MEETING MINUTES June 19, 2008

LAPORTE AREA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

 

Members present:  Susanne Cordery-Cotter, Andre Duval, Will Wade, Nancy Grice, Ed Stoner, Mandy Kotzman, Paul Resseguie & Ed Ott.

 

Staff present:  Jill Bennett

 

Guests:  John Gross

 

Chair – Susanne called the meeting to order @7:00 PM

 

Agenda was adopted as written.

Minutes were adopted with changes.

 

Committee Member Communications:

            Mandy – Signs (e.g. real estate signs) are OK on your property but no other areas.

 

Larimer County Communications:

            Jill – 1041 is moving ahead. The planning commission will review on July 16th & the County Commissioners on Aug 11th.

            A major wind farm is coming on Maxwell Ranch.

            A formal ‘Thank You” is due to Will as this is his last meeting.

 

Personal Appearances:

            John Gross – Came to hear about glade reservoir. He will comment as the EIS is discussed.

 

Action Item:      Glade Reservoir recommendation.

            Andre drew up a LAPAC Motion draft. The draft has 12 Issues. Andre read the Issues while the LAPAC members reviewed the draft.

 

            An option that was not reviewed was to put the water into an underground aquifer instead of a reservoir. This would avoid evaporation.

 

            After reviewing the draft Susanne agreed to make a final document that would incorporate all of our input. She will send out to all of the LAPAC Members a final version for a vote. The final approved document would be sent to the Board of Commissioners as LaPorte’s position on the Glade reservoir project.

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting adjourned

 

LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee (LAPAC)

 

Motion on Glade Reservoir Alternatives

 

June 19, 2008

 

Whereas: 1. Reducing the flow of the Poudre River through the LaPorte Area would diminish the cultural, aesthetic, recreational, agricultural benefits of LaPorte Area residents,

 

Whereas: 2. LaPorte is two miles downstream from the Glade Reservoir dam site, and the dam and reservoir would be situated on top of a major fault zone and any seismic activity, possibly activated by the weight of reservoir water and its intrusion into underlying strata, could endanger thousands of lives and millions of dollars of personal property,

 

Whereas: 3. Taking the proposed amount of water from the Poudre River for Glade Reservoir would endanger the ground water supplies of LaPorte area wells and therefore the property values and quality of life of LaPorte area residents.

 

Whereas: 4. Reducing the Poudre River to a stagnant flow could lead to mosquito infestations resulting in elevated health risks for LaPorte Area residents, and additional expenditure of County funds,

 

Whereas: 5. Reducing the flows of the Poudre River for Glade Reservoir will negatively affect the entire wildlife biological diversity of the riparian system throughout the LaPorte area including nesting bald eagles, osprey, other raptors and many neo-tropical bird species and many terrestrial and aquatic species as well,

 

Whereas: 6. Reducing flow of the Poudre River will negatively affect the persistence and regeneration of the riparian forest areas throughout the entire LaPorte area,

 

Whereas: 7. LaPorte residents will suffer years of construction noise, dust, traffic, safety concerns and major congestion resulting from the construction of Glade Reservoir and the rerouting of Highway 287,

 

Whereas: 8. The NISP DEIS does not adequately explore, evaluate, recommend or require water conservation methods in the Poudre River area of concern (including LaPorte) which may well render Glade Reservoir unnecessary,

 

Whereas: 9. The NISP DEIS ignores the fact that the LaPorte area will be severely and negatively affected in order to provide only 10 to 20 years-worth of water to subsidize growth for downstream communities,

 

 

Whereas: 10. The NISP DEIS states that our local agriculture will be dried up if NISP is not approved, while not mentioning that in 10 -20 years the participants will have to buy local farmers’ water and land anyway to keep up their growth activities and pay for Glade,

 

\

Whereas: 11. The best possible science was not used in evaluating the alternatives, too many assumptions were adapted from the NISP proponents; effects of global warming, changing drought patterns, and potential weed impacts were completely ignored in the DEIS,

 

Whereas: 12. The US Army Corps of Engineers is bound by Federal law to recommend the MOST environmentally practicable and sound alternative possible,

 

Now Therefore: For all of the above reasons, the LAPORTE AREA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE hereby:

 

A. Strongly recommends the US Army Corps of Engineers recommend the NISP DEIS Alternative 1, to not build Glade Dam and the reservoir.

 

B. Strongly believes that if Alternative 2, which includes building Glade Dam and reservoir is selected, the following mitigation measures are necessary to preserve the quality of life in the LaPorte area:

 

a.   Minimum in-stream flows of greater than 30 cfs that functionally mimic natural seasonal fluctuations, maintain in-stream and riparian ecological process, as well as all flora and vertebrate and invertebrate fauna,

b.   Minimum flows entering the Poudre river upstream of the LaPorte area

c.   Funding by the participants/applicant to Larimer County for revisions to the LaPorte Area Plan

d.   Water quality monitoring of river quality and LaPorte area wells with loss mitigation clauses.

e.   Study and mitigation of reduced well yield in LaPorte area wells with loss mitigation clauses.

 

C. Recommends that a minimum 180 day extension be granted by the Army Corps of Engineers for an extended in-depth comment period.

 

The above statements to be recommended to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners by the members of LAPAC.