Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation And Stewardship Board - Minutes - 12/13/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A December 13, 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, Greg Eckert, Vicky McLane, Greg Snyder, Linda Stanley, Karyl Ting Board Members Absent Michelle Grooms Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Rick Bachand, Daylan Figgs, Geri Kidawski, Mark Sears, Jen Shanahan, Rachel Steeves, John Stokes Guests Operations Services/Real Estate Services: Lindsey Kuntz Operations Services/Real Estate Services: Patrick Rowe Public Comments No comments Agenda Review Review and Approval of Minutes • Stanley: Because the minutes are a shorten version of the meeting, I feel that certain discussions on the Floodplain regulations did not appear in the minutes, and it was a lengthy discussion. I'm not sure what to suggest here because transcribing the minutes is a difficult job. • Bertschy: I think the minutes are pretty complete when we send them to council. • Stokes: We are trying to get away from verbatim minutes, because we were turning in twenty and thirty page documents. We will try to be more sensitive to detail in discussion, and be sure it is include in the minutes. • Snyder: I think that when we write a memo to council that we not only refer to the minutes, but also refer to the digital recording of the meeting minutes. • Bertschy: Ok. How does the rest of the Board feel about the way the minutes are written? • Snyder: I think they accurately reflect the discussion. I think I know what Linda is referring to, and that was the peripheral discussion that went on. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 2 of 12 • Bertschy: Perhaps the Board can read the minutes closely, and then we can add to them if something is blatantly missing. Vicky McLane moved to approve the November 8, 2006 minutes. Greg Snyder second the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. Sears: Lindsey Kuntz and Patrick Rowe are here from Operations Services / Real Estate Services, because we have 3 real estate items that we need to address. I will highlight the particulars of these 3 items. 1. Pineridge / Quail Ridge Land Transfer Natural Areas staff is recommending the conveyance of certain small tracts of land in the Pineridge Natural Area, located adjacent to the Burns Ranch at Quail Ridge Subdivision, to Burns Ranch Open Space Non -Profit Corporation to save maintenance costs spent on the mowing, trash removal, and weed control in these areas. 2. Eagle View Natural Area Flood Inundation Easement Request This property is along I-25 south of Fort Collins, and south of Ketcher Road. The owners of Island Lake Marine are requesting this easement in order to fill their 9 acre reservoir to capacity, which will result in the flood inundation of 7,000 square feet of City property within the easement area. Due to the small size of the water inundation the Amy Corps of Engineers will not require any permitting. The reservoir they are creating will have great benefits to wildlife and to visitors alike. Brown: Is there any chance that they will turn this into lakefront property? Sears: There is a certain possibility, and we would like to get a conservation easement on that portion of their property. We had a discussion with them regarding this and they seem open to that. At some point we will explore this further with them, but I don't think that the force behind this is to create lakefront property. 3. Arapaho Bend and Ditch Easement Flatiron Companies own the property on the northeast corner of I-25 and Harmony. Historically the land was farmed and irrigated via the Box Elder Ditch lateral, which runs across Arapaho Bend Natural Area. There is a water storage reservoir on the property, which the Flatiron Companies is in the process of selling to the New Cache Irrigation Company out of Pierce. hi order of the New Cache Irrigation Company to get water into the reservoir they plan to use the Box Elder Ditch lateral that used to serve that farm. We feel that they have a prescriptive right, as well as they feel they have a prescriptive right. What defines a prescriptive easement is, how wide is the easement, and what can they really do or not do within that easement. So to Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 3 of 12 benefit us and themselves they want to establish a permanent easement that clearly defines what they can and can not do. • Stanley: What does prescriptive right mean? • Sears: At an irrigation ditch or lateral, in some cases, there isn't a formal easement, but the easement has been there for a long enough period of time to establish a prescriptive easement. • McLane: Where does the easement come in? • Sears: It comes off the Box Elder Ditch, underneath one of our trails, and then _ over to I-25 just south of the river. Then it goes under I-25, in a culvert, and flows into the property. They will need to re -grade that ditch, so we would like to have them shape it to look as natural as possible, and it will also have more water flow than it had in the past. I did ask that they pay us a restoration fee on the property they will be disturbing. • Stanley: Will the increased water flow be a safety issues? • Sears: It won't be near as big a ditch as the Box Elder Ditch that is there now. Irrigation ditches can be a safety issue, but I think the depth of this, as far as water flowing, will only be a couple of feet deep, and not a high level velocity that would swept someone away. • Bertschy: You are looking for a recommendation from the Board? • Sears: We need a recommendation to go to Council on all three items for their next meeting. • Brown: On the Pine Ridge Conveyance what kind of legal language do you use? • Kuntz: What we'll do it as a quick claim or general deed with restriction for no livable structure, and that it should be used as intended. • Bertschy: Will it be used as access to open space in some way, and would we maintain the area? • Sears: They shouldn't be used as public access. • Kuntz: There is a road that extends at the South end of subdivision that also leads to the Natural Area. The access road is the main way to get in. • Bertschy: I think back to all the controversy we had over the trail at Fossil Creek Trail. • Sears: All the trails according to the Management Plan are all ready established and the connection from the neighborhood to Pineridge is all ready established. Vicky McLane made a motion. Motion to send a positive recommendation to Council regarding the conveyance of certain small tracts of land in the Pineridge Natural Area. The motion was second by Michelle Brown. It was unanimously approved by all. Vicky McLane made a motion. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 4 of 12 Motion to send a positive recommendation to Council regarding Eagle View Natural Area flood inundation easement request. The motion was second by Greg Eckert. It was approved by all. Vicky McLane made a motion. Motion to send a positive recommendation to Council regarding Flatiron Companies' request for a ditch easement across Arapaho Bend Natural Area. The motion was second by Karyl Ting. It was approved by all. Draft Wildlife Management Guidelines — Rick Bachand Bachand introduced Jen Shanahan, Natural Areas Research Assistant, and also acknowledged others who worked on the guidelines: Karen Manci, Daylan Figgs, Rachael Steeves, Donna Dees, and Matt Parker. Bachand mentioned that he would like to have Chapter 6 — Prairie Dog Management, as the last item of discussion. Bachand spoke about these items during the presentation: • Chapter 1 - General Management Guidelines - Principals of Wildlife Management • Chapter 2 - Ground Rules to the Wildlife Management Guidelines • Chapter 3 - Sensitive, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species • Chapter 4 - Ecosystem Health • Bachand: In chapter 4 we start getting into what we feel is going to drive these Management Guidelines. - Ecosystem Management - Urban Stressors on Ecosystem Health - Thresholds or "Trigger Points" - Applying Adaptive Management to Prairie Dog Management - Wildlife in Fort Collins Natural Areas Chapter 5 — Native Wildlife Species Management Chapter 7 — Native Species Recovery and Reintroduction Goals Regarding to Soapstone Endangered Species 1 Plains Sharp -tailed Grouse 2 Bison 3 Black -footed Ferret • Chapter 8 — Wildlife Conflicts • Chapter 9 — Non -Native and Invasive Wildlife • Chapter 10 — Management and Control of Wildlife Diseases • Chapter 11 — Habitat Protection and Enhancements • Chapter 12 — Wildlife and Habitat Monitoring Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 5 of 12 • Chapter 13 — Future of Natural Area Wildlife Management Research Needs • Bertschy: The title "Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines", you said that it applies to the urban setting, but Bobcat Ridge is included. Do the guidelines exclude Soapstone? • Bachand: Not really. I think these guidelines can be applied across the Natural Areas system whether they are urban or not. Also, I think this document has been written with the urban areas in mind. We can still extrapolate some of the information for Bobcat and Soapstone. Bobcat all ready has, and Soapstone will have very detailed planning. • Bertschy: I feel that if we are going to call it Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines it should be applicable for everything. The rational for that is because parts of this are applicable to Soapstone, but parts would also be applicable to urban settings. I don't see a problem with us having it be applicable to all Natural Areas so that it is our wildlife management plan for all of our areas. • Ting: I feel you have done a really great job on the guidelines, but it seems that it - is a really broad scoped project. It seems to me that some of those things could be focusing more on community outreach. I don't know who your targets will be, are they the City or are they the lay person who asks for it? • Bachand: One target is ourselves. Here is a framework for making decisions. Your point is well taken, and as a team we can sit down and say given that input what did we not think of. • Ting: In my mind it's a matter of where is the human interface that you have to accommodate with these guidelines? In your guidelines do you address vulnerability? • Bachand: At Soapstone we are addressing conservation targets, vulnerability, and wildlife so that's the sight specific plan. • Stanley: I feel you all did a great job. I think it applies to both areas, and that it's broad enough and that you all were aware that it applies to different things and different strategies and I hope that you will prioritize the guidelines. • Bachand: Once we get through this process we will then go through a prioritization. • Eckert: This may probably be out of the jurisdiction of the Natural Areas, but maybe some of these issues can be linked to educational programs in the Natural Areas program. You could identify wildlife related issues. • Bertschy: I feel that we have comprehensive management guidelines; however my concern is that I don't want to see us limited by management guideline in future time. That is why I feel we need to be as inclusive and as comprehensive as possible for all of our Natural Areas; otherwise we should say urban -interface guidelines. • Bachand: What I am hearing you say is that you would like to see across-the- board guidelines. These guidelines were written with urban areas in mind, but I think there are concepts in there, better than 90% of them, that are applicable to the Natural Areas. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 6 of 12 • Stokes: Points well taken, but I sense some indecisiveness, and I think we should review and clarify the management guidelines. • Bachand: I think the education piece we can tackle in a short chapter. • Brown: I have some questions on parts of the guidelines. 1. Under Regulatory Environment and Framework, on page 11 when you refer to special habitat features why isn't there anything listed for burrowing owls or osprey? • Bachand: These features/resources are taken from Fort Collins Municipal City Code so if it isn't in there it will not be in these guidelines. Maybe that is something we need to add. • Stokes: There is language in the code that I'm not seeing right here, which addresses species of special concern that are listed by the State, and burrowing owls fall under that category. • Brown: 2. On page 30 in regards to native wildlife species management, I was wondering if part of your education could include how not to attract wildlife to your homes especially if you live adjacent to a Natural Area. If you look under Larimer Humane Society and click under wild kind, there are humane solutions to these issues. 3. On page 35 under general strategies for management of water birds on Natural Areas, are you considering fishing restriction areas during nesting or breeding season? 4. On page 39 under general management strategies for amphibians on Natural Areas, would it be useful to do bi-annual water quality testing? • Stokes: The storm water department monitors all the streams and flat water so they may have that data. • Brown: I'd like to mention that the Backyard Wildlife Federation has a very good program, which may also be a good connection for material and support. Also, the Nature Conservancy has a hot line for identifying animal life, which may be an excellent way for visitors to our Natural Areas to obtain information and wildlife identification. • Bachand: I believe we are considering putting up a white board at the Bobcat Ridge kiosk. • Sears: On our web site we have the Natural Areas Journal, which allows people to journal their experience at our Natural Areas, and some people have taken advantage of it. • Snyder: The buffer zones along ditches and stream corridors, is that the total width or is that a buffer zone from center of stream to border? • Bachand: It's from center out. • Snyder: Regarding fishing regulations, on page 12 it mentions that "harvesting non-native carp by bow hunting for either management or recreation is prohibited" and then on page 71 it mentions that "carp displace emergent and submergent vegetation through feeding and to some extent spawning activities." Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 7of12 It also mentions that the removal or control of carp is difficult, so why isn't bow hunting allowed. • Bachand: Regulations state that you can not discharge a weapon within City limits. • Ting: I'd like to focus on chapter 8 because I think this is where the problem of highly urban interface is an issue. A large category of this is tick bom diseases so there needs to be tick habitat control. When you talk about deer there has never been a case of introduced lime disease in the state of Colorado. You can list the - Department of Health for information on wildlife in high urbanized areas. • Stanley: Regarding the table on page 16 andl7, could you please refer to a key in the appendix. On page 37 it mentions controlling Siberian elm, Russian olive, saltcedar, and noxious weeds in riparian areas, does control mean remove? Also, on page 37 it mentions protection of cottonwoods, do you plant seedlings to keep the population viable. • Bachand: In the context of that sentence control means to remove or irradiate. Regarding the cottonwoods, we are actively planting cottonwoods along the Poudre River because the area lacks age diversity. The majority of the trees are older with very few younger trees because of lack of recruitment in recent years. • Stanley: On page 36 regarding general strategies for management of grassland birds on Natural Areas, it doesn't talk about restoration as a management strategy. On page 66 under general guidelines for beaver management on Natural Areas, is storm water management using alternatives for removing beaver dams? • Stokes: There are two or three ways to build a structure so that you don't have to remove beaver dams. It is hard on local water ways to use these structures because they are complicated. We will double check with the storm water department on this question. • Snyder: Is there a system of hierarchy on management? What do we sacrifice for what? • Bachand: That is a great point, and that is exactly the reason we took this ecosystem health approach. It's not either or, in most cases it's both and everything else too. Our challenge as managers' is working with the public in trying to find out what that balance is. • Chapter 6 — Prairie Dog Management - Review results from 2004-2006 data collection o Prairie dog population trend data o Characterization of vegetation within colonies - Status of current situation - New management approach —Primary objective / Secondary objective o Identifying suitable habitat o Managing for spatial variability o Zone A (40%): Core prairie dog habitat o Zone B (20%): Density reduction zone o Zone D (40%): Prairie dog exclusion zone - What does it all mean? Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 9 of 12 • Bachand: There are other Front Range Communities that are developing their urban wildlife management plan; we have yet to see those. The people we have talked to about our guidelines fee it is creative in a positive sense. We first planned on taking these guidelines to this Board for your review and comments, and then next we would like to send this out for scientific review. We would like _ to send it to other Front Range communities, people at CSU, and anyone who has expertise in prairie dog management specifically. The other aspects of it, we would like to send to wildlife managers. Stanley: How do you control the spread of bindweed from zone A to zone B? • Bachand: We eradicate it. • Sears: When I reviewed this with Rick, my question was can we manage zone A so that it is not static and can zone A, over time, migrate around the site so that prairie dogs aren't confined to a certain acreage spot. Maybe we can allow them to work towards an area that is suitable habitat, and also close in behind. • Ting: Can you have that much control over an area? • Bachand: I think in some degree we can allow this ameba to change its form a bit. Allowing the prairie dogs to start moving into zone B and C and then following behind them, the question is will we be successful with a restoration program. • Stanley: What is the point of zone A? • Shanahan: I come more from a vegetation background, and there is a tremendous - power in the presence of non-native seeds here. So once there is bare ground non - natives will move into the area. So if you have an area that is native and you allow prairie dogs to move in they will naturally denude half of that ground and then that bare ground is just right for non -natives. So the point of zone A is to maintain a native population, because restoring a native area is an enormous task. • Eckert: Do you know historically, what is the functional roll of an abandoned prairie dog area that has been cleared out of vegetation. Does another species colonize the area? • Bachand: I don't know the answer to that, but I can say historically we don't have any place denuded. • Stanley: What is the goal of having a zone A? • Bachand: It's about having healthy grassland and prairie dogs. Prairie dogs are an important par[ of the prairie ecosystem. Because of all the urban stressors in this environment we want to manage for both prairie dogs and grasslands. • Stokes: This whole idea of zoning and managing these prairie dogs the way Rick is suggesting we should is an experiment, and that's one of the reasons we need to send this out for peer review. • McLane: Maybe the bigger question is, are prairie dogs apart of a healthy urban grassland ecosystem? The answer may be no, that it is such a small piece that there may be no way to maintain that as a healthy ecosystem. The bigger question could be, is it worth the effort, because it really isn't a realistic goal that we should have. • Bachand: I think that's a fair assessment, you just have to look at Prospect and Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 10 of 12 Timberline, there's prairie dogs and nothing else. Historically and even in the present these prairie dogs are important to the ecosystem. • McLane: Why are they important to ecosystem if they are lacking predators? I think we've lost too many components of the ecosystem to be able to maintain it in an urban setting. • Bachand: I would argue that the prairie dog in and of itself is a component in the ecosystem. • McLane: By removing the prairie dogs we probably gain a healthier ecosystem. • Stokes: Other species use prairie dog towns. • Bertschy: Our goal this evening was to have a discussion so are we all set? • Stokes: We are scheduled to take the management guidelines to Council on January 9, 2006 for a work session. Council will review this and give us their feedback, which we will consider. Eventually we will need action by Council and by the Board because the existing prairie dog plan was adopted by resolution by Council, so we will need Council to revoke that plan and adopted the new management guidelines. After that we want to think about what kind of public outreach do we what to have. • Bertschy: Would it be good to have a representative from this Board at Council study session as part of the presentation. • Stokes: Yes, we would welcome that. We would like to go back to Council in February. • Bertschy: Will that allow enough time for peer review? • Bachand: Yes, because we are sending out the management guidelines this week. • McLane: Can we take another look at it after peer review? • Stokes: yes. Soapstone Possible UNESCO Designation - John Stokes Stokes: A while back Vicky McLane brought this opportunity of a UNESCO designation to our attention and asked staff to look into this, which we've talked about at a couple of meetings. I talked to a number of different people, and did a lot of research, including printing, from the internet, a 168 page manual from UNESCO about all the necessary steps in the process. My perspective on this is that it is an interesting idea for future consideration. We just bought Soapstone and Red Mountain, and just acquired conservation easements on the Roberts Ranch property. We haven't developed a management plan for these properties or unearth all of the qualities of these properties. We don't know all we hope to know about the natural resources on the property or the cultural resources, which are phenomenal. In January we are coming to this Board with the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan outline draft and presentations, about all the natural resource and cultural data collected to date. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 11 of 12 My recommendation to staff is to take the long view, that we will own this property for a very long time and perhaps in fifteen, twenty or thirty years we can pursue this again. • Stanley: Has the window closed. • Stokes: For this cycle it is closed, but the next time we can apply will be in the year 2030. • McLane: I'm not in disagreement at all. In conversations with people I have learned that Soapstone can not be nominated, because it is not a national historic landmark, so all we can nominate at this time is Lindenmeier. • Stokes: You need a nomination of national significance, and we have a designation of national significance on Lindenmeier. It is a national historic landmark, which was done by the Park Service, I believe in 1961. I've asked the Park Service to send me the nomination. • McLane: John as you know the nomination doesn't go to UNESCO until 2010, and given the fact that it will be another 30-35 years before this comes up again, I'm thinking that doing Lindenmeier, is worth getting involved in the process. - • Stokes: We have Lindemneier, and I think if we do a landscape designation we could include all of Soapstone. • Bertschy: John, in your analysis how much staff time will be needed? • Stokes: It would take a significant amount of hours, and Chris Koziol was willing to help with that. Hopefully Chris would draft the application, which is a substantial document. We would run interference with the National Park Services, with our own Board, Council, maybe with the County Commissioners, and also the public. This would add a lot of complexity to our work, which factored into my decision making. • Bertschy: Would anyone else on this Board like to express an opinion? • Stanley: I don't know enough about what it takes to designated a site as a World Heritage site. • Brown: I feel because John does know what it takes, we should consider his recommendation. • Ting: I believe John has the clarity of how things need to get in order, before pursuing a World Heritage site. • Stokes: One of the benefits that Vicky has articulated and I think it is a positive argument, is that we need to try to establish a relationships with other individuals and entities who are experts in interpreting and analyzing cultural history or natural history particularly from CSU. We are having trouble handling the outpouring of interest that we are getting from CSU right now, they are excited, and becoming more excited about Soapstone. • Bertschy: I agree that we need a management plan first, before pursuing anything else. Thank you Vicky. 2007 Work Plan — John Stokes • Stokes: I believe everyone has had a chance to give us feedback on this. It has gone to council and we received no comments. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 12 of 12 • McLane: Do they have to approve it. • Stokes: They only look at them, but at this point if a Council member wanted to make a change to this it would have to go before Council, and then Council would have to endorse that change. New Business: No new business. Announcements: No announcements. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Geri Kidawski Administrative Secretary Appproved „ y` Land Conservation & Stewardship Board December 13, 2006 Page 8 of 12 o Stages for implementation; short term and long term Prairie dog management guidelines o This 2006 Wildlife Management Guideline document will replace the 1998 Prairie Dog Policy for the City Natural Areas. o Council will need a recommendation for Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to de -authorize the 1998 Prairie dog plan. 0 2006 Guidelines will be adopted by Natural Resources Director • Snyder: I'd like a basic understanding of prairie dog life. For instance when I look at the areas where they have over populated, how far will they range to forage, how much grass or roots does an individual prairie dog consume on a daily bases, and at what point does the colony move toward a section that hasn't been destroyed? • Bachand: We do not have a good handle on that, and I'm not sure if those types of radio telemetries studies exist. • Snyder: How do you handle or eradicate bindweed to keep the prairie dogs away? • Shanahan: I'm not an expert in prairie dog ecology, but the range of how far they go and how far they span out is all balance, research and availability. We are in a drought currently, which may be expediting their movement and making them spread out more. I don't think there are any hard fast numbers for those questions. • Bachand: Greg there are many books about prairie dog conservation, but very few about acute management in an urban setting. • Bertschy: What is the long term cycle of a prairie dog cycle? Bachand: We thought about that and we really don't know where we are on the growth of the prairie dog population, and what I would suggest to you is how long can we wait? If I were to say that it's a ten or thirty year cycle, are we willing to allow the entire Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to become one big prairie dog colony with 70 percent bare ground, 20 percent weeds and maybe pockets of remnant native vegetation? My answer to that would be no, which is why we need to step up and implement some management. Bertschy: My question was that on the ecosystem health principle, and looking at the longer term, which it is mentioned on page 26 about natural range of variability and fragmentation of wildlife, is there anywhere in the policy where we encourage corridors? Are there other alternatives where we can encourage wildlife corridors? Stokes: I think our whole program is predicated on the protection of wildlife habitat. There are thousands of acres out there between Loveland and Fort Collins and we are just beginning our restoration. What will eventually happen with restoration is that we'll have a more functional mass ecologically, and wildlife will be much happier there in the future. Stanley: I'd like to go back to the whole concept. Could you tell me how were the management guidelines generated?