Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Greenways Advisory Committee - 11/19/03 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Greenways Advisory Committee DATE OF MEETING: Nov. 19, 2003 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Robin Madel, 303-441-4073 NAMES OF MEMBERS, CO1,NCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: COMMITTEE MEMBERS - Gil Barth, Krista Holland, Janice Buswell-Lopitz, Linda Jourgenson, Simon Mole STAFF - Annie Noble, Nancy Steinberger, Betty Solek, Alice Guthrie, Mark Gershman, Anna Mische-John, Jen Kovarik WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL] Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Agenda Item 2 - Meeting minutes from May 21, 2003. The meeting minutes were approved as written. Linda Jourgenson motioned to approve the meeting minutes. Janice Buswell-Lopitz seconded the motion. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Gil Barth did not vote because he did not attend the May 21, 2003 meeting. Agenda Item 3 - General Citizen Participation There was none, but Annie Noble distributed a letter and brochure from Charlotte Sorenson with Walk Boulder. General Citizen Participation was closed. Agenda Item 4 - Staff presentation and GAC discussion on the Habitat Maintenance Plan. Nancy Steinberger presented the Habitat Maintenance Plan. Steinberger provided a summary of the history of the habitat maintenance program, its development and its implementation. In June 2001, $150K was budgeted to the program during a joint meeting of the Water Resources and Transportation Advisory Boards. The GAC recommended continuation of the maintenance budget in 2003 and 2004. Steinberger requested input from the GAC on the Habitat Maintenance Plan. The objectives identified in the report include whether the staff achieved their goals, whether the maintenance work mattered and whether the work was worth the money. Steinberger reviewed the approach used to address the threat and effectiveness of weed management. The analysis of goals and objectives for Boulder Cr. was presented. Measurement of weed management technique effectiveness is difficult to assess with only two years of data so the program used interim measures to identify necessary corrective actions and to allow continued movement toward the goals and objectives of the program. GAC Questions Questions from GAC members included the amount of time spent by maintenance program staff on administration, including the report generation. Steinberger said that most of the time spent on report generation was during the off season. The seasonal crew dedicated their time to weed management. Mark Gershman commented that this work is ahead of the pack as most weed management programs do not do this sort of tracking. Gershman added that this is a challenging effort that many organizations do not attempt including the Nature Conservancy and the city of Boulder's Mountain Parks and Open Space. Simon Mole recommended that the data presented to the board be included as an appendix to the report. Mole recommended presenting a summary of the results and using a standard reporting format with methods, results and discussion. Mole also said that it would be important for the boards and city council to know the amount of money spent on the program, the numbers of bodies that were employed and the number of acres that were tackled. Greenways Advisory Committee Summary Minutes October 16, 2002 Page 1 Steinberger shared the results and the lessons learned from the native plant seeding results and restoration of native landscapes. Linda Jourgenson pointed out that since only $60K of the budgeted $150K was spent, the board should recommend developing a proposal for the additional dollars not spent. Some suggestions offered were for a water buggy, committing more money to environmental restoration efforts and starting crews earlier to tackle the early weed season. Anna Mische-John discussed the educational efforts done with the owners of the Silver Saddle Motel along Boulder Cr. Jeri Kovarik discussed the public interest in the planting done behind Basemar Shopping Center. Residents wanted to know what was being planted so they could put it in their own gardens. There could be additional opportunities for educating the public about weeds and planting. An additional recommendation was to review the city's GIS resources to allow automation of the maintenance program results reporting. Linda Jourgenson said that weeds are challenging to track and are unlike any other city service such as bus use because they can just pop up. Additional format recommendations included a 2 page summary plus attachments, a flowchart with the decision process for executive decision making, a bar graph showing weeds before and after pulling. Also recommended were inclusion of sample photos and maps. The GAC members requested receiving the same summary that will go to all the board members. Overall, the members said it was a job well done and they looked forward to seeing new systems of automation and organization. Additional discussion included an environmental focus for the part of the $150K that was budgeted for habitat maintenance but was not specifically spent on weed management. The GAC recommendation was to expand the habitat maintenance program to include aquatic habitat improvements and maintenance. An example given was a storm water outfall near the East Boulder Recreation Center. The discussion included the challenge the staff will face in convincing other boards that the unspent money should be used for anything other than addressing weed management. Krista Holland shared that the TAB might be reluctant to support an expansion of the program. Gil Barth said that he did not want to have the money spread too thinly among a variety of projects (e.g., terrestrial and aquatic) since, according to the metrics that Nancy developed, we were not achieving or do not know if we are achieving, many of our weed objectives. There was a general consensus that the emphasis should be placed on producing results with controlling weed. The staff and GAC discussed further the possibility of hiring the weed control crew earlier in the season because there would be less biomass to deal with and the program would be more effective. The work areas could be identified earlier and re-vegetation projects would be more successful later in the summer. However, the timing might be difficult because there are a number of students on the crew and an earlier timeframe would conflict with school schedules. Agenda Item 5 - A. Matters from Staff • There were none. B. Matters from the Committee • There were none. Greemvays Advisory Committee Summary Minutes October 16, 2002 Page 2 Agenda Item 6 - Discussion of Future Meeting Dates and Agenda The staff and GAC agreed to hold a meeting on Apr. 7. 2004 to review the finalized version of the maintenance report and its recommendations for the program and the Elmer's Twomile Community Environmental Assessment Program. Agenda Item 7 -Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meetin : Wednesday, Apr. 7, 2004. The location is to be determined. Greemvays Advisory Committee Summary Minutes October 16, 2002 Page 3