Handout, WIP of 04/17/02, Damage to Prairie Dog Holes at Valmont City Park~~~~~-~-~~-
P~~-a
WEEKLY INFORMATION PACKET
~
'~ MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Will Toor and Members of City Council
From: Christine Andersen, Deputy City Manager for Environmental Services
Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Kate Bemhardt, Acting Superintendent of Parks Planning and Construction
Ann Wichmann, Manager of Environmental Resources
Subject: Damage to Prairie Dog Holes at Valmont City Park
Date: April 17, 2002
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform Council of accidental damage to two prairie dog
holes at Valmont City Park.
Apri16-7 A subcontractor workmg for the Valmont Ciry Pazk Phase 1 Contractor, ECI Inc,
relocated a pile of soil and refuse m the process of grading an azea for the future
wildlife corridor plantings This pile of soil and refuse was located outside of the
project limit line for the contracted grading work and contained rivo prairie dog
holes.
Apri18 The Parks and Recreation Environmental Resources Coordinator, Ann Wichmann,
visited the site and observed the removal of the soil pile including the removal of
the prairie dog holes. She did not observe any harm to prairie dogs in the azea, and
she observed one new prairie dog hole in the new pile of soil. Two days later, this
new hole had been abandoned.
BACKGROUND:
Mazch 25 The Valmont City Pazk Project Manager, Kate Bernhazdt, issued a wntten Request
for Proposal to ECI Inc. for minor grading and clean-up of a 265' by 25'- wide
strip on the east property line. The grading work was desired within the next 10-14
days to accommodate the wildlife corridor planh ~g schedule.
The ECI Inc. Superintendent did not have suitable equipment on site to complete
this grading job readily, but offered to manage the project by subcontract to assist
in the Ciry's efforts to accomplish the work within a limited time frame.
The written Request for Proposal to the contractor.
• notified the contractor that there were prairie dog holes neaz the grading project
• notified the contractor that the Parks and Recreation Environmental Resources Staff
-~- (telephone 303 413 7230) would mazk these holes with lath or stakes and flagging prior to
~..., g~ading operations
~
~~~~ ~
required the contractor to provide the Environmental Resources Staff with a minimum of
24 hours notice prior to starting the grading work on site ^~
required that grading must avoid all prairie dog holes, even if uneven grades were the ~
result of this action
April 3 The Project Manager walked the proposed grading azea w~th the ECI Inc.
Superintendent to confirm that the Supenntendent had an accurate concept of the
work area and scope of work desired
Apri14 The ECI Inc. Superintendent informed the Project Manager that he might have a
subcontractor lined up for either April 5 or Apri16 to complete the grading work.
He arranged to call the Project Manager before 5:00 PM that evening to confirm
whether the work was scheduled. Dunng that conversation, the Project Manager
re-stated the requirement that a member of the Environmental Resources Staff be
nohfied and on site at the time that the grading work proceeded. The Project
Manager notified the Environmental Resources Staff about the possibility that the
grading work might proceed over the next two days and that this would be
confirmed by 5:00 PM. The Environmental Resources staff mazked the praine dog
holes neaz the azea of grading with small metal wires and flaggmg on Apri14`~ and
scheduled an employee to be present on site should the work occur on Apri15'~ or
6th. The Pro~ect Manager did not receive confirmation that evening from the ECI
Supenntendent that the work was scheduled. The ECI Supenntendent was
planning to be on vacation April 5-9 and had identified an Acting Site ~
Supenntendent for the project in h~s absence. ~,
Apri15 The Project Manager called the ECI Achng Site Superintendent m the moming to
obtain information about the proposed grading project The Acting Site
Superintendent indicated that the grading ~ob was not scheduled for Apri15 or 6
and the Environmental Resources staff inember was cancelled from monitoring the
site. The AcUng Srte Supenntendent confirmed that he would call the Project
Manager on Apn18 to identify a date hme for the grading project to proceed.
Staff communicated clearly with the contractor about the desired work and work area consuaints
in requesting a proposal for work. The contractor was trying to be responsive to the City's tight
rime frame for the pro~ect. However, the contractor failed to cazefully communicate and manage
its subcontractor's work. The subcontractor's grading person thought that the subcontractor
would be doing the City a favor by relocatmg the pile of dirt and refuse immediately adjacent to
the proposed planting and gradmg azea.
Other poinu:
1. Given the relatively recent issuance of the prairie dog and prairie dog hole ordinance, staff is
discovering what methods of communication do or do not work well in terms of obtainmg full
compliance with the ordmances by the construction industry. A large construcnon job site
contains muldple contractors and off-site delivery vehicles. A new method of site construc6on ~,
~..~..
~ management will be required to control all construction and delivery activiUes that occur withm
an extended project construction schedule on a lazge construction site. The protection of prairie
~ dog habitat in this situarion is further compounded by the fact that the animals aze establishing
new holes on a daily or weekly basis Future construcrion contracts in these situations will require
new language in the City's specificadons plus daily monitoring and re-staking of prairie dog holes
with tall and very visible stakes.
2. In tlus case there was no intent on the part of the contractor or subcontractor, nor negligence on
the part of the staff. The problem was caused by an incomplete communication by the contractor
with the subcontractor. While this issue should and will be addressed in communications with this
contractor and in management of future work, it would not be constructive to take the contractor
or the subcontractor to court for this accidental action which did not create serious harm to the
animals or to the coterie.
3. Staff reviewed the circumstances of this incident with the City Attorney's office and the City
Attorney concurs that prosecution of the person who did the grading would be inappropriate in
this case.
~
`~...~