estate, and have sold many homes in the Ridgeway Hills. Although I am not speaking for everyone, there are 40 some people that signed the petition, who felt that 80 foot tall man-made structures going into the natural area Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 2of18 with three power lines running along them, seems to run counter to what I thought the purpose of a natural area really was. And yes, there are man-made structures running through them now, but they did not exist prior to the City purchasing that property. I feel that from the stand point of Real Estate, this does impact property value. They would be 45 feet taller than the current poles, plus the circumference of the poles is substantially larger at the base to support the size of the poles. I think this has a negative impact on the present and future values once they go in. We as homeowners have to deal with the impact on the views of the natural area 24/7. Those using Shields Street whether driving or cycling will only see the structures as they pass by, as homeowners we have to deal with the poles everyday. I have also looked at the poles along North Overland trail (by the way Mark Sears and Mike Dahl have been very helpful answering questions regarding this area) and I feel the poles are very stark. My suggestion/personal feeling would be that a gray color blends into the landscape better that the dark brown poles. As I have stated in previous letters and comments, ideally it would be nice if they could put the power lines underground. Secondly, other people have commented that to me, and others have commented that why can't the power lines be run down Taft Hill Road where there is virtually no housing in the area we are talking about. The third choice would be to shift it over by Shields, which if the poles were a gray color they would blend into the background of the housing and foothills in the area. • Thomas Ely — No matter where these poles go there's going be a negative impact on somebody. I think we need to narrow our discussion to the Natural Area, that's our area of responsibility. I can't think of anything more intrusive or more negative than running these power lines through the Natural Area. I think it's we as citizens, and people like you who are suppose to protect these areas. It is our responsibility to protect these areas, and put all these other concerns aside. • Gina Heath — I would like to say that I agree with what Ray Schultz said. The point that I would like to bring up is that I was told that the existing lines were going to be buried. So if they are all ready digging trenches, can't you just bury the power lines? Because if you think long term they'll be better off anyway. Initially it is cost prohibitive but long term you will save money. • John Toliver, 7015 Sedgwick Drive, (970) 207-9570 - Passed out prepared statement and pictures. Power poles and power lines are not compatible and do not belong in our Natural Area. I am a professional Forester by training and I am also a semi professional photographer. I feel if given a reasonable opportunity to move man-made things out of Natural areas we should do so, and this is a reasonable opportunity to do so. The existing 35 foot poles should not be replaced with 85 foot poles. The visual impact will be "significantly different" for homeowners or anyone else using the natural area. A realistic view from my home is significantly different than the panoramic wide-angle view provided in the photographs by Platte River Power Authority. (PRPA photos vs. my photos one and three). Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 3 of 18 Pole location in the center of Colina Mariposa will dominate the natural landscape regardless of the railroad (photo #3). If placed along Shields Street, the poles will be much less visible from our homes along the ridge, particularly on the west side of Shields. They will have minimum visual impact on anyone in the natural area. They blend into the subdivision. People driving/riding/walking along Shields Street will be minimally affected as other utilities and man-made structures are already here. They are busy watching traffic and/or most likely looking into the natural area. I question why plans are being made to build a regional trail along Shields Street instead of within the natural area i.e. along the railroad track or eastern edge of the natural area. (Example: Cathy Fromme Area path) I feel this is a major impact and I urge you to recommend re -alignment of poles on Shields Street. I do appreciate you giving this a second look. • Leslie A. Howitt, 7421 Stoneington Court in Ridgewood Hills — passed out a prepared statement to committee. Some time ago there was circulated in our neighborhood a petition requesting consideration be given to the routing of the proposed transmission line along Shields rather than along the BNSF Railroad tracks. I signed the petition for two reasons: 1. I had not yet assimilated all the information regarding the new transmission line and was somewhat disenchanted with the idea of any new power lines that adversely affected our beautiful view. 2. My firm conviction that if my neighbors were concerned enough to circulate a petition, their concerns should be heard. Since then I have gained further information on this issue concerning the route of the power line, and have come to the firm conviction that the community, at least my immediate neighborhood at the south end of the Ridge, will be better served if the power line is routed along BNSF tracks. The sight line from all points along the ridge to the tops of the poles will be at a lower elevation angle than if the power line is routed along Shields. The difference is significant. If the line is run along Shields the tops of the power line will intrude vertically into the view toward Coyote Ridge and well into the views of the southwest across McKee and Longview Farms open spaces. I have walked Reservoir Ridge from Longview Farm to Trilby Road, and while I believe I understand why, because of the relative proximity of the tracks to their properties, some in our community support routing the transmission line along Shields. I am of the firm opinion that the views from almost all of the homes along the southern portion of the ridge will be less adversely affected by the routing along the Railroad tracks rather than along Shields. I personally prefer the degradation of the proximate view of Shields in order to preserve the distant views toward the Front Range. Others may differ. If the board or my fellow citizens so desire I am prepared to show a brief, admittedly rough, graphic presentation in support of that opinion. 