Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/04/2001 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 116, 2001, AUTHORI AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 7 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 4, 2001FROM• FROM: Edith Felchle SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2001, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Easement to Larimer County for Environmental Monitoring in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 116, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 21, 2001, gives ongoing permission for a non-exclusive easement to Larimer County for environmental monitoring in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The easement permits no monitoring operations on the site that are not already occurring, other than allowing for future monitoring wells to be drilled downstream if contamination is found to be migrating beyond the current monitoring wells. The easement agreement makes certain stipulations that provide for protection of the site's natural resources, to the extent possible, during the monitoring operations. ITEM NUMBER: 27 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: August 21,2001 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM:• Edith Felchle SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2001, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Easement to Larimer County for Environmental Monitoring in the Cathy mme Prairie Natural Area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading vx tk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area, portions©f which are owned jointly with Larimer County and portions of which are owned solely by the City of Fort Collins, is adjacent to the Larimer County Landfill. In 1989 .certain_ contaminate .Iv! discovered leaching out of the landfill and flowingin the '�� ,"gr athy Fro rairie, including portions of the site now owned solely by,,,, City of ltins. Th �,af'Colorado and the U.S. fins. r Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require mine monitoring of the contamination until contamination is no longer detectable. This onitoring has been occurring since the contamination was discovered. The State, which oversees the contamination site for the EPA, requires Larimer County, asjnoperators of the Landfill, to have evidence of the legal right to access the contaminated property for purposes of monitoring until the site proves to be clean of contamination and the State`uatd EPA no longer.,require monitoring. The Ordinance gives ongoing permission for that access,,"The easement permits no monitoring operations on the site a� that are not already occurring, oilier than 4dWing for future monitoring wells to be drilled downstream if contamination is found to be migrating beyond the current monitoring wells. The easement agreement makes certain stipulations that provide for protection of the site's natural resources, to the extent possible, during the monitoring operations. �F Staff believes it is in the best interest of the City, as a property owner and an interested party in the Lanatitt'to be aware of te status of contamination on the property. Larimer County is, therefore, required'iei the easement agreement to provide to the City copies of all reports and findings from the monitoring. The Natural Resources Advisory Board, at its August 1, 2001 meeting, recommended approval of the easement dependent upon its concerns being addressed. Those concerns (and how they have been addressed) were as follows: DATE: August 21,2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 27 Concern: Contractors should be bound by the easement. Response: Contractors are not currently doing the testing. That is done by County personnel. Nonetheless, Section I.B of the Easement Agreement makes anyone working on the site on the County's behalf subject to the terms of the agreement. Concern: It appears the County is responsible for damage caused by h substances as a result of its activities,but not for other incidental damage it may cause to the p ty. Response: Language has been added to the beginning of Section 1.B of the easement making the County responsible for any damage. _ ----------------------------ax- �.;p:z Concern: The phrases "including but not limited to-1 5_ 'thout limitations" sh all-6e changed to"without limitation." ' Response: The City Attorney has made thiscdV i,P Concern: Contaminated purg , , be d ,onhe site. ump Response: Contaminatioli evels of purge below state;{and federal hazardous waste levels. With a long history of low contamination ev . ' of purge water, it cannot be expected that contamination levels woad suddenly increase aboveitate and federal levels. If there should be an increase, it would be"gradual, and adequate precautions could be taken to ensure that excessively contaminated Iet;e1s would not be dumped onto the site. Because the small pick-up truck that is,mkd 16"access the is completely packed with required testing equipment,there is no room for a container in which to haul purge water off of the site. Therefore, hauling it out woul equire additional vehicle t a�inoie impact to the site. Therefore the County will not be required to haul purge water off the site ------------------------------- i Concejra. ;The monthly water )'evel checks do not require the heavy equipment which makes vehicle"gess necessary. The heavy equipment is only needed for the quarterly tests, so why is the Count} ., a a° owo the'site once each month? lr�*;4:. Response: It is true that the monthly water level checks require little equipment. This monthly testing occurs only at three wells; two west of Taft Hill adjacent to the Landfill, and one a short distance into the site east of Taft Hill (access to which is on the ditch road). Language has been added to Exhibit B indicating that these wells will be accessed on foot when feasible.