Bayfield's plans to replace the two old green bridges on Bayfield Parkway are being complicated by federal requirements to replace wetlands and habitat for an endangered bird, the willow flycatcher.
In December, Town Manager Chris La May estimated the cost of providing replacement wetland and flycatcher habitat at $80,000 to $100,000.
In the early 2000s, the town had to build replacement habitat in Little Pine Park, south of the roadside park. Town trustees were interested in enlarging that to satisfy the current need.
On January 6, La May advised trustees that consideration must also include roosting bald eagles, plus otters, brown trout, and Townsend's big-eared bats that might roost under the bridges.
All of those issues are on top of big cost increases for the bridge design and replacement work. The cost was originally expected to be around $3 million. Now it's $5.2 million.
In his Jan. 6 staff updates, La May said the eagle, otter, trout and bat advisories came from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and he was waiting to hear from Colorado Department of Transportation.
"Recommendations for bald eagle are basically what was expected, which may be a significant infringement on construction timing" if roosting eagle sites are identified, he said.
"However, we will likely have additional consultation with the USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) for alternative mitigation, as they are the final authority from a legal standpoint," La May said.
One of the complications is that the assorted species in question have different times of the year when human interference is not allowed. That can leave a very narrow window to do the work, not necessarily at the time of year that would be best for construction.
"Brown trout stipulations call for no work in the river from Oct. 15 to March 15, which may be too limiting," La May said. "We don't believe there is any legal authority to protect brown trout, but CPW and CDOT have agreements in place to protect species, we will see how CDOT responds."
He continued, "As for the bat, CPW asks for exclusion (keep bats out) from the existing bridge structure in the spring or pre-construction surveys for roosting in the bridge. This would be timing dependent (May 15 to Sept. 15 active period). If demolition began after Sept. 15, this would be a non-issue. The bat is not protected under state law, but again would depend on CDOT response. Again we have received a myriad of dates for habitat protection and roosting activity, which we will either have to work around or receive a 'take' permit."
La May told trustees on Jan. 6, "We'll submit a biological evaluation from our consultants to the Corps (of Engineers). They'll consult with (federal) Fish and Wildlife and (state) Parks and Wildlife. Those agencies will probably come back with ways we'll be required to mitigate by creating habitat elsewhere. It depends on the species. Eagles roosting could be a problem, limit hours and drive up costs."
He expected the town would submit its biological evaluation by the end of January.
Two residents argued at the Dec. 16 meeting against replacing the bridges. The old bridges are structurally fine and should be considered a historic monument, Ted Jack said. Scott Trinklein agreed and asked, "Has anybody looked into restoring them without spending that money" to replace them.
La May told the Times last week that the bridges are approaching a CDOT rating of functionally obsolete.
There is no outside government agency saying the town must replace the bridges, but he cited a 2011 estimate from engineer Richard Vick that it would cost around $98,000 over 10 years to maintain the old bridges, and then they would still have to be replaced. In the meantime, Vick said, the cost of replacement would go up more than the interest the town might earn on what the town has left from the $6.8 million CDOT paid the town in 2011 to take over Bayfield Parkway from end to end.
