Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/26/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. July 26, 2005 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair 493-6341 David Roy, Council Liaison 407-7393 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Kip Carrico, Dave Dietrich, Eric Levine, Bruce Macdonald, Gregory McMaster, Ken Moore, Linda Stanley, Cherie Trine, Nancy York Board Members Absent Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Liz Skelton, John Stokes Guests Rita Anderson Kevin Darst Jim Woodward The meeting was called to order at 5:29 p.m. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of the June 28, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved: • Stanley (Page 12, First Bullet, Chronic Wasting Disease): Strike the word "part" from the sentence. Stanley (Page 12, 5`h Bullet, Chronic Wasting Disease): Add the word "to" after the word "try" in the sentence. Smith: Move Brian Janonis from the guest attendance section to the staff attendance section for the Utilities department. Public Comment There were no public comments at this meeting. New Member Introduction Newest members of the board gave a short description of themselves and their interest in the board. Macdonald: It's Bruce Macdonald; I've been in Fort Collins for about 14 years. I came here originally in 1972 and got a graduate degree in atmospheric science from CSU; I have a Masters and a PhD from CSU. I work in environmental consulting, like Dave, and we compete on some projects but have a generally friendly relationship. My wife Ann has been on several boards: the library board, cultural board, and currently works Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 2 of 15 with Arts Alive here in Fort Collins. My daughter is going off to college this fall and my son is going into high school. I look forward to being a part of the board. • McMaster: Hi, I'm Greg McMaster. I moved to Fort Collins in 1982 — I'll let you guys do the math! I've been a research scientist for many years in the areas of plant physiology and agricultural ecology, so I'm on the life science side of that and hopefully I can bring a little bit of that to this board. I get paid by the USDA and am at CSU. Possible Consolidation of AQAB and NRAB John Stokes, Director of the Natural Resources Department, discussed the issue of satisfying the requirement of a board who is responsible for Open Space Yes matters, which will go before Council at the August 9`h worksession. • Stokes: There are three options: Option 1 is to designate an existing board to the task of advising Council about Open Space Yes (the most logical board to choose being the NRAB), Option 2 is to create a brand new board that I propose to call the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (after the Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan) that Council would appoint new members to and we would retain the NRAB and AQAB boards, and Option 3 would entail creating a new board for Open Space Yes and combining the AQAB and NRAB to a single board. So the first option is to keep the boards we have and assign Open Space Yes matters to the NRAB, the second option is to create a new board and keep the two existing boards and the third option is to create a new board and consolidate the two existing boards into one board. When I first wrote this memo, my personal preference was to do the third option. After meeting with the NRAB and listening to their thoughts and suggestions I'm leaning more toward Option I or 2. Most were not comfortable with Option 3. What I would now say to Council is that there are merits to all three options and that there are things not to like about all three options, but I would say I prefer Option 2 or Option 3. I feel strongly about creating a new board for the Open Land Program. As you may know, the City's budget situation is not good, but the Natural Areas Program would continue to be a relatively well -funded program and there will be a lot of attention on that program. I would like to have a forum for communicating and dialogue with the community that is specifically for that program. I'm also hoping that Council would follow the example of County. The County has an Open Lands Board and the County Commissioners appoint their own members to serve on the board. I would encourage Council to appoint a member of Council to serve on the board. In the County, it has facilitated dialogue between the Commissioners and the open space community and staff. • Stanley: When I was on the County Open Lands board the commissioners weren't part of the board. There was a liaison that was always there, but they were not a voting member. Are you saying this is a voting member? • Stokes: I think they could be. We have liaisons now and one of the problems is that the liaisons don't come to the meetings as often as we would like them to. Who can blame them? They don't get paid, they have a fill time job outside of this and being a Council member is a very complicated job. One of the things that has been good for the County is the Commissioners go to the meetings. But either way it would work. One of the suggestions from an NRAB member is if we create a new board, then reserve some slots on that new board for existing, current members of the NRAB. There are a Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 3 of 15 handful of people on NRAB where open space matters are their main issue; that is the reason they are on the board in the same respect that air quality is why you are on the AQAB. I think