Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation And Stewardship Board - Minutes - 02/11/2009MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting February 11, 2009 DATE: LOCATION: TIME: For Reference: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 215 N Mason Street, Conference Room 1-A 6:00 p.m. Linda Stanley Mayor Doug Hutchinson Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 491-7377 - 416-2154 - 416-2096 Board Members Present Raymond Boyd, Linsey DeBell, Lesli Ellis, Chris Gaughan, Juli Germany, Michelle Grooms, Trudy Haines, Linda Stanley, Karyl Ting Board Members Excused Council Liaison Mayor, Doug Hutchinson Staff Present Natural Resources / Natural Areas Department: Rick Bachand, Geri Kidawski, Aran Meyer, Matt Parker, Mark Sears, Jen Shanahan, John Stokes Guests Kevin Dugan, Coloradoan Eric Sutherland, Citizen Jennifer Roemer, CSU student Lynn Morales, CSU student Public Comments Eric Sutherland spoke to the Board regarding Colorado State University's Maxwell Ranch. Sutherland mentioned that he would like to propose that the City of Fort Collins get engaged in the new energy economy instead of just talking about it. He said if enough quality information were lying on the table about the Maxwell Ranch Wind project it would go away. Sutherland asked the Board to be proactive in making sure that City Government does get the facts on the table about wind projects, regarding what the real value of the Maxwell Ranch land is in terms of our entire ecosystem. He also asked the Board to think of ways to protect this property in the same way its neighboring properties are. • Haines: Have you spoken to the Natural Resources Board? • Sutherland: I gave them a condensed version at their January meeting similar to what I am giving this Board. ' 0 Haines: Have you talked to anyone at the State level? .•r Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Page 2 of 8 • Sutherland: There is not a lot of State permitting or State regulatory elements pertaining to electrical or transmission elements. • Haines: One thing lacking in the State is an overall plan about where wind farms should go. • Sutherland: There are blueprints as to how it should be carried forward. CSU is ignoring the base level decision making that is encompassed in those blueprints. • Stanley: At our January meeting we had a presentation on impacts of wind energy development. We have asked for information on Maxwell Ranch. Sutherland gave the Board a copy of Fred L. Maxwell's Last Will and Testament to read. Agenda Review • Sears: Easement at Gustave Swanson Natural Area item was pulled by the applicant. Stanley: At some point in the meeting I would like to hand out the memo I drafted to Council, regarding the South College Corridor. I would like the Board to review and comment on it. Review and Approval of Minutes Boyd moved to approve the January 14, 2009 meeting minutes as written. Gaughan second. It was unanimously approved. Year End Prairie Dog Report and Current Issues • Sears: Besides the normal update we have a number of action items under the umbrella of our management plan. • Shanahan: We are providing a fairly in-depth overview of our prairie dog management efforts. The Wildlife Management Guidelines directs staff to report to the LSCB twice a year as a citizen's check and balance on our management actions. The Natural Areas Program has formally monitored prairie dog populations since 2003. Shanahan gave a PowerPoint presentation which included: o Recap of Wildlife Management Guidelines o Review of 2008 actions ■ Colony mapping and distribution ■ Vegetation Assessment ■ Report on Lethal Management Actions in 2008 o Update on contraceptive research ■ GonaCon: inject able hormone possibly available in a few years ■ Diazacon: oral bate, unlikely to be available in near future, need to research secondary/non-target effects o Current Challenges and Proposed Management Actions o Considerations ■ Soil loss = unacceptable ecological threshold ■ We have tried to re -vegetate with prairie dogs on site. Those efforts have not been successful. ■ Removal is Necessary. ■ Long term goals: Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Page 3 of 8 - Grassland health (both adaptive and proactive management) - Habitat for multiple species of wildlife - Sustainability both ecologically and financially. o Proposed management actions • Haines: Is a large colony more susceptible to plague? • Daylan: No. • Grooms: Other animals that ingest the contraceptives in the feed around the burrows, will it act as a contraceptive for them i.e. coyotes, dogs and is that a concern? • Shanahan: Yes, they call those secondary impacts. • Bachand: They have indicated that a raptor would have to eat ten prairie dogs in a two day period to accumulate enough of the contraceptive hormone to make it sterile. Practically it is not possible, but theoretically it is possible. • Gaughan: Did they share any preliminary results? • Shanahan: The results were 95 percent effective the first year. • Stanley: