Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/18/2023NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR January 18, 2023 6:00 – 8:00 pm Via Zoom 01/18/2023 – MINUTES Page 1 CALL TO ORDER 6:02pm ROLL CALL •List of Board Members Present – −Dawson Metcalf (Chair) −Danielle Buttke −Drew Derderian −Matt Zoccali −Barry Noon −Kelly Stewart −Lisa Andrews −David Bryan •List of Board Members Absent – Excused or Unexcused if no contact with Chair has been made. −Kevin Krause (Vice Chair) •List of Staff Members Present −Honore Depew, Staff Liaison −Davina Lau, Board & Commission Coordinator −Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist −Jared Heath, Senior Specialist −Jill Oropeza, Director •List of Guests 1.AGENDA REVIEW 2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a.None 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 2 a. Dawson moved and Drew seconded a motion to approve the December minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 8-0 4.NEW BUSINESS a.CO Open Meeting Law Review – Davina Lau (Board & Commission Coordinator) provided a refresher on the Colorado Open Meetings Law that governs communication for advisory boards, such as NRAB. (Discussion) −Discussion | Q + A −Honore – Q – Because this body isn’t really a decision-making body, I am not aware of circumstances where the executive session would be used but good to keep in mind. I think the way that it has come up in this group is that as the statute is written refers directly to email and text communication and yet a really convenient way to make edits to shared documents is Google Docs. Not that you are a lawyer but what suggestions do you have towards how you share documents? Davina – A – I would say if you are passing it back and forth between two of you, that is fine. It is when you pass it along to a third person it gets a little iffy, if you are discussing logistics. If you are discussing a meeting time, that is not an issue, it is when you are talking about Board business. I just answered a question about the annual report, the Board couldn’t meet in person, so the staff liaison was wondering if they could approve it through email. What I told her was if you just send it out and say if you have a disagreement email me, otherwise if I don’t hear from you, I am assuming it is an affirmative that you approve it. −Matt – Q – Just following up on that, take the 1041 memo we are looking at this evening. The Group had access to that to provide input, feedback, comments, and edits as a group which was beneficial for efficiency and communication. Is that crossing some line? Can those memos be shared in draft form before the Board is ready to say this is public and it is saying what we want it to say. Davina – A – Yeah that is tricky. The Open Meetings Law was approved pre-pandemic. We couldn’t have predicted this. I personally don’t see an issue with that if no action is taken on these items, but from my reading of the law, consecutive emails and messages on an item is still considered a violation. My suggestion would be if someone makes an edit pass it along to one or two members to then pass it along. I know that is a pain but until we can get future clarification… −Dawson – Q – Can I ask a question regarding that edit piece because we do bring the document in live in these scenarios, so people know publicly documented changes we are making to the document and because of Google Docs ability to track all the different changes and everything when it NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 3 comes that public document that is then provided on. Some of my understanding with speaking with some individuals at the State was that it kind of helps navigate that with the tracking and everything. I was just curious because we talk about it in this public form where it is recorded and then we have the evidence of the tracking behind it. I would almost think that would allow us to do this and not go against the Colorado Meeting Law. Honore – Q –I don’t want to put you too much on the spot here and must answer all the questions. I am also wondering if maybe the best next step, Dawson would be for me to reach out to our attorney’s office with that very specific question and get some understanding. I can then bring it back to the group, does that sound good to you, Davina? Davina – A – Absolutely. I am sorry I don’t have a clearer answer for you with Google Docs. I mean it is nice that it is documented but it is still a form of online communication and so that is where the lines get a little blurred. Honore – Comment – And they must write these Statutes in a way that they are very specific. Davina – Comment – And they haven’t been updated since the pandemic. −Danielle – Q – I wonder if we provided a public link to the document because I think the issue is ensuring the public has access to all the deliberation that takes place. One potential solution would be when we have these meetings and say alright, we are going to finalize the memo in Google Docs if we provided a public link to that draft memo. I suppose that is something to table to the discussion with a solicitor. Honore – A – I can bring that to the attorney. Another option I think in alignment with that Dawson, was suggesting is if a draft is published in in the meeting agenda materials that shows the track changes and the action to finalize/adopt is actually taken is during the meetings if should provide enough public visibility. Davina – Comment – I think the key is as long as there is a record of it and that is why the law states that agendas must be posted at least 24 hours in advance. b.Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance Update – Richard Thorp (Lead Specialist and Watershed Program Manager, Utilities) updated the Natural Resources Advisory Board on the project team’s Policy development approach and shared final drafts of the Policy and Guidance. The project team is seeking a formal motion from the Natural Resources Advisory Board to recommend that City Council adopt the final draft Policy. (Action) −Discussion | Q + A −Barry – Q – I found it hard to evaluate or give a thumbs up/down because of a lack of detail. For instance, I am interested specifically in the water quality metrics that are being measured and how they compare with Environmental NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 4 Protection Agency (EPA) standards for water quality thresholds. That is data information. An example that’s recently appeared in the media about polyfluoroalkyl substances found in all the fish that were sampled by a variety of agencies including Parks and Wildlife and in every case the fish exceeded the EPA standards by a huge amount suggesting that there were human health issues particularly with people who would consume those fish. I only live a block away from City Park and the lake and I can tell you lots of people catch those fish and keep them presumably to consume them. It is hard for me to judge whether it got the appropriate rigger or not to protect community welfare without information on what exactly is being measured and how the current measurements compare to EPA water quality thresholds. Richard – A – That is a good question, Barry. To be clear the actual measurements of water quality would be management plan specific. That is not what is intended with the guidance at all. It is supposed to summarize information hat is known and supposed to provide some basic tools for managers as a starting point. So specific measures, we are not adding water quality criteria to the guidelines or anything like that. It is well beyond the scope of this project. Barry – Comment – I guess I am saying I think that is what should be included. As a citizen that is what I want to see. What are you measuring? Why are you measuring these metrics? What are your thresholds for triggering a response that you are not meeting federal water quality standards? I mean those are things for me that I want to see. Richard – Comment – I agree and that is where the rubber meets the road. It is again outside of the scope of this guidance. These are really good questions for the managing departments that are managing specific lakes. The managing departments are going to be tasked with determining what to measure and how to prioritize certain lakes for management and I think that should be communicated with them. − Dawson – Q – Going off that, the managing areas are Natural Areas, Parks and groups like that, that we can find in the final draft of the Guidance Documents? Richard – A – Exactly. There are three managing departments. For example, Natural areas is going to be prioritizing what lakes they want to put resources to, developing specific management plans for those lakes and for water quality issues that they are concerned with, and then going from there. − Danielle – Q – One of the things that I think is noticeable is the two predominate issues identified by public were fish kills, algal blooms, and odors associated with these events. I remember a large fish kill, in 2019 or 2020 in the Poudre River and there was a lot of misinformation round it being caused by chemicals or a variety of things and a lack of understanding of the importance of climate change and warmer temperatures causing and driving NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 5 these events. The key aspect of managing these events is managing expectations, public education that people recognize is part of our warming future. One mitigation option that does hold a lot of potential, is increase shade cover. Beavers are one of the most powerful tools in ecosystem engineers to increase shade cover that can then decrease water temperatures and prevent these events from happening. The second is increasing tree canopy. I am wondering if these actions are something that are potentially on the table, something that is being discussed, and if not if there is opportunity for the Board to recommend these features. Richard – A – Part of the guidance development is we pulled together contemporary best practices for some of that, like sedimentation, algal bloom, and lot of the primary water quality issues we face. By no means is the Best Management Practice Tool and the Guidance supposed to be all encompassing. I think that gets back to this developing specific management plans for the issues you are facing. We have 304 urban lakes within the City that the City owns. To develop a plan that captures the issues of all those lakes is just really not possible or practical. So specific things like introducing beavers is not necessarily within our Best Management Practices, and that is something that certainly might be considered by one of the departments. I assume you are taking about lakes too and not just the Poudre. Danielle – Comment – Yes, It would apply for all water