that is a reasonable proposition. I will suggest to Council that if they create the new board, to reserve 4 slots for NRAB members and 1 slot for a voting or non -voting member from Council. • Levine: This afternoon I looked at the agendas for both of the boards to see the amount of congruity of the two boards. I took the agendas starting in January 2005 up to the July meetings and I compared those. Eric Levine handed out a summary of the boards' agendas • Levine: I saw in the agendas that the issues are very different. • Stokes: I think that's true. I went back and looked at the agenda items and I mentioned in the memo that there were only a handful of items that truly overlapped. I did a 12- month period to date and there were a lot of agenda items, approximately 68. There were very few agenda items that overlapped. • York: I would like to hear from Linda because she wrote initiative. • Stanley: I think we did it because of the way that the County's Open Land board had worked and it is very consistent with County's language. The County's board worked well because it was very diverse. I was scared to go to the first meeting because I though it would be a nightmare since we had property rights people, real estate people, environmentalist people, and it was never like that. It actually got people to buy -in that normally wouldn't have bought in to the program. I'm nervous to start an Open Lands board for Fort Collins and part of that is because of the ownership I feel because of writing the language and doing the petitions, but at the same time I think it is needed for a buy -in and get some real estate people — I mean, we had Larry Kendall on our board for a while and it was good because he had perspectives, ideas, and connections that the rest of us didn't have. He was an ambassador for that program to people who didn't believe in it and he went out there and said why we should be doing it. So even though I am nervous about it, I would like to see a separate board sometime in the future. • Stokes: I think Council will want to make their decision now, whatever it may be. • Stanley: I am nervous about it because of the change in the way that the Council has gone. Maybe this could be a way to get people to buy in. Personally, I would like to see us keep the two separate boards. This may not be a good reason, but right now we have put together such a great board. We have so much air quality expertise for one of the first times. It is a great group of people that know the air quality issues extremely well and are committed and would show up. If there is any way that we could reduce staff s workload — I know that is a problem. • Stokes: Thanks. I think your insight is valuable, especially since you were on the County board and drafted the legislation for the City. There are risks to creating the new board and risks to not creating a board. It is hard to know which model is better in the long run. My informed instinct tells me it is better to have that board. Back to the budget situation — we have the equivalent of 8 full-time staff in the Natural Resources Department. That includes the Air Quality staff, Solid Waste staff, part of my time, administrative time like Terry and Liz, and that will I'm 100% sure shrink in this next budget cycle. The City is trying to fill a $10 million dollar gap. Things will undoubtedly change. We have been going through a budget process as staff and made proposals in that budget process. Our own proposals contemplate some diminution in Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 4 of 15 funds and some very modest downsizing in terms of staffing. After we make those proposals and they are gone, they go to the City Manager and then to Council. I don't know what they are going to do, but I do know that very significant citywide budget cuts are going to have to be made. I'm anticipating an impact on the Natural Resources Department on the General Funds side. I'm a little concerned about having two boards to staff and fewer than 8 staff to do that. It starts looking a little bit ftumy because we end up being one of the smallest departments in the City and yet we have two boards. That may strike some people as a little odd. Our budget right now is $900,000 per year for the General Funds side of the department and I'm hoping we will end up with $800,000 after the whole process. We have a $9 million dollar budget in Natural Areas. Those are the things people will look at when I bring this conversation forward to Council. • York: I really respect Linda's point of view but it also seems to me that the NRAB is going to want to consider the community separators, natural areas and open space. On the one hand I see that has been their work already and it's just this name change that seems to be the problem. Have you looked at term limits on the various boards? • Stokes: Like writing a charter for the new board? • York: No, not that. Just looking at the existing members and when their terms come UP. • Stokes: Oh, I have and I remember that there is just one person who is term limited on the NRAB this fall. • Smith: Are we talking about tern limited or when the appointed term ends? • York: When the appointed terms end is what I'm talking about. • Stokes: I couldn't tell you that because it will be different for all 9 members. But we do have a member who is tern -limited -off this fall on the NRAB. • York: The only reason I mention that is that there can be an organic change. I understand that air quality is a natural resource, but the importance of air quality — it's