HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/17/2016MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A
Time: 6:00–8:30pm
For Reference
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison 970-221-6317
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Bartholow, chair Katherine de Leon
Drew Derderian Nancy DuTeau
Bob Mann Elizabeth Hudetz
Luke Caldwell
Jay Adams
Harry Edwards
Staff Present
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison, Environmental Services
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support, Social Sustainability
Justin Scharton, Senior Environmental Planner, Natural Areas
Guests:
David Tweedale, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:00pm
Agenda Review: May discuss Hageman’s/Natural Areas issue in open board discussion.
Public Comments: None
Approval of Minutes:
Drew moved and Luke seconded a motion to approve the July minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Correction: p3, 4th bullet, second open circle line… change word “miss” to “understand”
p5, correct spelling of Nancy’s last name.
AGENDA ITEM 1— Southeast Community Park Development Plan
Justin Scharton, Senior Environmental Planner with Natural Areas provided an overview of the plan
for the Southeast Community Park, specific to the Nature in the City component (per City Council
request). He also provided a short update on other citywide efforts related to Nature in the City. Staff
is seeking input on the plan.
Nature in the City
Justin works on property rights and is program manager of Nature in the City (NIC).
NIC program development: January 2014 started inventory, assessment, and public outreach;
development of strategic plan in 2014-15; January 2016 to current, Natural Areas (NA) is managing
1 | Page
NIC program in collaboration with Planning. Planning staff focuses on urban planning, development
review, land use code updates, and design guidelines. NA controls overall program management,
budget, wildlife, land acquisition, Council, etc. Completed wildlife connectivity map with five
indicator species in consideration. Map will aid in capital project prioritization, acquisition decisions,
etc. Also mapped 10-minute walk to nature. Caveats: must have sidewalk access, legal access, and
not cross major artery. Identifies gaps to aid in prioritization. 65% of area within GMA is already
within 10 minute walk of nature. When two maps merged with vacant land map, get prioritization of
vacant parcels based on wildlife needs—data to be used to influence acquisition plans.
Pilot projects:
• Southeast community park creek play area
• McGraw elementary nature center (pollinator garden expansion),
• Tree canopy improvement project (northeast tree planting partnership)
• Habitat Hero pollinator garden—in new townhome development in southeast—had wetland
setback mitigation issues—on spur trail of Mason trail near Horsetooth
• UAB Urban Living Wall—recently completed, experimental, partnership with CSU and
Parks
Monitoring/biodiversity—completing monitoring of 52 sites, bird and butterfly surveys, bee
monitoring (new 2016), 200+ volunteer hours, public engagement, etc.—data will feed into corridor
planning. NIC has been involved in many strategic planning processes including water efficiency,
CAP land and water team, neighborhood teams, and low impact development. Funding comes from
CCIP, general fund, Natural Areas. Have submitted 5 NIC-related BFO offers—capacity, to
programs, to implementation. Land Stewardship and Conservation Board will be primary board
reporting to. Project-by-project will involve other boards according to their missions.
Late 2016 will do campaigns around 2017 projects, soliciting ideas from community, identifying top
priority projects, etc.
Discussion/Q&A:
• Indicator species?
o Western kingbird, redwing blackbird, yellow warbler, painted lady butterfly and
Orange Sulphur butterfly.
• Riparian corridors are obvious. What is larger loop in map?
o Have least-cost corridors/potential corridors. Natural areas are on the fringe of the
city.
• Learnings from living wall?
o Should not overwater. Doing some replacements of species that weren’t as hardy.
Determining “fertigation.” Winter will tell more. Weekly monitoring. Have been
receiving calls from developers who are interested.
o Rooting material?
Nylon backing with 2-3” thick high density foam.
• How dependent on BFO?
o Anticipate not too impactful, unless lose staff which is unlikely.
• Vision of land acquisition? How strong is the push to buy more land? How do you balance
with restoration costs?
o In NAD trying to figure out how NIC and other goals work together. May see some
less traditional acquisitions, such as small parcels just for wildlife and without public
access. Tailoring for indicator species. For restoration, will get input from community
to prioritize.
o What would be amount of land would like to purchase?
Don’t have acreage total, but there are a couple hundred parcels left in
GMA—some large, some small. Probably less than 100 priority parcels, 50
high priority, and may acquire a handful over next 20 years. Northeast
2 | Page
quadrant has some large tracts left. Working with Mountain Vista subarea
plan.
Parcels are getting bought up. Leeway is diminishing.
• Interface of NIC initiative to encourage human activity with implications on wildlife species?
o Always have parallel goals of human and wildlife priorities—always do both if we
can. Presence of humans can be impactful. Spectrum and trying to do better than what
is there now. Policy that when have something human-centric balance with wildlife
needs.
• NW corner of Harmony and Shields. Area had fox and deer, but trees have been cleared.
o Many years ago was purchased and slated for grocery store development. As sat
vacant, it became habitat and community amenity. Assume the owner is developing.