bodies. Obviously, the Poudre River systems are better suited or preferred by the beaver but here are some successful examples from isolated lakes as well. Richard – Comment – That is a good point. The best practices that we do include are meant to be a starting point and then you know there is a possibility City Staff, that has been tasked with managing these resources are going to need to reach out to consultants for additional help for particularly challenging situations. − Matt – Comment – Barry, I appreciate what you are saying, and I get it. I get where you are going with that. It might not be analogous, but I would refer back to our discussion on the guardians of the river and feel like this is a foundational policy and item because the alternative staff has been dealing with in the past is no guidance and no guardrails about who is responsible for what lakes and who is responsible in the City for these things. I think what I hear Richard saying is that this can be an iterative process. This provides a toolbox that is foundational. It can be reviewed maybe someday with the aspirational goal to get where you are at with specific measurements. I don’t disagree with that, but I feel like it is a really solid foundation and I appreciate the applicability in scope section how it divided out who is responsible for what. I thought the toolbox was a good start for staff and private lake managers. I appreciate the work. Barry – Comment – I must say to that after reading the reports about the PFAS found in all fish samples throughout NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 6 Colorado in rivers and lakes the magnitude with which they exceeded EPA standards suggested to me a sense of urgency of moving quickly to monitoring those indicators and those monitoring state variables that are tied directly to the EPA water quality thresholds. − Dawson – Q – So the question on the table is if the Board will show support going forward with this draft. Richard, when thinking about that is there a way in which we showcase that through a memo, vote, or just on record here for the Council? Richard – A – I think the latter, just basically going on record. Then we can putt and submit that as part of our materials to Council and include the full minutes as an attachment. Dawson – Q – Honore is the best practice of this process to do a vote of support? Honore – Q – That is a good question. Richard what have you seen on other boards? Richard – A – We have only gone to one other Board with this ask and they put it to a vote of we support this final draft policy with a motion, second and that sort of thing. Honore – Comment – Nice and clean in the record of the minutes that way. − Dawson motions and Matt seconds to put forward support of this draft going forward to the City. Motion passed unanimously. 8-0 c. Impacts of the Cameron Peak Fire on the Poudre River Water Quality – Jared Heath (Senior Watershed Specialist, Utilities) updated the Natural Resources Advisory Board on water quality impacts from the Cameron Peak Fire on the City’s raw water supplies and the Cache La Poudre River. (Discussion) − Discussion | Q + A − Matt – Q – Thank you for that update. There is more than Fort Collins; there are more entities involved in the watershed. There is the City of Greeley, Larimer County to a certain extent with property preservation, roads, and culverts as well as the Tri District. I am wondering how the collaboration is going and how the entities are coming together for restoration of the watershed. Jared – A – Jill can probably chime in more on those efforts because she is a little more involved with some of the mitigation and discussions as well as the restoration work. Jill – A – I can give a little bit of an update. Immediately following the Cameron Peak Fire, we followed a similar model that was developed during High Park. We were in a fortunate position where we had a watershed coalition that was established in that period of time that provided us a centralized entity that could facilitate some of the stakeholder conversations and get a lot of the entities and folks organized around post fire response. Building off that, we entered into an agreement with the City of Greeley as well as the Tri Districts and we worked sort of parallel with the County to develop plans and priorities based on burn severity. We worked very closely with the Forest Service and the Natural NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 7 Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to come up with a set of the highest priority areas. In Cameron Peak we had over 208,000 acres burned and there is no way that the available recovery funds would cover all the need. We really had to start with sort of a high-level set of priorities and we worked through those priorities over the last several years. NRCS provides funding through their Emergency Watershed Protection Program. There is a cost match associated with those that the City of Fort Collins, the City of Greeley, and Larimer County provided and then those funds would go to protect measures that were on private lands. The Forest Service had received separate federal funds that would come through their agency, and they worked through partnership with the City of Greeley and the Coalition to implement the projects on the ground. The majority of the remaining work that needs to be done is on Forest Service land. The work within the