Will we have to give up bigger areas for studies? • Shanahan: They would be looking for discrete 35 acre colonies. • DeBell: How does the concentration compare to the birth control pill? Is there a contraceptive tablet in each pellet? • Shanahan: It contains less because prairie dog bodies and a lot smaller than human bodies • Gaughan: Why haven't you explored fire arms as lethal removal? There's precedence for this in a lot of east coast areas with problems. There are permits you can get if you are a sharp shooter. • Bachand: It is illegal to discharge fire arms within the City limits. Even if one could get a permit I believe that this would not be the most responsible way to remove prairie dogs, and is not a safe practice. • DeBell: How long has Prairie Dog Meadows been barren? • Shanahan: Each summer it is covered with bindweed, then during the past few winters the bindweed shriveled and nothing is left to cover the soil. • Sears: This past fall we planted winter wheat, and whatever grew the prairie dogs quickly grazed down to nothing. • Gaughan: By leaving a small corner of prairie dogs on the property, might you be giving them a chance to repopulate the area sooner? • Sears: We've removed prairie dogs that are on our property, but there are prairie dogs on adjoining properties that we don't manage. They can migrate miles and repopulate a site in a matter of a couple of years. What you are saying is right, but they may repopulate whether we fumigate our whole site or not. • Bachand: Our job is balance, and we don't want to take all habitats away for raptors and other wildlife that may be using the property we want to provide habitat for other animals. We have a responsibility even if it costs us some money to retreat the area. • Debell: It seems like you have been letting the plant restoration get wasted by letting the prairie dogs take over an area. • Bachand: We have made several heroic measures on our Natural Areas to deter prairie dogs from grazing down the vegetation, we have had no success. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Page 4 of 8 • Debell: It seems to me that you need to act sooner to keep the natives going; you may be waiting to long. • Sears: We are finding that sites that have brome grass do not tolerate prairie dogs at all they graze it and it does not come back. At Soapstone the native grass that evolved with prairie dogs may get grazed down to nothing, but with moisture and the right conditions they will come back. We have not yet lost a total restoration project; we have to remove prairie dogs from these sites in order to be successful with restoration. • Bachand: We understand that there are passionate folks regarding prairie dogs, but this program has tried everything possible and now we have to move on. • Sears: We met with neighbors from Brittany Knolls Court last week, and for the most part they understood and appreciated what we are planning to do. • Haines: You're saying that in the long run restoring the areas with native plants will enable longer periods for plants and prairie dogs to be sustained. • Sears: In theory in 10 or so years once the native grasses have reestablished, on some of those sites we will allow prairie dogs to return and colonize. At that time following our prairie dog management guidelines we will try to keep them in confined core areas. • Gaughan: I would say that density is more important than buffers. The idea -of the core is good, but I would pay more attention to the density. • Sears: As good neighbors we try to keep prairie dogs away from neighboring properties. There will be some density reduction within the cores. • Debell: If you fumigate a large area do the prairie dogs spread out or do they stay where they are? • Bachand: They can spread out. • Gaughan: Places like Coyote Ridge, where it is far away from developments, are you planning on reducing the prairie dog population there? • Bachand: We need to take a detailed look at those other sites, and again not allowing those sites to get this bad. How we will go about that, we are not sure. • Ting: You were talking about metal enclosures, how tall are those off the ground and what about human traffic in the areas where the metal enclosures are put. • Bachand: They will be three feet above the ground and two feet below the ground. • Ting: The areas that you are proposing these, how much traffic is there? • Bachand: The only place we are proposing that at this time is'Fossil Creek Wetlands, which is not currently open to the public. • Stanley: Will you camouflage or paint the fences in some way? • Meyer: They come in several colors. • Bachand: What we are informing the board on is that we are planning on moving forward on fumigation on approximately 160 acres across four different sites. It is a heavier management action than we have had in recent years, but we feel it is in the interest of the long term health of these sites and ultimately in the long term health of the habitat and prairie dogs. • Debell: Are you following