Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/17/2016MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A Time: 6:00–8:30pm For Reference Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337 Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 970-221-6265 Board Members Present Board Members Absent John Bartholow, chair Bob Mann Luke Caldwell Nancy DuTeau Elizabeth Hudetz Harry Edwards Drew Derderian Katherine de Leon Jay Adams Staff Present Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support John Stokes, Natural Areas Program Director Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Planner Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director Guests: David Tweedale, citizen Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:00pm Staff Comment: Lucinda thanked Susie for her support and facilitation of the board, now that Katy Bigner will be taking over as staff liaison in March. Agenda Review: Poudre River bank armoring project has been delayed. Public Comments: David Tweedale said the City’s volunteer coordinator, Charlotte Boney, has commissioned a database of all volunteer hours across the City. Goal completion date: September 22. Being developed by same company that created Nature Tracker. Currently not capturing all time spent preparing for board meetings, travel, research, field trips, etc.—only getting actual board meeting time. The purpose is to coordinate all volunteer efforts in the City and more accurately collect the time donated to the City by citizens. Approval of Minutes: Harry moved and Nancy seconded a motion to approve the January minutes as presented. Motion passed, 7-0-1. Luke abstained as he was not present at the January meeting. 1 | Page AGENDA ITEM 1—Election of Officers Harry nominated John Bartholow. Luke nominated Nancy. Nancy nominated Luke. Harry moved to close nominations. Jay seconded. Discussion/Q & A: • Does John want more free time? Appreciated the draft motion he wrote. o John is okay with position but would like to see others get the experience. However, he is sensitive to the time constraints of others. • Describe responsibilities? o Talk to liaison 1-4 times per month regarding agenda or tickler list. Write annual report. Not a huge amount of work, but to do it right, must stay on it. • Can Nancy and Luke explain why they want to be Chair? o Luke explained he has been in Fort Collins 10 years, biologist who works mainly with birds. Main job is stay-at-home father. Thinks he could fill the position. Would like to gain the experience of coordinating meetings and working with staff. • Harry supports nomination of John. He has done a great job as a member and as Chair. Sensitive to need for all members to express their opinions. Well connected and knows who does what in City. Easy to work with and follows through on action items. o Liaison provides a lot of staff contact information as well. • Does the current Vice Chair not want to be Chair? o No. He would welcome being Vice Chair again, though.  For sake of longevity and consistency, neither candidate has been in Vice role. Would like to keep John as chair and have Co-Vice Chairs Luke and Nancy. • Bob would likely welcome that, but with only one vice chair. • Nancy is a biologist with experience in public health and environment. Has experience in education and private industry. Project oriented. 26 years in Fort Collins. Well connected and experienced on projects. The Natural Resources Advisory Board elected John Bartholow as Chair for 2016. Motion passed, 7-0-1. John abstained. The Natural Resources Advisory Board elected Nancy DuTeau as Vice Chair for 2016. Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0. ACTION ITEMS: Submit to City Clerk’s office. AGENDA ITEM 2—Poudre River Instream Flow Augmentation Plan John Stokes, Natural Areas Program Director, presented information about proposed agreements for implementing Phase I of a 3-phase project to develop an Instream Flow Augmentation Plan. Staff is asking Council to adopt an intergovernmental agreement to launch a feasibility study for an instream augmentation plan. Water in rivers is not typically protected from being diverted. However, there are protected instream flows right on the Poudre until mouth of canyon. After that there are 20+ diversions between the mouth of the canyon and Fort Collins. The river is heavily depleted. In town 2 | Page (Overland Trail to I-25) there are no protections. Senior water rights take priority and they divert their water, even when diversion runs the river dry. The challenge is how to develop protected flow rights through town. Very difficult with water laws. Group of interested entities came together under Poudre River Runs Through It. They are exploring an augmentation idea that has not been used in Colorado before. Working with Greeley, Fort Collins, Northern Water, Cache la Poudre Water Association (ditch companies), tri-districts, and Colorado Water Trust as consultant. Signing MOU to launch phase 1 of project—a feasibility study. Requesting City contribute funds to the study. Phase 1 includes engineering to see if there is water that can be delivered into the plan. CWCB controls all water rights. The group will design a business plan, implementation plan, and prepare the water court application. Phase 2 is water court. Phase 3 is implementation. This tool, if developed and approved, could be used as a mitigation tool by water developers to mitigate impacts to rivers from reservoir