NRCS on private lands is wrapped up with maybe one exception of some work that will come in the big debrief of Black Hallow for 2023. We have some mulching we are trying to implement with the Forest Service but anticipating there will be minimal area mulching. Now at this stage in recovery those efforts are going to start turning more towards in channel restoration and other types of measures to control some of the head cutting and erosion problems that come from really impacted streams. It will start to shift probably this year and as we move into what I am characterizing as more longer-term recovery work. Matt – Q – To follow up and to Danielle’s earlier point about climate, we see every year these disasters happening like floods in California or more wildfires and each year, the previous year’s disaster is sort of forgotten so while I am always wanting to help everyone, I also have a little selfish interest in our watershed. I think the answer to my question is probably more money but what more do you need besides money that this Board or folks can do to sort of keep these issues in front of people? Jill – A – I think one of the things that we have struggled with for these types of events, climate related events, is sort of our funding structure and right now we rely on emergency appropriations when this comes up. Knowing that we are looking at a future with an increasing number of these and the cost associated with recovering from these large types of disturbances and events are astronomically high in some cases. I don’t know exactly how this Board or others would weigh into a solution, but I think that some work to be done in the future is really looking at how do we more sustainably fund the recovery for these types of events, so they are not knee-jerk reactionary type of emergency appropriation. − Barry – Q – So this was a really interesting presentation, and these are not critiques but questions. One of your latter slides looked at temporal trends but they ended in 2018 prior to the Cameron Peak Fire which was 250% bigger NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 8 than the High Park Fire and I am wondering what the temporal trend in those metrics were post 2018. Jared – A – I will back up and try to provide some more context. With all the data we collected through our Upper Poudre Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program, we produced seasonal updates, annual water quality updates, and every five years we produce these trend analyses which are more in-depth statistical reports. The graphics I showed from that slide came through our most recent five-year update which looked at the last ten years of record. I am actually in the process right now. 2022 marked our 15th year of working on that next five year trend analysis report. I don’t have an answer for you on that right now, but I will in the near future. In terms of what we saw following the High Park Fire was seeing this return to either pre fire conditions or new baseline conditions. We are starting to see either these concentrations going back to normal or leveling out at a new normal and that happened right before the Cameron Peak Fire hit. I am just digging into the data over the past two years, and we are seeing pretty similar trends that we saw from High Park Fire but what I am noticing, which probably relates to the magnitude of the Cameron Peak Fire is a lot of these concentrations are a lot higher, which makes sense. − Barry – Q – That is what I would expect to be the case. I’ll admit the part of my motivation for these questions is to me, the big elephant in the room which is Northern Water and what they are proposing to do. So if you could give me a ball park estimate above Ted’s Place, what percentage of the Poudre River drainage, between the combination of High Park and Cameron Peak do you think has been moderately to severely burned. Jared – A – Good question, I don’t know if I have the exact statistic. During the High Park Fire I want to say about 50% of the burn area within the High Park Fire was moderately to severely burned. The Cameron Peak Fire, I think was a little bit less but pretty close to half as well. It is pretty mixed across. Barry – Q – So from your time series analysis, at least from the much smaller High Park Fire there seemed to be evidence of recovery in terms of many of your metrics. What is your professional opinion on the time period recovery from the combination of the Cameron Peak and High Park fires? Jared – A – I think for High Park we are pretty close to getting to recovery. I think a lot of the literature out there with some of the research that has been tracking watershed recovery after a fire can be anywhere from 5-20 years or even more. The Hayman Fire is still in recovery because of the soil type over there. I would assume it is probably going to take longer for the Cameron Peak Fire based on the Burn area however, there is a lot of unknowns with this fire because where it burned. It burned at a really high elevation so there is a lot more water supply up there because a significant amount of he burn is under NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 9 snow pack right now. There should be a quicker recovery with the water availability. The one concern for us between the Cameron Peak Fire and the High Park Fire are the high elevation reservoirs that got burned in the Cameron Peak Fire. There were not