Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/16/2014NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2014 DATE: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1-A TIME: 6:00–8:30pm For Reference: Joe Piesman, Chair 970-691-6697 Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337 Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 970-221-6265 Present: Harry Edwards, vice-chair Joe Halseth John Bartholow Liz Pruessner Alexa Barratt Robert Mann Absent: Joseph Piesman Staff Present: Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support John Stokes, Natural Areas Program Director Vi Nguyen, Intern Guests: Bill Miller, Fort Collins Audubon Society Director David Tweedale, citizen Nancy DuTeau, citizen Call meeting to order: Harry Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:01pm. Public Comments: None Review and Approval of March 19, 2014 minutes Liz moved and John seconded a motion to approve the March 19, 2014 NRAB minutes. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. (Alexa arrived shortly after minutes vote) AGENDA ITEM 1— Natural Areas Master Plan John Stokes, Natural Areas Program director, provided an overview of work underway to update the Natural Areas Master Plan. John gave a PowerPoint presentation on revisions to the Plan. He said Fort Collins is one of the top places to live, has CSU, great local breweries, and bike culture. The collective feel that holds these together he calls “Connective Tissue.” He said nature and our interconnected natural areas system is one thing that’s holding the community together. Biophilia is an innate love of nature. He believes that by enhancing connections with nature, we enhance our wellness and health. We think of conservation in terms of saving biodiversity and enjoying nature, but the reason behind it is a part of our brains that are wired to be in nature. He discussed the vision and mission and a focus on conservation. He discussed voter approved funding, spaces conserved, trails, visitor services, and education/outreach programs. As the City acquires more land, operation costs go up. About 60% of funds are spent on O&M, 40% on land and water. The citizens who have supported natural areas are ardent about acquiring more land. He showed a graph of 2013 expenditures. He said revenues are around $10 million per year. We have allocated 40% in this budget cycle to land conservation. The new Master Plan is to do a lot of the same work; a lot of what they do is prescribed by the ballot language. They will keep conserving, restoring land, providing recreation, etc. He discussed a Larimer County study called Our Land, Our Future. It included polling data showing people prioritize land conservation and trails. What people said they enjoy most are biking, walking, hiking, running, etc. The study asked about water rights and citizens support the idea of purchasing water rights. People showed they want management, with conservation and access. In recent outreach citizens have said they want continuation of the same level of service. Conservation priorities include three categories: local, community separator, and regional. Staff is proposing focusing on the local and community separator including the river corridor, Foothills properties, Bellevue area, etc. He mentioned the potential for implementing limited pronghorn hunting at Soapstone, an idea that will be advanced next year and would require approval from Council and code changes. Staff have received questions about camping, but is not recommending implementing camping at Bobcat Ridge. Part of the rationale is that it sits in the middle of other public land and is an integral part of the habitat. They do not want disturbance at night for the varied wildlife. Staff has also received questions about the City’s role in local food production. John said staff perceives the role as being able to conserve land that can be farmed. They allow some farming on properties, for example there is grazing at Soapstone. Regarding historic preservation, the City owns some historic landmark sites in Natural Areas including the Lindenmeier site, but the funding for these sites has come mostly from donations. Citizens have asked about the proper role of the City in managing the Poudre River. Natural Areas is one player among many, can lead in terms of conservation, but doing work on the river is so expensive that they need partnerships and collaborations to make progress. Staff is going to continue what they have been doing with some minor changes. The level of citizen satisfaction with Natural Areas is around 95%. The updated Natural Areas Master Plan will go to Council in August and September. Discussion/Q & A: • John asked if the ballot language could be changed, what would John like to see. • John said 80% of revenue is used for land conservation and restoration, so county sales tax is used for management. May need more resources in 10 to 15 years. The county sales tax expires in 2018. If it was not renewed, we would have to change the ballot language. The county plans to keep the share back percentage the same in the renewal. • Liz asked if the pronghorn herd is getting too big. John said the herd size is over Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s objectives. It is migratory from Wyoming. Soapstone is good winter range for the pronghorn. • Bob asked about the public’s role in the development of the Master Plan. John said there are many outreach events including an upcoming one at Nix Farm. They are accepting comments on the plan via the website now. 2 • Harry said Westminster is converting open grassy areas from bluegrass to native drought tolerant species. Has the