construction/expansion. It is a mechanism to offset depletions of the river. Reservoir projects are in the process of being reviewed, and those decisions are not the City’s to make. This idea should be separated from the idea of additional reservoirs. Visited Land Stewardship and Conservation Board, going to Water Board, and Council meeting March 1. Discussion/Q & A: • Which entity would Thornton be in? o Thornton is not involved. They have significant water rights on Poudre. Most of that water is already diverted west of Fort Collins. Once they build pipeline, will not increase depletions through Fort Collins, except when river is running very high (have junior water rights they can take in big water year). • Entities taking water—is there anywhere to gain water? o River is over-committed. In springtime may have period of “free river” but then people start filling reservoirs. Don’t need to be in priority to take water in “free river” situation. Don’t know yet if there is enough augmentation water already in the system (previously adjudicated for augmentation purposes). This water is stored for when entities deplete river flows when their water right normally wouldn’t allow them to do so. In order to take water out of priority, they must acquire a right higher in river that can replace water they are taking. There is augmentation water stored upstream of Fort Collins. Need to have better understanding of whether can access that water and run the water to benefit the plan. If have protected instream flow reach, then water must stay in river—no one can take it. Those who have senior water rights can take water—plan is to protect from diversion and exchange so that augmentation water can get all the way through town. o Sounds like a bank of water.  Similar to that. If this works, for example if City wants 5CFS in river in January, we might be willing to pay someone to deliver augmentation water into the river, or there might be a storage company that wants that water downstream who may be willing to pay to get the water in the river. Have almost all the major players involved. Everyone is thinking about opportunities, but hard part is getting agreement. If City wanted to do this without partners would have many objections in water court. Advantage to MOU is that have many of potential objectors onboard. • Why is everything taken from the river? Why isn’t anything added from other sources? Granite quarries full of water. Why can’t they be tapped? o Water comes in and out of river. All of that water is owned by someone and they are using it. Any water delivered into or out of the river is used. Other way to do this is to buy senior water rights. For 2CFS for 1 day would cost about $60K. Expensive to buy and convert to instream flow—also assumes can find the water rights and get it through water court. 3 | Page • Concern around fracking. They use millions of gallons per well. Because of them price of water has gone up and farmers are having trouble finding water. How are they getting it? It can’t be reused. o Fort Collins does not sell water to fracking. Greeley and other water districts have. Extra water that is not needed in a particular year can be sold. o No requirement to keep in water cycle?  Different rights—with some can use to extinction.  Once they use it, it is contaminated and must be stored. If water is so important, fact that some are allowed to use to extinction is wrong. Not an issue in water court? • No. Personal view is that it should be treated to be reused. o Radioactive particulates are so small they never come out. • Fracking water is unrelated to this plan, though. • If going to acquire water rights, someone has to sell or give them up. Has someone stepped up to sell water? o Augmentation water is water that could be delivered into plan for free or under lease. Don’t know yet if anyone is willing to participate. • Isn’t there a commissioner for the river? o Yes. He would be a good resource. Entities that own and manage water on the river will have a good sense of where the water is. Could buy senior water rights and convert them to augmentation water. Expensive proposition. • Water rights are in perpetuity or do they come up for sale? o In Colorado, first-in-time, first-in-right is how the law works. So, whoever was here first with beneficial use, is able to continue to use that water. The water is owned by state of Colorado, but have right of beneficial use. City of Fort Collins, a long time ago, acquired senior water rights. Can buy rights from people. Converted from agriculture to municipal and industrial uses. Does become available for sale. Can buy shares in ditch companies. Can buy from CBT. Once have water, if not putting to previous beneficial use, must go to water court. Only get consumptive water, not water that evaporated or returned to river. Have return flow obligations as well. Extremely complicated. • Colorado Division of Wildlife is involved in mitigation. Are they onboard? o The state has wildlife mitigation plan. Working with Northern Water for NISP, which will be reviewed by State Wildlife Commission. They have come to meetings. o Parks and Wildlife are also familiar with this MOU. • Reservoir deadline that was missed five years ago? o Have to show state that making progress and City did not file due diligence for storage rights for Halligan, so our priority went down. It was a mistake, but have such good water rights portfolio that is doesn’t really hurt us. • If instream augmentation occurs, but only guaranteed up to City line, water becomes fair game after that? o Yes. Could be really short reach like Mulberry to I-25. But only three diversions there. One challenge in delivering water is bypassing diversions and measuring. So many diversions from Overland to I-25 that would not initially try to protect the entire reach. Work in sections. o Aside from visuals, are there metrics used to assess?  