reservoirs or larger water storage bodies burned in the High Park Fire. Those reservoirs are essentially acting as sinks for these water quality impacts. We are working with a team at Colorado State University right now to start to better understand water quality within those reservoirs and their response to fire. We are also working on developing some tools to provide us with early warnings of potentially impaired water that cold be released from those reservoirs downstream to our raw water intake on the Poudre, specifically around algal blooms, nutrient loading, and climate change exacerbating those issues in those reservoirs. Barry – Q – Thank you, that was a great answer. If I heard you correctly, you were saying that diversions from the Michigan River, the Laramie River and the Colorado River are about 50% of Fort Collin’s water supply. Is that correct? Jared – A – No, we get a 50% from the Poudre River and 50% from Horsetooth Reservoir. Barry – Q – Okay and Horsetooth Reservoir is based primarily from diversions from the upper Colorado River. Is that Correct? Jared- Q – Yes. − Barry – Q – So there is a system where it goes through Windy Gap Reservoir, Lake Granby and down to the Front Range to Horsetooth. We all know what has been happening with the Colorado River and its significant decline. If you look at climate projections, those declines are going to actually be exacerbated into the future and again I say the elephant in the room is this proposal by Northern Water which is mostly not going to go to Fort Collins. It is going to go South of us. How is that going to work out. Jared – Q – In terms of water? Barry – Q – Yes, so if there is water in the Colorado River and that is the primary source of water in Horsetooth and Horsetooth is the back up that we went to in Fort Collins when the effects of the fire were too severe, and now our back up, based on diversions from the Colorado River which is also declining and now we have this proposal to build a reservoir and it is greater in size than Horsetooth, how is that all going to work out? What is your professional opinion? Jared – A – That is a good question. I am not sure I have a great answer for that. I think in terms of the Poudre, we have senior water rights so that is one of our most prioritized water sources, although he water quality is variable. That is one of the biggest risks to us when we are compromised on both the Poudre and Horsetooth. I am not sure how that is going to impact our supplies on Horsetooth with us being so high in the Colorado basin, but we do have some professionals within the City that focus a lot more on supply and are a lot more in touch with those issues right now. I would be happy to provide you with their information but I think it is a NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 10 great question. I am constantly following the huge issue over the Colorado River Basin right now and I think there are going to be a lot of changes happening within the next couple of years. − Danielle – Q – I apologize I can’t help myself. You mentioned construction of sedimentation ponds and the importance of revegetation in order to draw down specifically nitrate but also a lot of vegetation can work to eliminate alkalinity and heavy metals. I want to mention that beavers are a nature- based solution. Some of the best engineers for building those sedimentation ponds and driving revegetation. I think that because we also see that ecosystems that have beaver present are less likely to burn and less likely to have those moderate to severe fires. That is something we need to be thinking about from a preventative standpoint as well as increasing water quality as quickly as possible. My second question is knowing that PFAs and PFOs are predominate components of fire retardants, specifically thinking about the High Park Fire and when that occurred prior to a lot of the rule making from EPA, what do those levels look like in these water bodies and what is the City’s response to this new EPA rule as PFAs as regulatory contaminates? Jared – A – The retardant they are using, at least the aerial stuff they are dropping over the Cameron Peak Fire and the High Park Fire does not have PFAs or PFOs in it. It is actually a nutrient based solution. Jill you might know off the top of your head but there is not really a concern on that end because the fire fighters provided us with what is actually in that stuff and it is less of a concern. Typically when they are dropping that on the fire they try to avoid drainages as best as they can. I think some situations can be difficult but they try to have some buffer around these areas so when they do drop the nutrients they are absorbed by the plants on the landscape. Jill – A – Jared is correct; wildfire retardants do not contain PFAs/PFOs. It is typical for type two structure firefighting foams. As part of the work Jared and Richard have done around source water protection, we did an inventory within watershed and where these types of materials might be stored or used in the past. We did not identify any source. We used a variety of state data bases for that and in addition Utilities participates in what is becoming much more regular PFA testing, so we have tested our water sources and did not find indicators of any concentrations of PFAs or PFOs. I think there were 15 or so different ones we tested for and they were not identified as present