0 Joseph McCarthy, 6713 Holyoke Court - I agree with everything that has been said. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 4 of 18 I would like to make one comment. My wife and I were one of the first to build on Ridgewood Hills. I went to the City Fathers, and the council meetings, and we were assured and promised that nothing would ever be erected to interfere with the Natural Area. Where is that promise? If we are going to go through with this, there is something wrong here. David Brock, 6731 Holyoke - I want to address just the Natural Area. On the west side of the tracks where these power lines are suppose to go, at the southwest corner of this property there is a massive wetlands. Has any thought be given as to the effect on this wetland if they have to put holes through the wetlands area. I asked Mark Sears and he didn't know if that had been addressed or not. Also, I want to say right now that there are many, many raptors in this area, and they rest on the cross arms of the current poles and hunt from these poles. I've been on the clean up committee since that area has become part of the City property and would like to see the Natural Area preserved the way it has been up to this date. Mike Farrell, President of the Homeowners (HOA) Association of Ridgewood Hills — Like Dave and Ray I was one of the first ones to move into that area. I do not live on the ridge, so I did not sign the petition and I do not have a vested interested other than the fact of representing our homeowners here tonight. If you look at Ridgewood Hills we are one of the largest HOA's in Northern Colorado, currently there are 850 residents. Clean up is done in the open space on a regular basis, twice or three times a year, by the residents so you are dealing with a bunch of people who are committed to that open space. They paid a premium to live on that ridge, which is the highest elevation in the City of Fort Collins for homes. We've also done "adopt a street" on Trilby, from College to Shields; we as an HOA clean that area three times a year in cooperation with the City. I think you've heard a lot of information tonight about moving the poles or putting them one place or another, and I know having sat on the HOA board a lot of times you don't have enough information. And if I were sitting in your shoes this evening I would say you don't have enough information. You've been presented some great information, but I think you need to take it a step further and figure out what's going to be the best line of sight. Personally, I would say I would agree with people who say move them out of the open space. I think you as a board could obviously garnish more resources to figure what impact this is going to have to the citizens who live on the ridge. Bertschy: Has anyone heard of Gray vs. Brown? I guess I would like to hear your opinion. There was no opinion from the Board members. • Bertschy: Ok, that was one point I wanted to clarify. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 5of18 Gina Heath: If you take Trilby west you can see big power poles. You can see them from my house, and I am basically a mile south from there. So they are going to be big poles. • Mike Farrell: At the HOA Board meeting on June 27, 2006, we did a measure to support our homeowners and any endeavors that they take in going forward with this. I just want you to know that the HOA is behind the homeowners. We would support either side of the homeowners decision Review and Approval of Minutes Michelle Brown motioned to approve the June 14, 2006 minutes. Vicky McLane second. The minutes were unanimously approved as written. Presentation, Discussion and Possible Reconsideration of Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Right of Way Easement on Colina Mariposa Natural Area Bertschy said that there was a prior discussion on this item. The recommendation, at that time, was to recommend that the right of way be approved along the railroad track. Given the information that staff received from the homeowners, it was decided to put the item back on the agenda for consideration to see if the Board still wants to support that recommendation. He asked Mark Sears to do a short presentation. Sears said that Mike Dahl is here from Platte River Power Authority and he would like to go over the initial presentation done a few months ago. The only comment I'd like to add is that the Natural Areas does have an easement policy that was adopted by Council a number of years ago. Although it does expressively prohibit overhead power lines going through a Natural Area, the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board and Council felt that with the mitigation Platte River was offering, it seemed reasonable to go ahead and allow this easement despite it being in opposition to the easement policy. Mike will get into the cost of putting the lines underground, and that will answer some of the question as well. Dahl: presented the first four slides shown at a previous meeting. • Snyder: What voltage will you be running? • Dahl: 230,000 volts. The existing distribution line that runs along the tracks is a City of Fort Collins distribution line and is probably 13,800 volts. The existing overhead line that is owned by Tri-State that's going to the Trilby sub -station is 115,000 volts, and when we re -build Tri-State's line it will have two circuits on it a 115,000 volt circuit for that sub -station and a 230,000 volt transmission line that will bypass the Trilby sub -station and head down here. The 230,000 transmission line will be connected through a transformer to the Loveland 115,000 volt system. • Snyder: Will the power be feeding this way? • Dahl: Yes, but it can go the other way. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 6of18 • Snyder: Are there any complicating factors as far as maintenance and repair if you bury the line vs. the overhead? • Dahl: There is an assumption that underground cable has a finite life of 30-40 years. hi our dry environment maybe it'll last longer. The overhead lines will last longer. • Bertschy: Could you go over again what PRPA was offering in exchange for the right of way. • Dahl: Because we knew we would be adding additional visual impact there, we first thought we would bury the City of Fort Collins distribution line. We'd be happy to do that whether the poles are near the railroad track or if they're by Shields. Secondly, in buying this area, which is an 11 acre wide area, we would offer to buy the whole thing, and based on the lack of communication with the homeowner we're very likely to condemn that area. Our idea was to reserve an easement for our use and then work with the County and the City to manage that area in the same fashion that the surrounding natural areas are managed so that it looked like a continues buffer area between Loveland and Fort Collins. We also would grant the City or County an easement or the use of the property for the trail that would connect Loveland and Fort Collins. We also offered to bury a Poudre Valley REA distribution line since it is part of the property and the visual impact on the natural area. When I showed the pictures to the County staff, they said that they'd rather see the money spent on 287, and bury the Poudre Valley line that runs from 65t` Street north towards Fort Collins ending at Carpenter Street. We have not gotten back the estimates of what Poudre Valley wants to charge us to do both of the lines. If the price is reasonable, we would be happy to bury both of those lines. The County feels that it would be better use of money if we buried just one, just because of the large amount of traffic on 287, plus the distribution line on 287 literally sits right at the horizon. Those are the four ideas we have to compensate for the exchange for the right of way. • Grooms: So you are offering to bury the distribution lines, is it not as expensive to bury the distribution lines as it is the transmission lines? • Dahl: No. The City of Fort Collins staff told us it would be $225,000 to bury the one - mile or so stretch of distribution line. The difference in price is the cable, and possible the type of construction. I don't know how the City builds its underground duct system, but we put in six inch conduit and incase it with concrete, backfill it, restore the surface, and then every 2,000 feet or so a big vault is installed for splicing the cable. It's a significantly different cost for the manufacture of this big cable and its installation rather than the City's distribution cable. I think Poudre Valley directly buries their cable in the ground, puts dirt back over it and covers it up. So it's likely to be half the price of the City's price per mile. • Eckert: The work done by EDAW to do these simulations, are these simulations taken directly West from the homes out there? • Dahl: No. What I asked them to do was to use what I thought to be the public access spots within the neighborhood to get to the edge of the hill. After that I left it up to them to decide what they thought was the appropriate panorama. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 7 of 18 Mr. Dahl showed slides of the Natural Area where power poles are at the intersection of Shields and Trilby. • Eckert: The second question I had; under either scenario with the existing lines there or these new ones, would the City be able to do prescribe bums there? • Dahl: Sure. There isn't going to be anything tall enough or hot enough to affect the foundation or the pole itself. We would like to be told about it in advance so we could have a few folks out there making sure there is little damage to the poles. • Eckert: There are precautions they could take. I don't know the Platte River policies about that. • Dahl: No. If it were a heavily wooded area we would not do that. I don't think there would be a problem there. • Bertschy: When we discussed this before one of the concerns was the higher elevations along Shields than along the railroad tracks. We thought the visual impact along Shields would be greater because of the higher elevation. By your description of the natural gas line would that make the elevation lower in reality, because of the berm on Shield? If the poles were to go along Shields is the elevation the same as the railroad tracks or is it a bit higher. Dahl displayed a topography map of the area, which the Board and the public reviewed. • Dahl: There is a 60 or 70 foot elevation difference from the north to the south. Regarding the question of the wetlands, there was a biologist, with permission of the City, who walked along that route, and her suggestion was to span the area with standing water, and then she felt that the poles should not have any impact on that area. • Bertschy: Another speaker mentioned the raptors, and whether the new transmission line would create a hazard. • Dahl: When the biologist was out there she researched, and found that there is a nesting pair in a lone tree. Her suggestion was that we avoided construction activity into early August so as not to impact the nesting of the birds there. As far as we know there has not been a problem or fatality with birds, partially because the safety distance between conductors is so wide that a bird's wing span is not sufficient to cause a path to be created of electricity for them which will electrocuted them. • Bertschy: Can birds perch on those lines? • Dahl: Yes. The conductors are an inch in diameter and there is also a small arm on the top of each pole. • Grooms: There was also a question about the color, can that be changed if possible. • Dahl: We have chosen in the past to go with the dark brown, but we can do it either way. • Bertschy: A comment was made regarding burying existing lines using the present trench. Is there efficiency with using the present trench? • Dahl: We would have to dig a bigger trench. There needs to be sufficient space between two sets of conductors otherwise you get circulating currents and overheating. The net effect is about a wash. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 8of18 • Sears: I don't think that Platte River was offering to bury lines, as well as the City's lines underground. • Dahl: I also promised to Sears that we would help with the restoration of the Powell property. • Bertschy: Do you have a slide of the property map? • Dahl: No • Bertschy: could you describe the property. Mark used the map to explain the dissection of property. • Grooms: Where is the envisioned trail? • Sears: The trail is envisioned to be parallel to Shields Street. Some have commented to put it in the Natural Area like Cathy Fromme Prairie vs. along Shields. The difference here is that it will be a dual purpose trail; it will serve as a natural area trail but it will also serve as a primary pedestrian transportation route between Fort Collins and Loveland. Transportation likes to have the trail close to the road. • Snyder: Do you have any idea where they will cross the railroad tracks in Loveland? • Dahl: When we bought this property it belonged to one owner. Their plan, or at least the latest plan I heard, was to leave one area open for drainage and the other area for houses. • Sears: Loveland's trail plan right now is just a white line on a map. It's not very definitive. • Eckert: Why are the poles 80 feet high? • Dahl: It's a matter of a safety clearance that's required. There are three conductors, with twelve feet of vertical space required between each of the conductors. On a hot summer day when the line is loaded to its highest allowable usage the line will sag three, four or five feet because of the metal heating up. When this happens there needs to be about 27 feet of clearance at the middle of the span. • Bertschy: Tell me about the span, the space between the poles. • Dahl: It's flexible. The standard is about 600 feet. We have some poles that are 900 to 1,000 foot spans. The longer the span the taller the pole, it's all geometry. So 600 or 700 foot spans is a good length so that the poles are not any higher than they have to be. • Bertschy: So how many poles are needed along Shields? • Dahl: Eight poles or so along Shields. We may need three or four extra poles if we go along the railroad track • Grooms: Mark, if the line went along Shields how far away would the trail be? Would there be compensation for that because people wouldn't want to go underneath a power line. • Sears: Mike and I were talking about this earlier today. The power line can go behind the curb, but we may end up with the power line 25 feet or more away from road. The trail can be another 25 or 50 feet beyond the power line. • Bertschy: What is the Board's prerogative? Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 9 of 18 McLane: I think we all need to recognize that the easement policy says that the new overhead cable lines will not be allowed within any City owned natural areas or land. There are no provisions in that policy, so as far as I'm concerned there are no exceptions to that policy. Secondly, there is no such thing as mitigation for 85-foot power poles in terms of the visual impact. The dictionary defines mitigate as, less in force or intensity; make less severe. We are not doing that, we are making those poles much more severe. I find it ironic that since the 1950's the City has required developers to underground all their power lines. I think it's a bit of a travesty to turn around and say that it's ok in a natural area, which should have a higher degree of protection than our residential areas. I am absolutely opposed to having them above ground, and I think it's a small price to pay for something that's going to be there for forty years. I would recommend that we turn down the request for poles in our natural area. Bertschy: Would you like to put that in a form of a motion? McLane moved for this Board to turn down Platte River Power Authority's request for an easement on Colina Mariposa Natural Area for power poles, as per City policy on allowing easements in Natural Areas. Eckert second the motion. • Bertschy: We can open this to discussion. • Brown: Mark why does the staff feel that there is means for making exceptions to this policy? • Sears: I think the intent of the policy was to be reasonable, and to look at economics as well as impacts. I think our intention was to preclude transmission lines from coming through Fort Collins, since we were protecting the foothills corridor. There is a subtle difference with the Power Authority. The Power Authority is us, the City of Fort Collins are partners in Platte River Power Authority. We have a policy for underground distribution lines, we do not have a policy for underground transmission lines because we do not own transmission lines, those are owned by WAPA or Platte River or some of the other transmission companies. Secondly, the NRAB and we looked at this, and although Vicky is right in that you can not mitigate the line itself, the overall visual impacts to the natural area can be mitigated. PRPR is proposing to underground power line in several areas, and the power line along Longview Farm for instance will be a huge visual improvement. We thought this proposed line enhanced the visual esthetics of the whole area. • Brown: Who will pay the higher price in the long run? • Dahl: We're a non profit organization. What we do is something that goes to the cost of electricity. I can't tell you that one project goes to an instant rate increase, it all accumulates. • Eckert: I seconded the motion because I don't think we're ready to make a decision on this. I think it's important to