City looked at that option? John said yes. Natural Areas does not irrigate anything. In our urban natural areas we are trying to attain 75% or more native vegetation. In regional open spaces, Soapstone is around 90% natural, Bobcat Ridge is around 80%. In terms of parks and other open space the City manages, they are trying to get away from irrigated turf. The Stormwater Utility is getting away from non-native seed mixes. Native seeds are hard to get started and can take around 10 years to completely establish. • Alexa asked if the Larimer County Conservation Corps had a role. John said they have helped in the past. • Alexa asked about invasive species. John said they have a handle on Russian olive. He said tamarisk has been eliminated on the river. Cheatgrass is a problem. Kochia can be managed. The restoration crew is doing a great job. For instance, Ryan Vincent, who does tractor work and seeding, realized he had a window of moist conditions and seeded 40 acres in one morning. • Liz asked about West Nile larvaciding operations in natural areas. Is there concern about long term reduction of larval mosquitos as a food source and degradation of wet lands? John said he could not answer the question of long-term. He knows the concern has been around for a while, but ecologists he has talked to are not that worried about it. He understands there will be an impact, but he will have to ask more from someone more knowledgeable on the subject. AGENDA ITEM 2— Poudre River Designation for Bird Habitat Bill Miller, Fort Collins Audubon Society Director, presented a proposal for the Poudre urban river corridor to be registered as an Important Bird Area (IBA) in Colorado, in recognition of critical riparian habitat the river provides for bird species. Bill said Audubon is a multi-level organization with a national level and many independent groups and state offices, and now a regional office. Seven years ago two members of the local chapter put together a proposal for an urban river corridor Important Bird Area (IBA) designation. IBAs have been around for over 20 years. Audubon has been promoting them in the US and there are around 1,000. Pawnee National Grassland is one. Fossil Creek Reservoir complex was nominated 15 years ago and was the first in Fort Collins. An application for the Poudre urban river corridor was submitted to the State office, but the submission was not acted upon as the department dissolved. Alison Lyon-Holloran is the new executive; she ran the proposal with bird inventories through Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory staff and they were supportive. Mark Sears, John Stokes and other staff have endorsed the concept. An IBA does not have to be contiguous. They have determined that the easiest way to get started is through the natural areas, then get the Environmental Learning Center, Engine Lab, and further upstream later. At Shields, the natural areas run out but there are gravel pits and they can work on these property owners one at a time. It does not imply any regulatory powers over land ownership or use, just recognizes the value of the area as a resource to avian populations. He will meet in May with Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. He would like letters of endorsement and is requesting a resolution from Council. The IBA will ultimately run from I-25 to Watson Lake with bald eagle nesting areas around the Greeley water filtration area. He would like to see it extended to the mouth of the canyon. Discussion/Q & A: • John said he thought this was completed already. 3 • Joe said if there are no regulatory aspects, he sees it as just one more beneficial protection for the area. • Harry asked if there was a directory of IBA locations. Bill said to check the Audubon website. He thinks there are 50 to 60 in Colorado alone. • Liz thinks it is a great idea and thinks the board should support it. • Harry said the board could endorse his request to Council. Bill added that it is an important migratory corridor, as well as nesting area. • Harry moved and Liz seconded the following motion: The Natural Resources Advisory Board moves to support the request of the Fort Collins Audubon Society to recognize the Poudre River Urban Corridor as an Important Bird Area. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. AGENDA ITEM 3— Disposable Shopping Bags Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner in Environmental Services, will describe a proposed “merchant regulation” that would require grocers to charge for disposable plastic and paper shopping bags. Discussion about adopting an ordinance is scheduled for Council’s May 13 work session. Susie introduced Vi Nguyen, a CSU intern who has been helping prepare a proposed regulation to charge for paper and plastic bags at grocery stores. Vi discussed background data including 100 billion plastic bags used in US each year; Fort Collins uses 50 million per year or 342 per citizen. 