Development pressures as they are, properties on the priority list are already coming
in for development review. Call Planning to find out more about development review
process for specific parcels.
• For acquisition, money would come from existing sales tax or other avenues?
o NIC does not have sufficient funding to do significant acquisition. Right now helping
inform Natural Areas acquisitions. Building relationships with partners who do
acquire land to leverage resources.
Southeast Community Park, Creek Play Feature/NIC Involvement
Request from Parks planning to allocate reserve funding to new southeast community park. Council
asked Natural Areas to talk to NRAB and LCSB (Land Conservation and Stewardship Board). Park
site is Ziegler and Kechter, just south of Fossil Ridge High. Two silos from Timberline and Prospect
were moved to the site. Was farmland for many years, includes some existing agricultural buildings.
Farm theme includes large driveway to stroll down, garden, front porch, creek to play in, barn, and
orchard to pick fruit. Barn and silos near playground. Also includes ball fields and multipurpose
fields. Stream had cut banks, soil erosion, and many invasive trees—foresters removed and will
replace with more sustainable native vegetation. Creek play area concept is within existing channel
of McClelland creek—planning hardened edges and areas. Bottom will be cobble with concrete pan
on each end. Plan to install actual logs in play area, will need to be replaced occasionally. Idea to
only harden where have to. Thousands will access this area. Mixture of safety and wilderness.
Discussion/Q&A:
• Kids liked to play in creek—wild quality.
o Even invasive species provide habitat and shade. Parks Planning gave attention to
safety in this case. NIC will provide access to the creek and help riparian corridor to
improve.
• Has anyone checked the design for where stagnant water will accumulate?
o As long as creek is flowing will not have stagnation. Perennial stream. With proper
grading water will not sit still.
o Not a minimum flow rate required for the design?
As long as water is flowing it’ll be moving through. Depth will change
throughout the year. Low volume stream. Place to splash, get dirty, have fun,
in a safe way. Spring-fed stream, which becomes a ditch downstream.
• It is a natural drainage area. At about 55°—stays ice free most of the year. Ducks and
muskrats congregate there. If change surface area to volume, will lose some of winter refuge.
Some natural fish in the area. Urge staff to not widen stream too much.
o Have been successful with CO Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce native plains fish.
Stocked in new natural area—closed pond. Now have close proximity source for fish
that would be good to reintroduce downstream at this area as well. Design is
somewhat dynamic—can close down one side to concentrate the flow.
o Straus Canyon and Harmony—has electrified fence?
3 | Page
Ziegler and Horsetooth, former gravel pit, is topminnow habitat. Has split rail
fence that is used in many natural areas. Electrified fence is on another
property.
• Access to the play area from both sides of the creek?
o Beach area on one side and soft trail on the other. Paved trail and bridge go over the
area. Concentrating activity on south side of the creek.
o If one side had less activity would be more supportive of wildlife.
Will be some paved trail, but concentrating access in order to provide habitat
up and down the stream.
Looks more like a wading pool than a natural area. If part of objective is to
bring people back into contact with nature, want them to think of it as nature,
not as a pool.
• Tension and balance—community parks have many visitors and
children are hard on parks/equipment. Hardening on edges as
protection, expect there will be sediment eventually.
• Checked regulations on requirements for having a lifeguard?
o Will be signage that adults must supervise children.
o City will get sued if children drown.
Creek is open to public throughout the park. Went through strong vetting
process through attorney’s office. Will bring feedback on liability back to
Parks planning.
• Intersection of this park and NIC—how is accessibility being addressed? Bike lanes,
pedestrian access, infrastructure for non-motorized transportation, etc.?
o Will be lighted crossing over Ziegler to the park, with a network of trails within the
park. Trails master plan has connection to Eagle View and Fossil Creek in the future.
• Single biggest use of that creek by children today is swinging across it. Would Parks be
interested in doing that?
o Was proposed but not doing at this time.
• All trees in the mock-ups need to be planted?
o Yes. Very few trees right now. Will be planted and will take time to mature.
• Parking areas?
o Central parking area along main drive, on north side of park near school, and by
sports fields.
o Having parking near the playground takes away from the sense of being in a natural
area.
o Have a more developed section of the park and a more natural area of park. Native
area will have native grasses, wildflowers, etc. Natural area backs up to agricultural
areas.
o Parking will be a problem when soccer games are going on.
Can get more information from Park planning on parking.
There is a lot of parking; may have to walk some.
Plenty of connections/trails.
AGENDA ITEM 2—Budgeting for Outcomes Discussion
NRAB reviewed and finalized the 2016/2017 budget offers recommendations to City Council.
Members were to prioritize offers on four-point scale. First Work Session on Environmental Health
will be September 13.
Discussion/Q&A:
• If board decides that needs to move quickly, could go with draft memo. But would also be
happy to do individual ranking.