just awfully important. I really would hate to see the AQAB be dissolved or merged. Air quality is awfully, awfully important. • Moore: When I first looked at this I thought to myself "why reinvent the wheel?". The NRAB is already into that. The only concern I have about them taking over is it might be over -taxing as far as the economics aspect. Other than that, I would be in favor of the first choice. • Macdonald: Well I always had the notion of "give it a try". I think this is not cast in stone. If you decide to have the NRAB handle the open lands for 6 months and see if that works — if it becomes too clumsy and demanding then maybe that can be reconsidered as a second step? But is there a real reason why it has to be decided now if the new board is formed or not? • Stokes: No. Council has to designate a board, but it could be any board. They don't have to create a new board. But again, back to Linda's remarks and my earlier remarks, I think it would help to have a standalone board that dealt with open space issues. • Stanley: Part of my reason for saying that too is that there is sort of this history between the NRAB and Council that is antagonistic. Not everybody on NRAB and not everybody on Council — but we have that too on the AQAB with some of our Council members. It leads to things being rejected out of hand because of where it is coming from, as opposed to really looking at the pros and cons. Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 5 of 15 • Stokes: And one of the thoughts I had is that if Council decides to create a new board and appoint those members, then this current Council will have more buy -in. They will have some ownership there. That helps a little bit. • Macdonald: One more thing too — prior to establishing a board and having the staff support for it, isn't some the money from that program available to administer... • Stokes: It is; Natural Areas is fine. • Macdonald: The cost really to the City could be zero? • Levine: What would the projected revenues be for the Natural Lands program as far as dollars? • Stokes: It is $9 million dollars per year. • Levine: But the Open Space tax — there is a percentage, right? What dollar amount is that percentage projected to be at? • Stokes: There is a stipulation in Open Space Yes that 80% go to land conservation and 20% to overhead (operations, maintenance, public improvements, etc.). But we also get the County money, which is flexible money. We have plenty of flexibility in the Natural Areas. • Levine: Both of those funding sources could be used to fund support staff time for the Open Lands board? • Stokes: Oh absolutely. That is the way that it is done now. Any support, for example my time, is split 50-50 between Natural Areas program and the General Fund. Liz is a half-time employee and half of her time is paid for by Natural Areas because she spends about half of her time on Natural Areas projects. • Levine: What I'm getting at is the projected shortage of revenue in the General Funds won't necessarily put that much of a strain on the resources that an extra board would be using upi • Stokes: Well if we create a new board, all the staff time would be funded completely by the Natural Areas program. • Stanley: But then for the NRAB, part of that staff time is paid by General Fund and part by Natural Areas, and so it is an increase in cost possibly at the same time you are getting decreased revenues. • Stokes: Right, because in the Option 2 we would still have two General Fund boards. If our funding level goes down then we have less time to do something but we would still have to service the boards. • Levine: John you mentioned that you could see how it looked odd to some that the Natural Resources Department, which is one of the smaller departments in terms of staff and funds, gets possible three advisory boards to staff. My talking point to you and Council would be that the size of budget does not equal the importance. It certainly doesn't equal the importance that the citizens in Fort Collins feel. Citizens have said in air quality surveys that air quality, just as one example of natural resources, is the second -most important issue to them. You look at businesses that locate here and people that move here and jobs that are created and the quality of life, which is air quality and natural resources, all of those issues are some of the most important and determinant factors that bring them here. You're making a big mistake if you underestimate some of the main determinants of the quality of life with staff and just dollar figures. • Stokes: That's a good point. Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 6 of 15 • Dietrich: John, were you asked by Council to come up with these options? • Stokes: No. I had to come up with an option for a new board or designate a board, for Open Space Yes. • Dietrich: The open space program would be fully -self funded? • Stokes: Yes. • Dietrich: So, my question is why mix this all up? Why not, since it is a fully funded program, have a separate board? You would get the advantage of getting to pick the entire mix of the board and get the diversity Linda was talking about. • Stokes: So why bring forward the three different options, I see. • Dietrich: Right. And whatever decisions you have to make related to the NRAB and AQAB is a budget -related decision which could come later. • Stokes: Yes. I bring forward three options because I know when I get in front of Council they are going to ask me. I think it is a point well taken. • Dietrich: The language says you can either