Lingering concerns about wetland and economic impacts and the hiring of two new consultants to further study those issues has raised concerns by both Nestle Waters North America as well as Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability, a local citizen coalition opposed to Nestle’s proposed commercial water harvesting project in Nathrop.
Nestle, joined in part at least temporarily by County Commissioner Frank Holman, lobbied last week against hiring new consultants, arguing that the application was complete and that there were no gaps in required information for the special use permit and 1041 regulation requirements necessary for approval before the water harvesting project can begin. After some debate, the commissioners voted unanimously to approve staff’s recommendation to hire the two consultants.
Denver-based Coley-Forrest Inc. has been hired at an estimated cost of $4,500 to $8,000 to further study the economic impacts of the Nestle project within Chaffee County. Hydrologic Systems Analysis LLC of Golden has been charged with a closer examination of the interaction of groundwater and the aquifer on wetlands as a result of Nestle pumping hundreds of gallons per day from springs in Nathrop for transport to Denver where it will be bottled and distributed under Nestle’s Arrowhead brand. That report is expected to cost no more than $8,000. Nestle is required to reimburse the county for all the expenses, including consultants, necessary to process its applications.
The gap in water system analysis stems from a lack of overlap between the hydrology review by W.W. Wheeler and Associates and the natural resources impact review by Colorado Natural Heritage Program. According to County Development Director Don Reimer, wetlands dynamics is not the primary expertise of either Wheeler or CNHP. Reimer also explained CNHP would not be available to testify at the hearing or further participate in the Nestle project review and possible eventual monitoring so it was necessary to hire a consultant who could do so.
CNHP’s final report, submitted April 6, concluded the scope of work for which it was hired by the county. Despite earlier drafts to the contrary, CNHP ultimately found Nestle’s application complied with the 1041 requirements for natural resource impacts.
Two previous CNHP drafts had been authored by ecologist Delia Malone. Last week, Malone said she had been taken off the project and referred questions about the final report to David Anderson, Director/Chief Scientist of CNHP. Anderson said Malone had not been taken off the project but that since she was scheduled to go on vacation April 1 – 14 and would not be available to work closely with the team to prepare the final report, Anderson wrote it with CNHP ecologist Denise Culver, communicating with Malone “at all steps during the revision of the draft review.”
Anderson said CNHP’s conclusion that Nestle is now compliant with County regulations was based on substantial changes in the nature of the proposed project based on new information from Nestle in response to CNHPs earlier draft findings. Specifically that new information included a Land Management Plan, Riparian and Wetland Restoration Plan, Wetlands Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, and a Weed Management Plan, many of which were not completed until March 20.
Bruce Lauerman, Nestles Natural Resources Manager – Western Division, said he was pleased with the results of the final CNHP report since in his opinion they are “more objective and stick to the scope” for which CNHP was hired.
While CNHP found that Nestle had met the 1041 requirements, Anderson explained that as “expert reviewers,” CNHP also offered numerous suggestions on how environmental impacts of the project could be minimized beyond those required for compliance under Chaffee County regulations.
The cover letter to the final CNHP report also acknowledged that during the course of the review, CNHP communicated with Dan Gregory of ENSR/AECOM, the environmental and energy development consultants hired by Nestle. Anderson also notes CNHP was also contacted by Lauerman and Harold Hagan, owner of the land on which Bighorn Spring, the primary spring Nestle hopes to harvest, is located. Nestle has a pending offer to purchase the Hagan property for the project. Hagan is professor emeritus at CSU where he has been a longtime fisheries science professor at the Warner College of Natural Resources Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology. CNHP is a non-profit organization and a sponsored program of the same CSU College and department.
While consultant-to-consultant conversations such as those between CNHP and AECOM can be expected on projects such as this, Reimer explained he was uncomfortable with the fact that Lauerman and one of the landowners had spoken with CNHP during its project review. Reimer said Lauerman had indicated his concerns about the draft CNHP reports and asked if it would be OK to talk to CNHP. Reimer said he “strongly discouraged” Lauerman from any direct interaction with the consultant. Reimer said it is his opinion that such conversations are not appropriate and detract from efforts to maintain transparency and the perception of third party referral agency independence.
On this topic, CNHP’s Anderson explained in an email, “I emphasize here that the differences between our draft and final reviews are the result of new information that became available, not the result of any communications with other project stakeholders or influence by special interests. We reviewed the materials we had at our disposal objectively and offered our conclusions based on those alone.”