think about what are the values we are trying to get with this particular area and this particular project. One of the values we have to consider would be the view shed of the hills, which would impact a greater amount of people in this area. It seems like the staff of the Natural Areas program should go Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 10 of 18 back and think through what would be the worst or better trade off. I'm not sure that anything I've heard so far is really the thing that makes me want to think that this is the precedence that makes us want to go beyond the policy. • Snyder: I think the natural area is the straw hand in this whole discussion. I think we have a lot of nim'byism surfacing. If you want to talk about whom has precedence to a view shed, I ask anyone to show me on your deed of title where it is written that you own the horizon for a given distance in any direction. When you buy property, you buy your fixed property. The railroad all ready runs through this property, and I think it's a straw argument to say that eight or eleven 85 foot power poles are going to be some blight that will totally ruin life for everyone around. • Bertschy: I think my preference is to have the power lines along Shields. I feel the exception to the Natural Areas policy was justifiable, given the benefits that we were going to receive especially that piece of land where the brick factory was. My feeling on putting the power lines along the railroad tracks is that it is lower, and less of a visual impact. • Brown: I agreed with Bertschy. • Grooms: I see both sides of the story and I am torn, and I have been torn on this issue from the beginning. Acquiring that piece of property and having the existing power distribution lines put underground are all good things. Then I see McLane's side and we can't have easements on all of our Natural Areas, it goes against the policy. So what is the right decision? • Sears: If we put it along Shields technically it does not go against our policy from my point of view. We view a right of way as utility corridors and that's normally where we would have wanted to put this power line. We all felt that we were doing everyone a favor by putting the power line along the railroad tracks because a corridor all ready exists. • McLane: I think the vision impacts are enormous. Have any of you gone over to Overland and looked at those poles they are astounding, and they are there forever. I think we are missing the visual impacts of things we are looking at. I think that's one of the values of our Natural Areas is to preserve some of the visual attributes this region has. It concerns me greatly that we would put those kinds of poles in that location, so I would say that underground is the only way to alleviate my concerns, and I think it's a small price to pay. Bertschy called for the vote on the motioned to recommend to City Council that we deny an easement across the Colina Mariposa Natural Areas. The motion failed 3 to 2. Snyder: In light of the vote and the comments that you've made, I move that we recommend to City Council that the line be placed somewhere in the proximity of Shields Street. Brown second the motion. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 11 of 18 • Bertschy: The motion is on the floor that we recommend the easement be placed along Shields Street. Is there a discussion? • Eckert: I think that we should go into a broader visual analysis of maximum area view sheds, right out of the natural area to the larger area up towards the foothills. • Bertschy: Would you like me to recommend it be added in the motion to the recommendation? • Eckert: If we can do that. • Bertschy: Sure • Eckert: If contingent on analysis. • Grooms: What about just looking further at something underground. Can we make a motion for that? It seems like we'd all be happy if it could go underground. Its state of the art technology, underground, no visual impacts, and what are we willing to pay. • Brown: We may loose some things directly, which I am worried about. • McLane: If the City of Fort Collins wanted that piece of property bad enough, I think I'm right, they could condemned it if they felt they could show it was needed for public purpose. • Sears: Both the Natural Areas program and the Open Lands program only acquires land from willing seller's, so we don't condemn open space for natural area. • Snyder: I am open to Greg Eckert amending my motion. • Eckert: Yes, with further analysis of view sheds. • Sears: Greg Eckert by that do you mean that we would bring it back to this Board before we proceed to Council or would we bring further analysis when we present the options to Council. • Bertschy: I am trying to be practical on the Council side of this, and I think we should recommend to council our recommendation with the addition that we want a broader analysis of the view shed. • Eckert: The thing I'm concerned about is the precedence of going against the easement policy, and my second concern would be the ramifications of the broader view shed against the foothills. I don't think we have to slow things down to bring it back to this Board, but just say that the alternative for the City Council to consider is a different impact for a much larger community against the foothills and the view shed. Sears: Do we take both options to council or do we take them one recommendation and that being along Shields or do we take to them the option of being along the railroad tracts or along Shields? Eckert: The recommend to place it along Shields is that beyond our jurisdiction? Bertschy: I think we should make one recommendation. Bertschy called for the vote on the motion to make a recommendation to City Council for the easement to be along Shields, but with the stipulation that we ask Council to look at the broader view shed implications of that decision. The motion passed 5 to 1. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 12 of 18 • Bertschy: I will draft a memo to include this motion, and I think it would be fair to mention in the memo that we changed our position and why we made the first recommendation and that there are members of this Board that feel that this is an exception to our policy. • Snyder: I am in agreement with Greg Eckert about the visual impact of where the poles are placed. Realistically given the votes present, I think your recommendation is the only thing that will pass. I do think that the visual impact is less if the poles are placed by railroad tracks. The Board will reference Mr. John Toliver's pictures to City Council. • Bertschy: I would like all of you (pertaining to the attending public) to see the memo so we will send a copy of the memo to Raymond Schultz, at 625 Holyoke Court. Foothills Management Plan, Edith Felchle Sears: Introduced Edith Felchle, Sr. Environmental Planner, Jeremy Lees, Natural Areas Technician, David Trevino, Ranger and Rachel Steeves, Environmental Planner Sears used a map to point out the foothills Natural Areas to the Board. Felchle: After we hear your comments tonight, if necessary, we will make the necessary changes to the action items. This fall we plan on having a public open house, and after hearing from the public there may be additional changes and if something major comes up we may come back to board with those changes. By the end of the year we hope to have this adopted. This gets adopted administratively by the Natural Resources Director, it does not go to Council, and you do not have to make any recommendations to Council. Each of us will do a summary of the areas that we cover, and following that we will answer questions. • Jeremy Lees - Recreation and Public Improvements Lees: The overall site improvements are: - Major access improvements — all open sites have parking lots, vault toilets, trash cans, pet pickup dispensers, horse hitches and bike racks. - We worked in conjunction with Rangers and Environmental Educators to install informational kiosks, mini kiosks with regulations, interpretive features and trail markers. - The maintained trail system includes trail re-routes (1 mile rerouted due to flood of 1997,) and we received a grant for ''/< mile re-route along Reservoir Ridge and other small sections. We've added raised surface structures to help with water problems, and we closed social trails that had negative impacts to wildlife and neighbors. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 13 of 18 Major long and short term goals are: - Accessibility throughout the foothills sites and entire Natural Areas Program (NAP). We are looking for ways to provide accessibility for people with varying disabilities and circumstances, yet keeping the experience of being with nature. Mark Sears and I will begin working on this project this fall making it a big priority. - We are working on opening of Andrijeski and Piano Boulders Natural Area We are trying to get ahead with the trail system in general. Over the years we've inherited social trail systems, up to 30+ years old, and we are trying to take a pro -active approach with these trails. There are now additional trail connections: Coyote Ridge to Rimrock/Blue Sky, Pineridge southern foothills to Spring Creek and Fossil Creek trails (coincides with Spring Canyon Park) Reservoir Ridge and Andrijeski both together and to the Poudre trail. This allows for access to 30+ miles of trail from any point. • Rachel Steeves - Resource Management • Steeves: At our foothills site over the past nine years, in regards to Resource Management, some of the work we've done has been concentrated on increasing our weed management and also some restoration at Coyote Ridge Natural Area. Since this last Management Plan was done, as a program of Natural Areas, we did a weed assessment and weed management plan, which has since been replaced by vegetation guidelines. Our weed management has increase a lot since the program has grown. - Foothill sites have Ponderosa Pine, Woodlands and Shrub lands, Mountain Mahogany, mixed and short grass prairies. There is a significant wet meadow at Andrijeski and this is significant because we have the threatened Ute's Lady's Tresses (Orchid) and our goal is to manage properly for that. - Dixon Reservoir creates a riparian habitat, which is unusual in those foothills. - We do management techniques for imperiled species such as Bells Twin pod, which our Natural Areas protects a large percentage that exists in the area. Another interesting imperiled plant is the Slim pod Venous Looking Glass. - Wildlife that we are concerned about are prairie dogs, butterflies and moths. - Mammals we have not documented are Preble's meadow jumping mouse, but we may have a potential habitat. One of our goals listed is to do a survey perhaps at Reservoir Ridge. Steeves briefly reviewed the Resource management overall long term and short term goals that the Board received in their packet. Felchle: On the education side of things the foothill sites are established. So for the most part the educational things are established particularly at Coyote Ridge and at Pineridge so monitoring is the main thing. At a couple of the sites we will be adding some interpretive features. Our biggest change will be at Reservoir Ridge, and we are currently in the process of developing some interpretive features that will go along Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 14 of 18 the trails at Reservoir Ridge. When Primrose Studio is completed we will be doing some programming. On the education side, at Primrose Studio we'll be doing programming for the public, and also we will use that space for some ongoing Master Naturalist education. David Trevino — Resource and Visitor Protection Trevino: We do not have goals that are specific for each site. Our goals transfer to the entire Natural Areas program. The goals are basically to: - Encourage responsible use of Natural Areas - Educate the public about Natural Areas - Provide a safe, peaceful and enjoyable environment for the visitors and also for protection of wildlife habitat • Felchle: We will now address any questions or comments. • Brown: Edith you mentioned that you are