up with new plantings on the site. • Bachand: Yes, the plan would be to plant spring wheat or oat cover crop for the summer. In July we will cut it, lie over that material and add organic matter to the soil and we will do the same the following year adding more organic matter and Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Page 5 of 8 stabilization. At this point if the area is weed free we will go ahead with the native plant restoration, which is what we did at Pineridge Natural Area. • Grooms: From the prairie dog extermination stand point, the Raptor Center has all that they need and there is no other way to get rid of prairie dogs? • Bachand: The Raptor Center is not accepting prairie dogs at this point. • Haines: There were currently two properties with experimental contraceptive studies? • Bachand: Yes. • Haines: I appreciate all the work that has been done by the team to balance the vegetation, other animals, prairie dogs and the health of the habitat. Your team has gone to great lengths to try to balance all of this and make it work. • Bachand: To put things in perspective even after the fumigation there will still be 200 more acres of prairie dogs than there were in 2004. • Lynn Morales: I was interested in relocation of prairie dogs to Soapstone in light of the plague and the empty burrows up there, can you comment on that. • Daylan: We recently had a plague event at Soapstone that will need to be addressed before we would release any animals onto the site. I recognized this was something that would need to be accomplished; I also noted that it was something that could be done. Second, we are in the process of developing a large scale prairie dog management plan on the landscape. Our goal is to create a large well functioning complex that we have defined to be approximately 3,000-5,000 acres. Our intent is to allow natural expansion to occur and only manage prairie dogs in areas adjacent to neighbors or other areas of potential concern. We have been asked in the past by neighbors if our intent in the purchase of Soapstone was to provide a relocation site for prairie dogs from our in -town properties. We have always responded as no, our intent is to manage prairie dogs on Soapstone but to not relocate. In fact the management plan states "Expansion of prairie dogs on Soapstone Prairie will rely on natural movement and expansion of the existing colony, or from naturally dispersing animals from the surrounding landscape". A concern is that relocating prairie dogs from in town properties to Soapstone will be in disagreement with the management plan and the expression of intent when discussed with our neighbors. We do not want to hinder our ability to create a large scale functioning prairie dog complex within this landscape by undertaking an action that we have not fully discussed with our neighbors or with the public. In fact, it would be opposite of the management approach we have discussed. • Shanahan: We recognize that the prairie dog problem is a sensitive issue with the public in all directions, and consequently we value your input. Utility of Easement Policy Discussion • Sears: This presentation is in response to some of your questions in the past. • Figgs: Easements are perpetual so it needs to be a careful process. This presentation goes through policy briefly and also how we apply it and the process we go through internally. The Natural Areas Program and Open Lands Easement Policy was adopted. The policy provides the next direction. Figgs presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Board which included: o Filtering Process 0 Course Filter Policy Level Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Page 6of8 ■ Medium Filter Project Level • Fine Filter Site Level o Resource Protection Standards — becomes part of the use agreement o RPS and Standards and Guidelines for Restoration o Inspection etc ■ Construction planning ■ Pre Construction meeting ■ During construction ■ Post Construction o Fees • Stanley: Is that part of the cost for the developer? • Figgs: We charge an up front fee of $500, and after that we bill them. • Haines: One of the things I always struggle with is that we have to charge them fair market value for the land. There is an opportunity lost cost whenever you do something to a Natural Area. • Gaughan: You may do this all ready I don't know, but we need to talk about end of project life reclamation. • Figgs: We charge $2,400 an acre to manage that site, so we,may need to charge over and above that. • Sears: With that includes reseeding the whole site a second time, mowing twice a year and using herbicide two or three times a year. • Stanley: I don't know how real estate values the property, but they are getting a good deal. • Sears: The approach we take is for example; if they cross Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area we the value is closer to $20,000 an acre. • Haines: I have an idea of how this should be done. If the cost is greater because of the wildlife, view or vegetation