designate a board or create a new board? • Stokes: Correct. • Stanley: And really there already is one designated: the NRAB. It's just not official in terms of Open Space Yes. • Stokes: You're right. Traditionally the NRAB has always dealt with open space issues and a number of other natural resource issues: green building, energy, water quality, and all kinds of stuff flows through the NRAB. One of our board member suggested having a kind of caber -board where all natural resources issues would flow through this board. But I think the AQAB was created because people felt like air quality was an important standalone issue. • Carrico: I think it does make sense to separate air, land and water, following up on what Linda said in terms of assembling an expertise on air quality. I look over the NRAB's agenda items and they are important issues but are not anything I know about. I would be least in favor of merging the NRAB and AQAB. • Stokes: If I could summarize, it sounds like I'm hearing that people don't feel good about Option 3, and that they would strongly prefer one of the first two options. • Levine: One thing I also checked on the NRAB agenda is a lot of these issues wouldn't fall under an open lands board. The fact that they meet twice a month, it seems like with three boards they could go back to a normal meeting time. • Stokes: Yes. One of the board members made that exact observation. His contention was it wouldn't increase staff workload because the board's workload would go down. That's a good point. • McMaster: Isn't that the key — how much time open space board will take? My sense is the NRAB is overbooked, the AQAB is full and to merge the two is a disaster. The question really is how much time is that going to save? • Stokes: I don't remember the exact numbers but a good many of NRAB's agenda items were open space issues so their workload would shrink, no doubt. • - Stanley: When they have those subcommittee meetings, is there a staff member assigned to go? • Stokes: Yes. They have two or three subcommittees that meet fairly regularly. In terms of managing the agenda items that come before the board, the NRAB has a very expansive charter. It says all environmental issues pertaining to City come to the NRAB. Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 7 of 15 • Levine: So their charter is almost an tiber-board? • Stokes: It is, really. The AQAB charter is a little more circumscribed. One of the things that I hint at in my memo is that we could revise the charters to circumscribe what NRAB and AQAB consider. That would be a way to manage the amount of time that we spent on the board work. I don't think that would be a popular proposal, but it is something that could be done. • Levine: My main concern about that would be that some important issues may either get not enough attention or not get on the agenda and fall between the cracks. • Stokes: That's a risk, for sure. It would be interesting to see what Council says on the 9`h. I wouldn't be surprised if they pick up on everything we've talked about tonight. I think you all have identified almost all the concerns and risks to the three options. • McMaster: What strikes me is in this letter to this board you talked about the joint meeting in February 2003 and it was unanimous that both boards thought it was not a good idea — all the reasons are still there. The only thing that has changed is primarily the budget issues from the department. That's not a real great reason to change. I'm hearing the same arguments that were presented back then. • Stanley: That's a good point. • Stokes: Usually when we go to worksessions, sometimes the NRAB will occasionally make recommendation to Council in advance of the worksession. This will be on the NRAB agenda again, and I think they will a make recommendation to Council. This board might consider doing the same thing. I will report what I've heard tonight to the • Stanley: I'll make a motion. Linda Stanley made the following motion: I move that the Air Quality Board recommend to City Council that option three be rejected and that the two existing boards (Natural Resources Advisory Board and Air Quality Advisory Board) are not consolidated into one board. • Stanley: Maybe we could say it in a positive way. I'm going to leave it at that so that it could either be options one or two as possibilities. • Stokes: If you wanted to put a positive spin on that you could say we support options one or two. • Levine: Before anyone seconds it, does anyone feel that we should comment between the option one and two? • Moore: I think we need to prioritize. For me, option two is the first choice, where the separate board is done altogether, and if that is not acceptable then option one should be done, where NRAB can be allocated the responsibility. Option three is our least choice. • Stanley: OK, I can make my motion that way. • York: I'd also encourage it to mention the support the AQAB has from citizens, as far as how important air quality issues are. • Stanley: When Eric writes up the memo, he can put that in. Obviously the motion would be stated such that, for all the reasons that we talked about tonight. • McMaster: I think I could easily live with what you said Ken. I like the idea that we heard earliest and I think it is the easiest for Council. The first option I would like to see is to try having the NRAB accept this responsibility. So we would support option Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 8 of 15 one first and then as we work through it, we're certainly