in our source water, so that is the current status. We will be having ongoing requirements with monitoring that will come forward within the next few years. To date we don’t have any reason to expect we have sources in our water shed. Jared – Comment – Danielle I wanted to follow up on your first comment too. We are beaver believers as well and we see a lot of value in utilizing them and their habitats to meet a number of our source water NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 11 protection goals. We are working with the Larimer Conservation District and a number of other partners right now on the South Fork to implement some process-based restoration particularly using simulated beaver structures and putting more wood and structure in rivers to restore a riverscape or valley bottom over there. We see a lot of value in those types of projects in terms of capturing sediment and improving water quality. I think for us the challenge with it is scaling that up in a way that it actually has an impact. We are hoping this project is going to be the start of that, using this as a pilot to prove a concept in that and hopefully be able to identify other areas in the watershed that could either benefit from this work or that are already functioning in a way that provide us with those water services that meets some of our goals. We are working on it. Danielle – Comment – That is great news. We have had outstanding success in Rocky Mountain National Park. Things are happening much more quickly than anyone had anticipated and recolonization happening in a lot of the simulated areas is much faster than we had ever thought possible. That might be a resource if you are not familiar with and working with. The Morraine Park is currently in the process of flooding which is really exciting. Jared – Comment – I would love to talk to you more about the successes over there. d. 1041 Memo – Finalized 1041 Regulations Memorandum. (Action) − Discussion | Q + A − Dawson put the link in the chat for everyone to look at the 1041 Regulations memo. Barry emailed adjustments to Dawson and Kelly thought he had captured her comments as well. Most of the changes were wordsmithing. − Matt – Q – I know I supported this at the last meeting, and I still do so don’t take this the wrong way, but I completely agree with the comment. I think Barry’s comment about how these ecosystems, these issues do not behave by jurisdictional boundaries and those kind of things. After reading that a thought popped into my head, and I know sound like a broken record with coming back to staff but are we creating any kind of unwanted consequences for staff by saying there should be no geographical boundaries. Would this open it up for staff to comment on oil and gas development in Weld County? I guess I am just not clear on what that opens up and Barry maybe you can respond to that or anyone else. Barry – A – I am also on the Science Advisory Board for the County Commissioners and air quality has been sort of a focal issue for I would say the past three meetings. What is going on in Weld County is amazingly affecting air quality in Larimer County. The most predictive variable is wind direction. If it is coming from the East or South, you can bet the air quality is not going to be good in Fort Collins. So, air and water are absolutely clear examples that don’t recognize political or NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 12 ownership boundaries. I guess if I were to name two factors that are most fundamental to all life it would be air and water. That is my perspective. Dawson – Comment – Please correct me if I am not in my understanding of this but when we are talking about the geographic limitations, we are only talking about it in the scope of City limits. To me 1041 Regulations only operate within that boundary. Barry – Comment – Yes that is right. So we have had a recent meeting with Kirk Lonstein who is doing a phenomenal job of leading this and apparently there have been multiple boards, not just us who have rejected the geographic boundary threshold. So, we are not the only board who has found real difficulty with that. I have had some unsolicited input from former members of the Land Use Board who also say thank God for speaking up and saying there shouldn’t be geographic limits on 1041 implementations. So apparently there has been almost if not exclusively universal response of other boards that I am aware of in opposition to the geographic boundary issue. Dawson – Comment – In my interpretation of our last meeting, where Barry and I are on a 1041 Committee, my impression is moot point at this point because Kirk’s next iteration of this is not going to have that because of the feedback. Barry – Comment – That is my understanding as well. There has been a subsequent meeting since when you were involved and that became quite clear and I hope I am not misinterpreting what Kirk said. I don’t think I am but that seems to be off the table now. Dawson – Comment – So that was my understanding. Honore if you have a different notion of that or any other context. Honore – Comment – I don’t have any more insight on that from what you all have. I can post a question to Kirk. I don’t know if he is on Team’s chat this evening. Dawson – Comment – I want to continue to whatever other considerations or thoughts Matt might have but that is our impression with the other subsequent meetings on the 1041 Committees. Matt – Comment – I appreciate all of that and really was asking questions that popped in my head. This helps me understand what that means. Thank you. − Honore – Comment – I appreciate your reference to Our Climate Future at the end there. The only other comment I would make is you referenced the Land Development Code in paragraph four. Last night City Council voted to repeal the Land Development Code as adopted based on the signatures that were submitted in referendum so technically, we have Land Use Code again until that is resolved. − Drew motions and Dawson motions to put forth the memo. The motion passes unanimously. 