WIP Memo of 04/17/02, Damage to Prairie Dog Holes at Valmont City Park~ '~iyV'~ ~? ~~-~ ~O
~~~~~ ~ '~-F I~ .1 /U 1_
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 Bernhardt, 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 Councii of accidental damage to two prairie dog
holes at Valmont City Park
Apri16-7 A subcontractor working for the Valmont Ciry Park Phase 1 Contractor, ECI Inc,
relocated a pile of soil and refuse in the process of grading an area for the future
wildhfe corridor plantings. This pile of soil and refuse was located outside of the
project limit line for the contracted grading work and contained two prairie dog
• holes.
April 8 The Parks and Recreation Env~ronmantal Resources Coordinator, .4nn 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 area, and
she observed one new prairie dog hole in the new pile of soil. Two days later, this
new hole had been abandoned.
BACKGROUND:
March 25 The Valmont City Park Project Manager, Kate Bernhardt, issued a written 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 planti.ig 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 City'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 near the grading project
• notified the contractor that the Parks and Recreation Environmental Resources Staff
• (telephone 303 413 7230) would mark these holes with lath or stakes and flaggmg prior to
grading 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 ~f uneven grades were the
resuit of this action
April 3 The Pro~ect Manager walked the proposed grading area with the ECI Inc.
Superintendent to confirm that the Superintendent had an accurate concept of the
work area and scope of work desired
Apnl 4 The ECI Ina 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. During that conversation, the Project Manager
re-stated the requirement that a member of the Environmental Resources Staff be
notified and on site at the time that the grading wark 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 marked the prairie dog
holes near the area of grading with smail metal wires and flagging on Apri14`h and
scheduled an employee to be present on site should the work occur on April 5~' or
6th. The Project Manager did not receive confirmation that evening from the ECI
Supenntendent that the work was scheduled. The ECI Superintendent was
planning to be on vacation April 5-9 and had identified an Acting Site •
Superintendent far the project in his absence.
Apri15 The Project Manager called the ECI Actmg Site Superintendent in the moming to
obtain information about the proposed grading project. The Acting Site
Superintendent indicated that the grading job was not scheduled for April 5 or 6
and the Environmental Resources staff inember was cancelled from monitoring the
site. The Acting Site Superintendent confirmed that he would call the Project
Manager on Apri18 to identify a date time for the grading project to proceed.
Staff communicated clearly with the contractor about the desired work and work area constraints
in requesting a proposal for work. The contractor was trying to be responsive to the City's tight
time frame for the project. However, the contractor fazled to carefully communicate and manage
its subcontractor's work. The subcontractor's grading person thought that the subcontractor
would be doing the City a favor by relocating the pile of dirt and refuse immediately adjacent to
the proposed planting and grading area
Other points:
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 obtaining full
compliance with the ordinances by the construction industry. A large construction job site
contains multiple contractors and off-site delivery vehicles. A new method of site construction •
management will be required to controi all construction and delivery activities that occur within
• an extended project construction schedule on a large construction site. The protection of prairie
dog habitat in this situation is further compounded by the fact that the animals ara establishing
new holes on a daily or weekly basis. Future construction contracts in these situations will require
new language in the City's specifications plus daily monitoring and re-staking of prairie dog holes
with tall and very visible stakes.
2. In this case there was no intent on tlte 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.
•
•