60% of single use bags are generated by grocery stores, which is why they are targeting groceries as opposed to other retailers. Went to Council last year but received a split vote (3-3-0). Susie said staff is scheduled to go to a Council work session May 13. If directed to introduce the ordinance, it could be adopted as soon as mid-June. It will have to pass through two readings at Council before adoption. Vi discussed City policies and goals for waste diversion and GHG goals, conserving petrochemicals and trees, reducing litter and pollution, and reducing costs for processing recyclables at the materials recovery facility (MRF). Susie showed a list of other communities that have adopted bag restrictions and said there are over a hundred. Susie said charging a little bit of money has shown a profound effect on reducing bag use in other communities. Staff is still working on whether or not they will ask stores to use the generated funds for signage, and other education functions. Right now all groceries have plastic bag recycling available, but the signage is poor. Boulder is using the funds to buy organically grown-cotton bags made in the US, which they are handing out to the public. It is a lot of work for Boulder to spend the funds and the expenses must be directly related to the source of revenues. Discussion/Q & A: • Joe asked if Council voted it down in a split and immediately asked for it to be worked on again. Susie said it wasn’t immediate, but if there are three people on Council who want to look into the matter, it will get on the agenda. • Alexa thought that last year there was going to be a ban, not a fee. Susie clarified that it was a 5-cent charge per bag and the change this year is the store keeping that revenue rather than sharing it with the City. 4 • John asked who is collecting the data. Susie said that in Boulder, because they are collecting a portion of the money, they have an accurate data source. The proposed Fort Collins regulation would ask the groceries to report numbers. • John asked what gives the City legal authority to bring this up. Bob said it is a health and safety issue, and Susie said it is consistent with local policy. If it wasn’t legal, the City Attorneys would have let them know. This is happening at the local level, not at the state level. In California a number of cities have a requirement to charge for bags. She added that a Colorado statute prohibits local jurisdictions from regulating plastic containers, so the idea of banning them in Fort Collins might be challenged. The Sierra Club tried to have that statute repealed by the legislature this year and was unsuccessful. • Joe Halseth asked about Austin, which has banned bags. Susie was unsure how it was phased in in Austin, but believes there could be a phasing-in period here. • Bob asked if we want it to be a deterrent, why not ask for 10 cents. If we go with 5 cents it’s not worth it. He thinks it is mostly a litter issue. He supports it, but feels it is a lower priority because there is not much impact in terms of waste diversion. Susie said it gets people to change their mindsets about reuse and will hopefully spur other actions such as reusable water bottles and coffee cups. • Harry wondered if it could be an incentive rather than a fee. Alexa said Whole Foods does that already and donates the money. She added that Vitamin Cottage does not give away bags. • Harry said that when travelling overseas he carried a string bag in his pocket. The cost of getting a bag at the store was around $1. His concern is that the approach is a disincentive. He prefers incentives. Susie said the idea is to create a level playing field. She is unsure how difficult it would be to ask stores to take the cost off the total. Alexa said retailers would not have incentive to get rid of bags if they didn’t get the funds. Susie said this is a declining source of revenue. After a while there will not be much money coming in. • Harry said May 13 is the work session presentation to Council. He suggests bringing in someone from a grocery store to hear their thoughts. Susie said they keep inviting stakeholders to give input. At one Open House there were representatives from Albertsons. She spoke with their representative who said they want to give the community what it wants and are prepared to go in a new direction. • Liz asked if King Soopers and Safeway attended. Susie said no, but they will call them if needed. Liz said King Soopers used to give a nickel credit if you brought your own bag, but discontinued that. Susie continued the presentation and clarified that the regulation is only for grocery stores. They have had comments submitted online from approximately 40 people and had about 30 people attend the Open House. Questions were around secondary uses for disposable bags (lining trash cans and picking up pet waste). She said the produce bags don’t fall into the chargeable category, and other types of retailers won’t fall under the ordinance, so staff feels there will still be bags available. One thing that was heard before was that lower income people would be more affected than other, but that has not really been brought up this year. Vi said another concern was food-borne illness and cross contamination. Staff has suggestions for washing and separating bags to reduce contamination. • John said clerks ask him about extra bags for meat products. Vi clarified that only check-out bags will be charged. Susie said it bears repeating that you must wash your durable bags. • Susie added that there is time to get a memo to Council if the board would like to weigh in. However, staff is neutral until they receive direction from Council. • Bob added there would be an opportunity to weigh in on the details of the ordinance if Council asks staff to proceed. • Alexa said it is important to have some of the revenue come back to the City for recycling purposes. She said biodegradable bags should be used for pet waste. 