not anticipating controversial questions or concerns, do you possibly see anything that we are not thinking about that we might need to answer should the question be raised? • Felchle: By comparison the first time we did this plan we had a lot of people from the public wanting some hiking only trails as opposed to biking trails. • Sears: I think when we go out to the public we may get a repeat of some those concerns. • Brown: Legally are we supposed to provide wheel chair access just like businesses have to? • Felchle: That's what Jeremy was talking about relative to assess ability. The other slight controversy we may or may not get would be questions regarding closing some of the social trails at Pineridge. • Bertschy: Any thing about dogs at Pineridge? • Sears: I think that's very likely because at some of our open houses we receive questions regarding why don't we allow dogs off leash in some of our Natural Areas. • Felchle: At the first go around on this we had a lot of controversy on this sort of thing, but with education we have been able to accomplish some understanding of this issue. • Felchle: We have a visitor's satisfaction survey going on until the end of November that has specific questions regarding should dogs be on leash or off leash in our Natural Areas. I am beginning to see the surveys coming in and the opinions are coming in on all sides. • Brown: Where are those surveys taken? • Felchle: We have people stationed at several Natural Areas on specific days and times, who hand out the survey as people are exiting. We've been having a 98 percent success rate. • Eckert: What about the new social trails that are being created? Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 15 of 18 • Lees: It's not an enormous issue. What we are now seeing is short cutting trails. Major closures have been fairly successful due to fencing. Some of the trails are so bad that we incorporate the rocky areas into the trail and maintain it the best we can or sometimes we re-route the trail. • Sears: Probably the biggest challenge we've had in the foothills Natural Areas is that they were in use for many years under parks and they didn't have nearly the management style that we have and certainly no enforcement. So there wasn't much done to enforce or stop social trails. When we came along with stricter enforcement there was some opposition to that, but for the most part it's a lot better now. • McLane: I like knowing exactly when I'm on a City Natural Area, because of the fence, and that's an aesthetic attribute that speaks to the Natural Area. Having worked with people with different physical disabilities, I encourage you to concentrate on the sites that make the most sense. Put your efforts in just a couple of sites that are top notch. • Bertschy: The other thing would be specialty sites for special disabilities, in that one site may accommodate visual or hearing disabilities as opposed to mobility disabilities. Look for opportunities for the broad range. • Lees: I've had experiences with trails for the blind. My approach personally is that I feel that a trail should be accessible that's how you should start it, and then look at when or why wouldn't it be accessible. • McLane: Improving the quality of habitat for vegetation management, where will water quality, air quality, and wildlife soils get managed? • Steeves: Typically in the management plan we'll include soils, vegetation, and wildlife and then air quality and water quality fall in that category. I think we don't do anything active for the other issues; we do more active management for vegetation and the wildlife than anything else. • Grooms: What sort of feedback have you received regarding sheep grazing? • Sears: Daylan Figgs has been in charge, and we've had very little feedback from the public. As far as the results, Daylan is impressed. This year we didn't have near as good a start, we got in late, we got in half the sheep we hoped to have, and the person we contracted with had sheep problems. Next year we hope to have twice as many sheep and two herds instead of one. We did back off on Bobcat at the request of the Division of Wildlife, because of the Big Horn Sheep in the area. • Grooms: Is there any negative impact with the sheep? • Sears: If you don't have a good herder moving the sheep around, and Daylan was watching that on a daily bases, so it does equate to how much management they receive. • Snyder: Do you have a problem with foreign plant invasion from the sheep droppings. • Sears: There is the potential. • Steeves: Our perspective right now is that the sites need so much help; they're not going to contribute a net gain at the moment. If you have a site with not many native weeds you may want to keep the sheep dry loting somewhere else for a of couple days before they are brought into the area. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 16 of 18 • Grooms: On the ranger issues, is there any plans or thoughts or comments on having Ranger calls stations anywhere along the trails for emergencies, injuries, violation, or if you're threatened. If you don't have a cell phone, and you don't happen to pick up the brochure at the front there is no where to call a Ranger. • Trevino: We currently have a few call boxes where most of the calls go directly to the Fort Collins police dispatch and some go to the CSU dispatch. Their use is almost non-existent. Coyote Ridge and Riverbend Ponds both have one, and they are usually in the parking lot. • Bertschy: That may be a discussion for a public meeting to get some feel for that or include it in a survey. • Felchle: The question has come up frequently as cell phone use has gone up and the use of the call boxes has declined. • Grooms: Where you have interpretive areas can you highlight the area where to call in case of an emergency. • Trevino: At all the entrances to the Natural Areas we have posted emergency numbers and non -emergency numbers. • Lees: We would like the 911 number used, and then have all the other information and Ranger numbers posted at the entrances. • Bertschy: I have a question on foothill trail management. Are we compatible with other agencies managing the foothills? Are there issues regarding that? • Lees: There really aren't. They're just starting to bring in crews and we are working with Joel Wycoff from the County to get some collaborative projects going. • Bertschy: The feedback that I've been hearing is that there is inconsistency in the quality. I think it's a real asset for the community to have trails available for multi use. Regarding some of those social trail issues especially around Rotary Park and places like that, I don't want to stereotype the climbers, but it seems like different users may be creating different problems. We may need to manage through the education side with the community or student population. • Lees: It depends on who we are working with, but we have volunteers who are interested in helping on trails. • Bertschy: I agree with Vicky and Greg from our earlier discussion. There is real value in the view and the preservation of the ridge, and the ability to access them because they are so convenient. One last thing, did you work up a long-range budget to accomplish all the goals that are in here? • Sears: Not specifically for the foothills management plan. We budget per program area. • Bertschy: What if the plan is to eliminate a certain amount of acres of weeds in an area. • Sears: That's incorporated in the Resource Management long range plan and budget. The public and recreation improvements are incorporated in the public improvements long range plan and budget. Most of this is restating what already is in those long range plans, but if new things come up it's incorporated in the plan. • Bertschy: I asked this because what is the long range financial impact of the plan. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 17 of 18 • Sears: Taking it back and putting it in the overall public improvements plan, we can then look at all sites together and decide where the higher priorities are so that we're prioritizing amongst all of our sites. • Bertschy: How do we know that we can accomplish the Resource Management plan by 2017, when in reality it will never rise high enough in the priority list to get funded? • Sears: I hear that you don't want to put anything in the Resource Management plan that we can't do. So they would have to put it back in their resource plan, run the numbers and make sure that it works based on our long range planning. Then in the future if we need to change any of those plans we would have to recognize that we are changing the management plans, our goals and objectives as well. • Brown: Rachel if you find potential habitat, but you don't actually find the animal there would you ever consider using any of the open space areas as a re -introduction site now that they are getting larger and connected, especially if The Fish and Wildlife Services requested that? • Rachel: Yes, if The Fish and Wildlife Services approached us on that we would look into working with them. We would look at the quality of the habitat, if it's an appropriate place, and if it's in close enough proximity to an existing population to sustain a population. This was spelled out in our goals for the Bobcat plan. • Snyder: One of the species of wildlife that I enjoy seeing, and see less of in town as our infill plan is taking place is foxes. I haven't heard foxes mentioned in any of the Natural Areas programs. It seems like the focus goes to the Prairie dogs. Wildlife habitat and wildlife is far greater than a few Prairie dogs that will populate if given a chance. Is that already incorporated in the plan, but not specifically named? The primary goal of open space is to preserve open space, but we seem to have a very heavy emphasis on making open spaces for people to hike, for people to ride horses and for people to mountain bike on, to the exclusion of almost all other activities. I think to often we find ourselves focusing on eradicating weeds, making biking, hiking and horse riding trails and doing something with Prairie dogs, and leaving everything else off to the side. I would like to see the river corridor opened up to other forms of enjoyment. I think it's a way for people who don't hike, bike or ride horses to get involved in the Natural Areas. I think we need to look at static enjoyment like picnic tables, and I know we are limited especially in the summer time because of natural shade. I'm not talking about putting in grills, just something that people can bring a picnic basket to and sit down and enjoy nature. I think this would work well with people who have difficulty accessing the regular trail system we have now. This is not something that we have to do at every open space, but I think it is something that should be considered. On Reservoir Ridge, will the informational markers delve into the geology of the area? • Felchle: Some of it will be of the typical wildlife of the site, with some geology and some vegetation information. It will be things applicable to that specific site. • Bertschy: Edith you will keep us up -dated on all of this? • Felchle: Yes. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 12, 2006 Page 18 of 18 Announcements • Sears: - John is asking for a special meeting on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 from 6:00 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. - There will be a Soapstone tour for Board members on Saturday, July 22, 2006. - There is a scheduled volunteer event on Sunday, September 23, 2006. It'll be a hike/picnic at Bobcat Ridge, lunch will be provided, and there will be guided tours of the area. - The Grand opening of Bobcat is scheduled for Sunday, September 30, 2006. We have events scheduled every Saturday and Sunday for the month of October. Bertschy: Mayor Doug Hutchinson would like to attend one of our future meetings; he may be interested in the meeting with discussion about Soapstone this fall. We will extend to him an invitation. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Geri Kidawski Administrative Secretary