8-0. Dawson will get the memo to their Council Liaison tomorrow morning. e. 2023 Workplan – Finalized NRAB work plan for the year (Action) NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 13 − Discussion | Q + A − Dawson asked the Board to review the 2022 annual report to make sure he was not missing any memo or action taken − Dawson motions and Danielle seconds to approve the 2022 Annual Report. The motion passes unanimously. 8-0. Dawson will send it to the Council Liaison tomorrow. 5. OTHER BUSINESS a. 2023 In-Peron Meetings − Dawson wanted to discuss future meetings and having an in-person meeting. The Board decided on February to meet in person. Honore will send out details of where the meeting will be held. At their next meeting they will discuss if they want to schedule anymore in-person meetings. b. March Meeting Date − Dawson mentioned that their March meeting falls during spring break and knows there are members who have children. The Board agreed to meet March 22nd instead. c. Board Member Reports − Matt – Q – I don’t have a report but have a question. Going back to Jill’s comment about post disaster recovery funding, is that within the purview of this Board? Does it mean anything for us to develop a memo or statement that says City Council consider some mechanism to fund future disasters, so it doesn’t have to come out. I am sure there are a lot of variables around this thing but is that something this group would consider or does that feel like not really something we want to get into. Dawson – Q – Honore, more of a logistical question. We do have a period of time where we are looking at funding updates for the City, so in my mind it would be considered with that space when we are already looking at that. Would it make sense when we are looking at the City’s budget and funding opportunities if we had a priority to prioritize something like that. Does that make sense logistically? Honore – A – There is a two-year budgeting process. Matt is very well aware of it and that is how the specific funds are allocated for various priorities. I think it is a Board prerogative to put out general statements. I think it is a little uncommon historically. Boards have been more reactive to items coming before Council then having staff give more context and then weigh in that advisory capacity. I think this Board has blazed some new trails in working with the community advocacy movement around Rights of Nature to bring forward to Council and I think this Council is more receptive than others I have seen in terms of NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 01/18 /2023 – MINUTES Page 14 willing to buck tradition and try new things. I don’t think it would be outside the realm of what is acceptable to put something forward if that was the Boards preference. Matt – Comment – I think I am good waiting for a budget cycle. That makes sense for me to have it coincide with that discussion instead of just coming out of the blue. It might give it a little more context and power to have it linked to some actual numbers that are being allocated for projects within the City so that is fair and I appreciate you giving me the time. − Dawson – Comment – Just to give everyone a heads up, we will have a vice chair vacancy going forward. Kevin Kraus will be stepping down from the Board to take on some other community obligations and responsibilities. We are very excited to see that going forward with him but we will also need a Bike Advisory Committee liaison as he was our representative for that committee. Just something to consider. We don’t have to make a decision tonight but just for future reference. At the February meeting we will be taking nominations for Chair and Vice Chair. Barry – Comment – Dawson I can’t imagine anyone doing a better job than you continuing for another year. That is my perspective. Dawson – Comment – Very kind Barry. I appreciate that. I will recommend and tell anyone if they are interested in considering nominating yourself or someone else. It has been a great year but we can have that open conversation at the next meeting. d. Six Month Calendar Review − Honore mentioned many topics, some of which the Board already has discussed included Urban Forestry Strategy, 1041 Regulations, Economic Health Strategic Plan, occupancy regulations, Hughes Stadium, Sustainable Funding Project, transit initiatives, and Downtown Parking update. Dawson remembered parking and transit being of interest. Honore will prioritize parking and use transit as a backup. He also mentioned Council elections have been moved to November. Matt asked about the regional waste shed and Honore said it has been complicated and confounding. He will reach out and see where the team is at with the waste shed. 6. ADJOURN - 7:58pm