4 | Page
• Suggest record top 15 prioritized offers and bottom five in memo.
o Once ranked might see another way to categorize.
o Aversion to identifying lowest priority—don’t know enough about each of them.
Suspect if had more information might change mind. Would like to say what for, not
what against.
Agree with rationale being sensitive to ongoing programs that must continue.
o Once tabulated will see natural breaking point of ones to identify.
o Don’t see harm in saying which offers seem less positive based on information we
have.
• Language of offers is difficult to figure out at times. When ranking kept in mind track
records, results, etc.
Jay moved the board members individually finalize and prioritize offers in the list provided, and send
prioritization to the Chair for him to compile and complete the recommendation memo based on
Nancy’s draft. Bob seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
ACTION ITEMS: Send 1-4 rankings to John by EOD August 22. Memo will be emailed to board for
final edits.
AGENDA ITEM 3—Other Business
Running Deer Natural Area Discussion
15 acres being leased by Hageman’s for last 18 years; has been leased since before NA purchased the
property. The lease will be up next summer. Discussion underway that Hageman would like to
purchase the property, so that if need to further develop property can make sound investment.
Opposing argument is that it is NA property. LCSB is concerned about setting a precedent around
selling a portion of NA to a private party. There have been other requests to acquire other NA
properties. Could also be considered fostering public-private partnerships, economic development,
etc. How can qualities of Running Deer be protected, looking at bigger picture of area, etc.?
• Two meetings: First staff and LCSB showed, but not Councilmembers. Second meeting
called by different Councilperson, and most of Council showed. First meeting got tour of
Hageman’s. Second meeting had tour of Running Deer. Out of that came decision to put the
requested sale on hold while a study is conducted. Study is supposed to be done by early
2017. Hageman’s does recycling of yard waste.
o Hageman’s fulfills incredibly important component of meeting citizen needs, as
opposed to using landfill.
o Other options than Hageman’s. They do not compost. State regulations are painful for
composting; can’t do it on their property.
• City property is being used by Hageman’s to grind and shred yard and other wood waste.
They create landscape supplies from recycled materials. Concern that Hageman’s is not
visually appealing from Natural Area.
o NRAB wrote memo to Council in 2001 recommending renewing the lease for 5 years
in order to encourage Hageman’s to find a new property to do business.
• An NRAB member states they do no support sale of the property and that it’s apoor
precedent to set. Also question caveats that go along with the sale, that the City would be
able to purchase the land back. Open land is shrinking incredibly fast. Loss of that land has
negative impact. However, recognize value of service provided. Conservation board
suggested 10 year lease. Would support even longer lease to provide continuity for
investments, with generous terms. LCSB member said concern of Hageman’s is that within
5 | Page
lease there is a term specifying that after specific number of months of notice, any party can
cancel the agreement.
• Hearing short lease times and understand how that would make Hageman feel.
• Can’t do this operation on just any property; must have large property. Hageman’s does a
great job, and it is always busy. It serves private residents and commercial sector. Has made a
significant investment, and desiring to do more. See us doing contracts with private
industry—don’t have a history of real public-private partnerships.
• Nothing at Running Deer. What will the City be doing with it?
o Conducting woody plant survey on that area; have walked every acre. 390 acres. Lot
of native plants, restoration underway, plan is to continue revegetation from Prospect
south to archery range with native plants. Used to be a gravel mine.
o That land has been treated harshly for quite a while. This is beginning of restoration.
o Deer habitat, and wetlands are popular with birders.
• Third viewpoint is that of Natural Area staff—may want to put money in other properties
where it can be better used. Staff has recommended selling the land.
Legislative Policy Document
• Put on unscheduled agenda items to look at City purchasing. Members will read document
and provide input.
Other Items
• Harry and Bob’s terms will be ending in December. Bob may reapply. Suggest assigning
long-standing board members as mentors to new members.
o Good idea. Prefer to have more information before starting on the board.
• New members start in January. Elections in February.
• Recruitment starts in September.
ACTION ITEMS: Katy will find out if Harry is eligible to reapply.
Announcements
• August 22 opening of Community Recycling Center?
o Opening still planned for that date. Katy will get update.
• Luke: Liaison to Bicycle Advisory Committee—CSU bike education model being developed
to provide safety training/survey that students have to take before coming to CSU. Only 20%
of CSU bikes. Asked whether housing prices pushing students out, making biking less
feasible; no answer at this time. On Drake, west of Shields, leasing parking lot from church
to pilot bike safety training area with roundabouts, train tracks, etc. Have bike education
programs that reach several thousand people per year.
o Should PSD be involved?
“Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Town”—can work with Safe Routes to
School.
• Candidate forum October 6 at Senior Center.
• Volunteer Appreciation Event tomorrow.
ACTION ITEMS: Katy will get update on opening of Community Recycling Center
Meeting Adjourned: 8:14pm
Next Meeting: September 21
6 | Page