Anderson said Hagen was not involved in CNHP’s review of the Nestle project. “Our review is based on the scientific facts and was produced irrespective of Dr. Hagen’s interests,” Anderson wrote. “(Hagan) did not know that CNHP was part of our College, nor did we know that (Hagan) was the land owner for the property in question prior to writing the draft review. We were contacted by Dr. Hagen and I spoke with him about our role at CSU. He offered opinions about the findings of our draft review, which had been released to project stakeholders.”
Lauerman said there is no “conspiracy theory” as to why he and Hagan contacted CNHP. He said conversations with referral agencies are not unusual and that there is nothing in the code to prohibit such conversations. Lauerman said “none of us were too impressed with the draft reports” and that his questions to CNHP were an effort to understand their review process. “This was not a traditional role for CNHP,” Lauerman said, adding CNHP “ didn’t stick to what they were charged to do.”
CNHP says it has conducted such reviews in the past. Anderson wrote, “CNHP has reviewed EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) documents previously and is frequently involved in reviewing other documents and proposals. In some cases, as in this project, we possess expertise that makes us suitable for this kind of work. CNHP is a scientific organization at Colorado State University whose work is centered on assessing the status and location of Colorado’s rare and imperiled animals, plants, and plant communities. We have many expert staff, many of whom have previously worked in the private sector as consultants, and who possess the qualifications to review project proposals like NWNA’s.”
Lauerman said that what matters most to Nestle is that the county commissioners have “a level of comfort” with the project information that will help them make their decision. “We want them to have that,” Lauerman said. “This is an iterative process. Anytime we can get in front of the commissioners, those are dates I look forward to.”
Reimer expects both new consultants conclusions to be prepared in advance of April 21, the next scheduled public hearing on the Nestle project. Representatives of Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability (CCS) questioned how the consultants were chosen and whether enough time has been provided for the consultants to provide a thorough review.
Reimer and County attorney Jenny Davis explained that a formal bid process is not statutorily required. “The County does not have, and is not required to have written policies and procedures with respect to purchasing, procurement and the hiring of any consultant services, Davis wrote in response to an email inquiry. She went on to explain the new wetlands consultant was recommended by Don Reimer. Barbara Green, special 1041 counsel to the Board of Commissioners, recommended the economic consultant. CCS is asking citizens to lobby the county for a 60- to 90-day extension to allow the new consultants more time to study and prepare their reports.
The gaps in economic and wetlands impacts were first identified in Reimer’s 53-page staff report made public Feb. 27. Reimer explained that the gaps in information could have been addressed three ways: Nestle could have asked its consultants to provide the missing information, the county could simply agree with staff that the gaps made the application deficient and deny approval of the project, or the county could seek its own consultants to provide the answers.
Thanks for digging deeply into the consultant arrangements. $5,000-$8,000 buys you only 3-5 days worth of one person’s time at $200/hour. This is a very low rate for technical consulting and the contract is so small as to be barely worth the time for the firm to land and deliver it.
So how much can you get done in that time, considering there are volumes of documents to read, digest, analyze and then publish in a report? Not much. While I applaud the Commissioners for taking another look at these key findings, you only get what you pay for.
Given the controversy surrounding the original reports and the content of this article, it would seem that just glossing over the original work with a bare bones report will point additional liability to the County if things go south. Why not spend the money and do a proper job along with a 90-120 continuation? Nestle has to pay for these studies anyway so there’s no harm to the County.
Thank’s Lee. For more information, see all back stories, articles and commentaries here:
http://salidacitizen.com/?s=nestle&x=0&y=0
Lee or Bill have you guys posted the final CNHP report? Thanks for your continued diligence.
The final CNHP report is posted to our crib sheet on this issue, or you can download it directly.
I agree with Merrell, this decision will impact our county for generations. We should be in no rush to make any decision until all aspects have been carefully scrutinized.
while i applaud the commisioners in asking for additional studies, they are basically meaningless. not enough time, not enough money, and there is not going to be any substantial new info. after yesterday’s p&z meeting it is apparent that we are in for a mountainous uphill battle on tuesday,april 21.
your wonderful and hard working community leaders basically rolled over and played dead as lauerman et.al. danced a jig on top of there dead corpse. according to judy everett several of the rules in the 1041 do not apply and therefore nestle need not consider them. by the way don’t write any letters with concern about nestle’s other operations as commisioner’s don’t consider it a valid issue.
although there was a considerable stack of letters in regard to nestle’s other sites the commisioners basically said that they were invalid and did not even acknowledge them.
After seeing this article above that Frank Holman lobbied against the hiring of our consultants I understand his lack of questions for NWNA at the hearing yesterday. Dennis Giese and Tim Glenn are our hope. A 2-1 vote to deny the 1041 and SLUP is within reach.