they should pay for a portion of the whole. • Figgs: Most of what happens to the land is below ground so most of the impact is limited. • Stanley: How do you choose the easement requests to consider? • Figgs: We send the folks to the web site, and most times we do not hear back from the majority. A few remain serious about pursuing the easement. • Gaughan: Visual Resource Management (VRM) view shed quality of view shed impacts is usually included in some of my projects. • Debell: Even if we do not get more money for the easements, maybe we should make sure we get good Public Relations for the public projects. Picnic Rock Update Sears referenced a map of the area around Picnic Rock • Sears: We began acquiring the Graves's property last December. We made another purchase in January, we'll make another purchase this December and again the following December. We currently own 320 acres of the 500 plus acres and leasing the whole property. We plan on managing Picnic Rock the same way we have for the past two years. We will continue to manage the restrooms and pick up trash and we may step up enforcement. This will give us more time to redesign the improvements we want to make. This also gives us time to apply for a Colorado Great Outdoors (GOCO) grant. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Page 7 of 8 • Boyd: A lot of folks have been parking on shoulder of road. • Sears: We also need to meet with Staie Patrol and the Sheriff's office to correct that behavior. • Debell: Do you charge a fee for Bobcat Ridge, and will you for Soapstone Prairie Natural Area? • Sears: The only site we charge a fee at is Gateway Natural Area. • Stanley: We inherited Gateway and Picnic Rock; when you look back at the ballot language of the Natural Areas it doesn't necessarily fit in with what you are suppose to be doing with the quarter cent tax. • Sears: There is an intensity of use, maintenance and management enforcement on these two sites. We do not have any other sites that have a designated Ranger and a Ranger Assistant, plus a gate attendant on weekends. • Ting: In marketing we begin knowing areas and start the process of clarifying the status of the property as well. At some point we should start the branding process on this area. My worry is that the next thing you may incur is inheriting parks. • Stanley: Parks is having budgetary problems, and Natural Areas is seen as having the budget to inherit or manage more areas. • Lesli: Is it wise that Natural Areas keeps inheriting these areas? • Sears: A couple of years ago when there was a budget crisis and it was costing Parks approximately one hundred thousand dollars a year to manage Gateway that is how we inherited this property. • Lesli: For this program it is important to charge these fees at some point to help manage the property. • Sears: John Stokes is adamant about charging a fee at Picnic Rock. John feels that Gateway should not be managed out of the Natural Areas sales tax, at least not the core area:' a' L. • Gaughan: One way to deal with Picnic Rock is to fence off all the social trails and treat it like a Natural Area so that there are only one or two access points. Elections • Stanley: I am stepping down as chair so we need to elect a chairperson for this Board; I will open the floor for nominations. • Gaughan: I nominated Linsey DeBell. • DeBell: I accept the nomination. • Haines: I would like to take the Vice Chair position. Grooms approved the nomination of Linsey DeBell as Chair and Trudy Haines as Vice Chair. Boyd second. It was unanimously approved. New Business: Announcements: • Sears: We entered into a contact on a piece of property in the Wellington community separator, which we have been working on getting the conservation easement on for over a year. We paid about $7,700 per acre, and there are 144 acres. Our desire is to acquire the property; the folks will stay on property for 2 years giving us time to find someone to purchase that site. We will put a Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Page 8 of 8 conservation easement on it and put it back into agriculture. The closing will be in March. • Gaughan: What kind of agriculture was on that parcel? • Sears: Mostly corn and hay, but perhaps a variety of things over the years. • Haines: Do we need Wellington to sign a letter since this parcel is in their. Growth Management Area (GMA). • Stanley: That may be a good idea. • Debell: Does the property still have its water rights? • Sears: Yes, and we are purchasing all of the water rights, in fact it has a $300,000 surplus of water, which we will also purchase. • Stanley: We need to schedule Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) as an agenda item for the March Board meeting. Stanley handed out a memo to the Board regarding their summary of recommendations regarding the South College Corridor to review and accept with changes. This memo will be sent to City Council. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Geri Kidawski Administrative Clerk Il Approved