supportive of going to option two if necessary. But we definitely do not like the third reason, because as Nancy said that is a very important component to the citizens. We could live with either two options but it just seems like the most prudent way is to start with the Natural Resources Advisory Board. • Stanley: How about this — I think there may be some disagreement towards that - let's go back to the motion first and then we can bring those in. • Levine: So we need a second to the original motion? • Stanley: So I am going to keep my original motion; basically no option three. • Carrico: We should say it as "maintain the autonomy of the AQAB", because that's really all we can really recommend. • Stanley: OK. • York: I like that. • Stanley: Does everybody understand the motion? It just includes the recommendation that option three be rejected, stated in the positive sense when Eric writes the memo. Kip Carrico seconded the motion The motion was unanimously approved Chronic Wasting Disease & Fort Collins Water Treatment The board continued their discussion from the previous meeting. • Levine: Jim Woodward is here again in case we have any questions. • Moore: I was in the mountains this past few weeks and I saw some pronghorns. They are in the same country as the deer. Has it been transmitted to pronghorns? • Woodward: No, it hasn't. • Moore: That's interesting. • Levine: It's just elk and two species of deer. • Dietrich: Do the elk and deer share other diseases? • Woodward: I don't know. They eat different things, but I don't know. Eric Levine handed out a draft recommendation written by Nancy York (and previously emailed to the board) and an information sheet provided by Jim Woodward. • Macdonald: What are we to do here? Are we to advise the Council as to whether we think there is an air pathway concern? If there is or is not and what we should do to analyze it? • Levine: The Water Board addressed the acceptability or desirability of the facility that the DOW has out there. We asked ourselves the question: if this came up in an application that they wanted to rent that space near the treatment plant to set up an open-air facility with animals infected with CWD, to what type of protocols would we hold them to? Would that be acceptable by today's standards? The overwhelming consensus is no. • Stanley: One of the things that we heard last month was that they don't necessarily use the best practices at that facility. Personally, before I heard the presentation by staff and by a member of the Water Board, I thought it must not be that bad because it would be something that the City is aware of but once I heard the presentations I became concerned because we know so little about CWD. I was one of the people that asked to bring it back this month to talk more or consider making a recommendation. Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 9 of 15 • Macdonald: The "best management practices" or "protocols" that Nancy has in her memo, do we have strong idea as to what those are? • Levine: I was thinking, and maybe Jim would agree with me, if there is a possible biocontamination or any kind of contamination possibility with any kind of infectious agent, you would want to seal it up with various protocols. I don't know what those levels of protocols are because that's beyond my area of expertise on the issue. You wouldn't have infected animals that could spread the infectious agent, which is transmitted by mediums other than direct contact. Open-air pens certainly would be unacceptable. • York: They have no dust control. If they could put a biological barrier there, that would be an improvement. Like a hedge. There are ways to mitigate it but I don't think they are even attempting to mitigate it. Even though they may give lip service; is that correct? • Woodward: The CSU Environmental Health Services inspected the site and made some recommendations about dust mitigation. I'm not aware of what the DOW is doing to match that. At the last meeting Kevin mentioned that he's not aware, and I'm not aware, of any system they have to do that. They may be driving a water truck around — I don't know. I know they don't have any permanent system to do that. CSU did suggest that they do plantings around the plant and the research facility. Again, I'm not aware that anything's been done however I haven't visited the site in a few months. This whole issue of best management practices, there will be some debate about what that means. Officials at CSU are going to say they are doing what is generally called for. But if you look at the literature, internationally they all recommend biosafety level 2 implemented for CWD. • Moore: Has anybody looked for federal regulations concerning CWD? I'm surprised there isn't something there. • Woodward: The National Institute of Health and CDC have published a biosafety manual that is available on the internet. It specifically says for CWD to use "biosafety containment level 2". I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding on biosafety level 2 is that you have to have an enclosed facility, it is all sealed up, it is not as stringent as biosafety level 3 or 4. • Anderson: They do talk about using biosafety level 2 in the lab; you still have all of those outdoors pens. It seems to me they are separating the two. It makes no sense, because we know from studies that CWD is transmitted in the environment. • Levine: At one point, they closed those pens and bleached them and tried to get rid of the infectious agent and the animals that moved in still got sick. They can't measure this in the air, soil or water. They may know some ways to destroy it, but it is a very persistent agent. • Anderson: But when you talk about a hedge or shrubs, what is that going to do? The air will filter right through those. • Woodward: It would have some minimal effects. • Dietrich: For those who weren't here, any healthy animal brought on the facility now will get the disease. • Woodward: I can't say that with 100%. But in the literature I've read, these are studies by the DOW; they state that over some period of time in 1980's-1990's every animal on the property died of CWD. Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 10 of 15 • Dietrich: The practices they are using out there are primitive. There is very little they are doing. The area is really used up and contaminated. The waste management is poor; they try to do some minimal composting but it never reaches any temperature to destroy anything. • Macdonald: Is there nothing, like with confined animal treatment operations, that you could look at those and apply that? Hard surface the pens, for example. • Dietrich: It is all dirt. There is no management of food -product or waste -product or anything like that that is anymore than scrapping up the waste occasionally and putting in a hay bale area for some minimal composting. Little if anything is being done. From the air it looks like a raw dirt field. The aerials show it is used up. • Macdonald: Are they doing anything to assess if there is an airborne pathway? • Woodward: I'm not aware of anything that is being considered. • Anderson: The thing is it is relatively new. There is so much that they are trying to learn. • Macdonald: You could experiment. If you are worried about an airborne pathway, you can take samples of air and expose that to a clean population and see what happens. • Dietrich: We asked them about that and their response was that they don't know how to measure the prions. • Levine: There are a lot of presumptions; I could see. I believe that when they determined, the paper that determined it is spread by non -direct contact, was done on this facility here. The pens further away had less incidents or the infection took longer. That suggests it is the same as any pollutant; that it is dependent on concentration and the further away from the major source is less concentration and yet it is dispersed. I don't know if you could rule out the different mediums of dispersion. • Woodward: I would agree. We asked them if they were doing anything about this and the answer was no. There was a paper coming out? • Smith: Yes. • Stanley: But we don't know what it says yet. • Macdonald: That could be anything. • Trine: I looked up federal code of regulations last fall out of curiosity, and they had proposed regulations for selling meat and it never went through — they gave up on that. There may not be any regulations. I haven't checked since last fall. Maybe I can research that. • Macdonald: Can we press them to conduct a study that we have some input on? • Stanley: We can only advise Council. • Macdonald: Can we advise Council to do it then? • Stanley: Yes, we could advise Council to do something like that. • Levine: In terms of any recommendations though, a study would be good. They are not even doing that now. We can not wait for absolute proof or something just short of absolute certainty. I would say as far as this possible motion or advice to Council, what would those studies answer, all of the important questions that we need and what kind of time frame are we looking at? I wouldn't necessarily see studies changing this kind of recommendation because there are more important questions and unknowns about this entire thing than we could possible study. I think that studies are an excellent suggestion, especially because some of the more salient ones are seemingly not even being considered. Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 11 of 15 Ken Moore made the following motion: I make a motion that we send the letter to the Mayor and members of the Council that was written by Nancy York and emailed to us. It says that we recommend that the City work with the landlord, CSU, in trying to get the facility upgraded and bettered. • Dietrich: I have one question, or point of clarification, in the second paragraph it says "40-acre CWD facility"_' is that all they do out there? Or is it a research facility? • Woodward: No, it is a research facility. They do some other things, although most of the research is on CWD at this point. • Dietrich: Maybe we could change that sentence to: "a research facility which includes housing CWD-infected animals". One other question Jim, there was a statement in there that said "our water treatment plant", which water treatment plants were out there again? • Woodward: There are two: the Fort Collins Water Treatment Plant and the Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant, which is the tri-district plant. • Levine: That sounds like an amendment to the motion. • Dietrich: It sounds like it would be more appropriate to name the two water treatment plants. • Levine: Is there anything else? Let's read back the corrections. Linda Stanley seconded the motion • Skelton: The motion itself was the motion that we send the letter to the Mayor and Council that was emailed and you all have a copy of, and the correction was in the second paragraph — it would be changed to say "40-acre research facility that houses CWD-infected animals in open pens as close as 150 feet from the City of Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility and Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant. • Dietrich: Just a minor thing — it should say "40-acre research facility which includes housing CWD-infected animals..." • Levine: OK. • Carrico: Eric, you mentioned a study at that facility that suggested the dispersion of the disease — you might want to cite that. • Levine: I was thinking of an attachment that would cite all of this. I would like to keep it short and provide some of the research documentation in a succinct manner. • Macdonald: I have a concern about this comment at the end about "upgrading operations using best achievable protocols". That seems open-ended, and who would be interpreting that? • Stanley: Is this what the biosafety level two protocols.....? • Macdonald: Maybe something like that, something more specific, so that we know what we're asking for and they can clearly respond. • Smith: Several of the letters talked about a possible simple added step of dust mitigation. Dust is related to transmission by air. I didn't know if you'd want to mention that specifically in your memo, but I know at least one of the letter suggested that to quickly potentially reduce the risk, and it is very related to air quality. Maybe you don't want to get in to that kind of detail. • Levine: Actually, I would like that detail in the attachment rather than in any motion itself. That could be high up on the list. It could be a bullet or numbered citation. Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 12 of 15 • Macdonald: It could mean hard surfacing with pens, or using dust suppressants of some kind, routine washing and cleaning... there's lots of different things I could think of. • Woodward: That's an excellent point. It's probably good in the motion to not get real specific. There's going to be so much discussion and disagreement about what that means. The term they tend to use is "best management practices" but that is defined differently by different people. • Macdonald: I'd say we'd need to put in here — at least what we consider it to be. • Woodward: Then you might have some language suggesting that they consult with national and international experts. • Levine: We're giving opinion here, but we could just present information that we think Council wants, not necessarily give an opinion on all of that information we present. It's just the points of information that we're advising Council that they ought to look at. • Trine: Why don't we just ask that they move it? Is it that hard for them to move? • Moore: They have long lease. • Woodward: They are on a 30-year lease and it's the P or 4`h year. I agree with Cherie; that would be my preference. They would have to contain the area when they are doing the construction and construct BSL2 buildings out there. You've got such heavily contaminated ground out there; I'm not sure how you would safely contain the dust during the construction phase. The DOW already admitted they need a bigger facility. The thing would be to move it and then figure out a way to effectively as possible contain the dust over the next 20-30 years. • Moore: OK, so the last paragraph we could strike "either upgrading operations using dust protocols or..." and just leave that as "with the goal of relocating the facility to a more appropriate site...". • McMaster: This is not going to happen immediately that they relocate, so we could say "in the meantime upgrade their best management practices". • Levine: If you look at what they are running there, they are running it on the cheap. • Anderson: You had mentioned hard surfaces, even with that the prions are still not going to be killed. The prions are still there on the hard surfaces and subject to wind and water. A lot of these "best management practices" may seem like they are doing something but they may not be making much of a difference. Again, they are doing biosafety level 2 practices in the lab — it stands to reason they should be following biosafety level 2 outdoors also. • Levine: It's the weakest link, obviously. Biolevel 2 inside doesn't mean that much. It's obviously the least amount of containment for an infectious agent is going to be what you get. • Trine: Who is responsible for the facility after they leave? Is it the City? • Dietrich: CSU. • Levine: Even if this came to pass tomorrow, we still have the entire remediation to contend with. We still have all of those questions unanswered. • Trine: Maybe relocate the Water Treatment facility. • Dietrich: The other issue is this disease isn't just in the pens; it is everywhere in the Front Range and in the Poudre and Horsetooth Reservoir. It's a matter of concentration. • Trine: So we get them to leave the area — that is the goal? How far do we want them to go? Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 13 of 15 • Stanley: No matter where they go, there is important research being done and part of it is they need to do it according to what's best for public health. • Macdonald: I agree that "going away" doesn't seem to be the answer. Solving the issue is the answer. We may be more safe right here in the community if they left, but there would still be CWD here and we wouldn't understand it. • Trine: I'm just thinking about moving the water treatment plant then. • Stanley: The water treatment plant — I felt more comfortable with what I heard about the Water Treatment plant last time in terms of there is not a lot of open water. They are doing a lot of things to protect the water. I became much more worried about transmission through the air and dust particles because of the way that things are being managed and the number of people that are in that area and the high winds that blow in that area and so on. I felt more comfortable about the water treatment plant after they were done with their presentation and less comfortable about the other aspects. • Trine: I'm just talking about location. What if the treatment plant moves? • Stanley: I think more of the problem may be in it traveling through the air, transmission through the air and however to humans as opposed to water and then to humans. • Levine: Of course they are continuing with infected livestock and using the same practices that they have since 1967. This is a continuing thing; we would hope that if they stopped those processes, that those were not continued, things would eventually get better, improve concentration. • Trine: So we want CSU to do a better job containing it? • Levine: CSU is just the landlord as far as I know. • Trine: But they have a say, right? • Stanley: We want both DOW and CSU to do a better job because it seems like the landlord has a lot of say over what practices are used. • Levine: It is my belief that CSU has a lot of leeway on this lease. It may be a long-term lease, but they have a lot of autonomy. • Trine: Do we have a copy of the lease? • Woodward: I have a copy if you want it. I don't remember the exact language but there is a provision to break the lease if it is shown that some activity conducted by the tenant is negatively impacting other adjacent CSU property. Realistically, I'd like them to hammer out what will happen and not break the lease; to come to an agreement on the best solution. • Trine: You can always amend a contract. • Levine: Are there any more comments or are we ready to call to question? • Stanley: I like the way the memo has been amended. • York: Would it be appropriate to talk about this biosafety level 2 with regards to pens, both inside and out. • Levine: Again, I was thinking that we should put that in the attachment. • McMaster: That's very few words and I think that is very important. • Stanley: You could put "at least biosafety level 2". • Dietrich: So that would be in the meantime statement then? • Stanley: That's what I was thinking is that we could add a statement in because you are striking that middle part there but in the meantime they haven't relocated... • McMaster: Bring it up to the best management practices in light that it is a biolevel 2... Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 14 of 15 • York: Maybe we say "using biosafety level two protocols or relocating the facility". "Best achievable protocol" is a lot of slop. • Woodward: Nancy, how about rather than being that specific just something about "implementing the appropriate biosafety level protocols as recommended by the relevant public health agency..." something like that. I'm not sure if it is level 2 or 1 or 3... • Stanley: I think saying "as recommended by the appropriate public health agency" or whoever has made these recommendations, if we could actually name them it gives it more credibility for us. • Levine: If we pass this with that wording in there, I will find out what the appropriate agency is and put it in. • York: So we are going to drop the "best achievable protocol" and instead insert...? • Levine: Yes, that's been dropped already. That was dropped a while ago. • Dietrich: So the statement would go, "In the meantime, upgrade the facility by implementing the appropriate biosafety level as recommended by" blank. The primary thing is we still think primarily it should be moved to a more appropriate location, and in the meantime... • Levine: OK. Liz, can you read that back? • Skelton: "It is therefore the opinion of the Air Quality Board that the City should work with the present landlord, CSU, and the operator, CDOW, to relocate the facility to a more appropriate site as soon as it is practical. In the meantime, the facility should be upgraded to the appropriate biosafety level protocols as recommended by BLANK agency". • Stanley: What about if we say "as soon as possible" instead of "as soon as it is practical"? • Levine: Yes. • York: I agree. • Stanley: And, can we change it to Air Quality Advisory Board instead of Air Quality Board? • Levine: Yes. The motion was unanimously approved • Stanley: Eric, you will send the attachment? • Levine: I'll just send the citations. I'll be very precise. Agenda Planning • Possible August items o resume Public Outreach o West Nile spraying o update on I/M Transition committee (Meeting August 4`h) • Moore: I no longer do emissions testing, so I don't have that conflict of interest anymore. o Update regarding boards after Council study session o Idling program o Climate Status Report • September o Budget items Air Quality Advisory Board 07/26/2005 Page 15 of 15 o Sum up Ozone season o Wood stove point -of -sale • Stanley: Did we decide not to discuss the Public Health Advisory Board again? • York: We wanted to. Since we are talking about cutting boards though... • York: The radon study starts when? • Smith: Not till this winter. There isn't anything else to report on. We will get the results in March. The tests are done in December. • Smith: We can't discuss Action Plan for Sustainability because no work has been done since the last time it was on the agenda, so that is on hold Meeting adjourned 7.25 PM Submitted by Liz Skelton Administrative Secretary I Approved by the Board on August 23, 2005 Signed X2�yly� Skelt ri Ad mi strative Secretary I Extension: 6600 08/24/05 Date