5 • Susie said compostables in the land fill do not decompose. Harry added that in Arizona there have been studies on the landfills and lack of decomposition. • Joe Halseth said he is unsure 5 cents would change consumers’ behavior, but perhaps upping the price and splitting the revenue should be considered. Susie asked what the board thought about a requirement to spend the money on specific education and conservation strategies. Joe suggested requiring handing out durable bags to customers. • Bob said the dollars are fairly small for ongoing management for staff and that is a big deal. He likes the idea of pushing as much off on the grocer as possible and to let them have the benefit of keeping the bag revenue. Once the City takes a share of the money, we have to manage it. Susie said staff does not have the bandwidth. Liz added that there is a burden on the store to account for the bags and run their programs. • John said there are costs, but it is worth it if there is an objective to reduce the number of bags. • Bob said the NRAB could write a broad brush recommendation to Council. Bob moved and Alexa seconded the following motion: Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends that Council move forward with an ordinance that would serve to reduce the number of disposable bags used in this community. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. AGENDA ITEM 4— Funding for Community Recycling Center (aka Integrated Recycling Facility) Following up on discussion at the March meeting, the board will consider a recommendation to Council regarding additional funding for construction of Phase 2 of the recycling center. The original budget was $750,000, but the cost exceeded the budget for Phase 1 and two by over $1 million. Staff is planning to proceed with building Phase 1 in 2014 and has submitted a BFO proposal for building Phase 2 in 2015-16. Discussion/Q & A: • Bob asked if Council was aware of the cost spread already. Susie said Council was provided with this information. Staff entered a BFO offer for the 2015/16 budget cycle for Phase 2, but it will increase the cost by $300,000 to separately build the phases. • Bob said if staff thought they would never do Phase 2, would they still do Phase 1. Susie said yes, Phase 1 will be an important asset to the community; you can start out small collecting hard-to-recycle items that would otherwise go to the landfill. It can organically grow from there to add more non-conventional recyclables. We have the Rivendell site that is leased from the school, but having a piece of ground where you can make things happen is different. • Bob asked the operational impact for doing Phase 2. Susie said Phase 2 consolidates Rivendell, which is a site that only has a minimal amount of O&M. It doesn’t significantly change the O&M for the Community Recycling Center, but would change the stream of materials coming in. It would be more attractive to the operator to take also start taking items currently accepted at Rivendell, which have a fair amount of value. • Bob asked if there would be revenue to the City. Susie said there has been some revenue shared from Rivendell and it has helped defray costs. 6 • John asked about household hazardous waste. Susie said the cost to Larimer County for running that facility is very high. They are happy that the City is holding collection days as it helps relieve some burden. They would not close the HHW facility as it is a condition of their permit from the state. It is not a lined landfill, so diverting HHW is required. • Liz asked about whether any hazardous waste collected at the new facility would go the Larimer County Household Hazardous Waste facility. Susie said it remains to be seen. There could be some consolidation, but by collecting it, the City would absorb the responsibility of managing the waste. • Bob said if he was on Council he would ask if the City would see significantly increased operational costs to jump with Phase 2. He can see the cost savings of building together, but the operational costs are ongoing. Susie said staff got an offer on Phase 1, but have not asked for a bid on Phase 2. Bob asked if that would be a negotiated item with the one who bid on Phase 1. Susie said those who bid were let know that there would be a Phase 2, including the construction company. • Bob thinks the board should support going forward with both phases. If we are going to put it in the budget for 2015/16, why not just do it now and save the $300,000? It is consistent with the Zero Waste initiative and brings opportunities to the community a lot faster. • Liz added that losing ReSource has created a community need. • Harry asked if it would still focus on the value of metal. Susie said Phase 1 would include metal and wood. She added that construction sites have difficulty recycling mixed loads of wood, aggregates, cardboard and metal, so conceivably it could meet a need for them. • Alexa asked if adding Phase 2 added more up-front costs. Susie said yes. The difference in cost is not included in the current budget. • Susie mentioned that the state has approved a $68,000 grant to help with costs. • Liz asked if there was a market for the recyclables. Susie said there are markets, but some of the materials have a cost, such as for yard waste. Liz added that the places that accept yard waste charge to take it because they have a cost to process it. Bob moved and Liz seconded a motion to accept a drafted memo with member edits as a recommendation to Council: The Natural Resources Advisory Board has, over the last two years, closely followed staff’s excellent work in support of the Community Recycling Center at Timberline and Prospect. We understand the site challenges which resulted in increases in the site development cost, but remain committed to the importance of the site as our City moves toward its Zero Waste goals. Although the total costs for development of the Community Recycling Center have changed, the vision for the Center and the need for these services in the City remain. The economic advantages to pursuing Phase 1 and Phase 2 simultaneously outweigh deferral of Phase 2, will provide those needed services to the community more quickly, and will reduce the expense of staff time compared to completing these as separate projects. The Natural Resources Advisory Board strongly recommends that the Council approve moving forward immediately with the implementation of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Community Recycling Center. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. 7 AGENDA ITEM 5— Review of Greenhouse Gas Goals: Joint Chairs of Six Boards Harry Edwards provided an update on meetings and ideas that have been discussed among this inter- board group about greenhouse gas policies and planning. Harry said the chairs and vice chairs of several board and commissions got together to discuss reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Air Quality Advisory Board, Economic Advisory Commission, Energy Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parking Advisory Board, and Transportation Board are the participants. They want to encourage the City to adopt updated GHG goals that reflect current science, coordinate recommendations to Council, and focus on permanently reducing emissions in transportation, built environment and energy. A major source of CO2 emissions is from electricity which comes from burning coal. They were recently told by City Manager to stop meeting until Council determines how they fit in with the boards and commissions and develop guidelines. Susie added that Council has asked Lucinda to form a Climate Action Plan task force. Council wants to appoint the task force, so that it happens within the City’s charter. Harry added that there are good minds among the participants. He hopes that in some form this group can continue. It offers an opportunity to see where overlap is and to generate new ideas. They are waiting to hear from Council. Susie said she thinks Council will assign the task force quickly. Discussion/Q & A: • Bob thanked Harry for attending. • Liz said the idea of the chairs gathering was to decide how the boards could be more effective. Could the boards collectively work to promote was the idea. They quickly focused on the greenhouse gas goals and with the climate action plan being updated it was timely. She wonders if they will all be appointed to the task force.. • Harry said Lucinda responded and explained that this is a time out so Council can consider where they want to go with this. AGENDA ITEM 6— Other Business Set dates for Field Trip (several Poudre River locations) • Susie said that there is a field trip scheduled by the Land Conservation Board on May 2 at 4:15pm to include a walking tour of the river and projects. Natural Resources Advisory Board Members are welcome to attend. Susie will provide details to Dianne to forward to the board. • Joe Piesman has suggested taking a tour at 4:00 before the regularly scheduled Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting on May 21. Liz said a previous tour was at McMurray Natural Area. Joe Halseth clarified that it is a two-part project. They are now working on the south side of the river on the trail at Lee Martinez. • John said he discussed issues of interest to NRAB and Land Conservation Board with one of their members. They discussed having a joint meeting or field trip to discuss the kayak park, and invite the staff involved in that stretch to attend and bring detailed plans. • When Joe returns Susie will discuss the May 21 tour with him and make arrangements for transportation. 8 Review City Council’s 6-Month Planning Calendar • Harry presented items he felt were of interest to the board: o April 15: West Nile virus. Liz said enhancements for expanding larvaciding based on weather and education were approved. o May 6: Discussion of West Nile management plan options. Joe Halseth said that is the end result. The TAC came up with issues and this will be the discussion where Council makes decisions on implementing these decisions. He wonders if they will make a decision about continuing adulticiding. Liz said several options will be presented to Council but adulticiding will remain in the toolbox. Joe added that there is a push from some members on the TAC to protect the health of the community through adulticiding with a vector index or a zone approach. Liz added the general way this is approached around the county is using the vector index to assess the prevalence of the virus. If you go to a zone approach, the sooner they want to spray in those zones. If you wait for human cases later in the season, then there is little reason to spray. Joe added that those with pest management expertise are shy to endorse other options. o May 13: Work Session—Time of Use pilot project for electric rates. Susie agreed to find out more about the project. o May 27: PRPA Strategic Plan o June 3: Land Use Code Update and West Nile Management Plan. Joe said this will be presentation of the final manual. o July 8: Work Session—Poudre River Downtown Project o July 22: Board and Commission Restructure Review. o August 12: Natural Areas Master Plan o August 19: Downtown Poudre River Plan Adoption • Susie added that you can watch the video online the day after the Council meeting. Craig Foreman and John Stokes will return next month to talk about plans along the river. The board will also discuss BFO offers. Announcements • Rob Cagan has accepted Council’s invitation to join the board. He will attend the May meeting. Adjournment: Harry moved to adjourn. Joe seconded. Meeting adjourned at 8:28pm. Approved by the Board on May 21, 2014 Signed ____________________________________ 5/28/2014 Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk II Date 9