Right now determining if can develop any instream augmentation water at all. However CWCB and CO Parks and Wildlife want to know whether water being protected actually achieves a goal. Statute talks about maintaining the existing habitat. Division has to help CWCB determine if what we are doing is beneficial to maintenance. Will have hard time reaching minimum threshold. 4 | Page • What are biggest concerns for functioning ecosystem—maintaining riparian, cottonwood, fish habitat, etc.? o State focuses on fish. City is concerned with vegetation, morphology, sediment movement, etc. o If get protected flow, once reaches I-25 other entities can divert?  Yes. o Why so important to have water flow through Fort Collins if going to be taken outside of town.  Sometime river is devoid of water, which is bad for fish. Anything we can do to enhance flows or maintain flows is helpful in the long view. Innovative, cool, lot of potential, but unlikely to bring a lot of water to the river. Greeley and New Cache are both participating. Greeley also has stream flow issues. o Just because might lose control of water downstream, doesn’t mean irrigation company couldn’t use it and pay for it.  City has some water rights it could put in the plan. Anyone who has an augmentation right who wants to run water in the plan could potentially get paid for it. It will be delivered downstream. Can get multiple uses out of the water. Instream ecosystem benefit here, and potential economic benefit downstream. Incentivizing water owners to use their water differently. • Timing of running the water? o Don’t know enough yet. Need to know water decrees, etc. Jay moved to recommend City Council approve the proposal for the Poudre River Instream Flow Augmentation Plan, using the language provided by John Stokes. Luke seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0. • Will this get approved by Council? o If Council approves and other entities also approve it, will launch the study. Fairly confident that will get approved. Will need CWCB onboard, then water court.  Fits in with existing policy plans. • Feasibility study cannot hurt anything. AGENDA ITEM 3— Update on Oil & Gas Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Planner, discussed information from monitoring projects conducted in 2014 and 2015 about oil and gas wells located in Fort Collins. Showed map of oil and gas fields in U.S. Very few wells within city limits, but a number of wells are located to east and south—these are permitted, but not all are producing. Can access maps of wells that are producing, wells that use injection, and wells that are abandoned. Injecting process is pressurizing with water (not fracking). Then the oil is separated from the water, and the water is recirculated. Not augmented with offsite water. All Fort Collins wells are in northeast. November 2013 passed a five-year moratorium on fracking in city limits. Currently in Colorado supreme court due to civil suit. Monitoring had two phases. Phase 1 was part of operators’ agreement to monitor near fields and in town. Phase 2 is CSU study to baseline, including emissions modelling. Phase 1 Study: Canisters used to sample air. 80 analyzed for VOCs. Many classes of VOCs, but usually talk about BTEX (hazardous), also looked at alkanes (associated with natural gas but not considered hazardous), and methane. Monitoring sites were located on well pad, at tank battery, in residential areas, and downtown. Also looked at regional data for comparison. BTEX were higher in downtown than at oil and gas sites. For comparison, BTEX is higher in Denver. These are associated with vehicle traffic and other industrial sources. No big red flags were noted in data collected. Phase 2 does not have results yet. Eight samples at each of three sites—Soapstone , NE Fort Collins, and 5 | Page Fossil Creek Area. Will take data and emissions factors from typical well to do modelling on air impacts. Discussion/Q & A: • Samples taken at ground level? o About head height, except for one at CSU that is on top of a building—co-residing with existing monitoring equipment. • What is air quality here according to EPA? o In ozone nonattainment area.  Starting with an F, now we’re looking at how much worse we will be if add more oil and gas near Budweiser.  Ozone is complicated. Planning going on in whole Front Range area. Serious issue. o Boardmember commented that Weld is still most densely fracked community in US. We get their air at night. Constantly venting toxins. Fracking has done a lot of damage. Another study is being done with CSU and CU. Finding people with clean lifestyles to see how much poison we can take.  Ozone has a state process—implementation plan to add controls. Oil and gas has added many controls, but looking at more. • Fewer than 30 inspectors for 30K wells. Monitoring won’t happen very well. • Regulations are implementing monitoring for fugitive leaks. • Future potential for development within city limits? o Don’t own a lot of mineral rights under Soapstone Prairie. Completed Energy by Design study that lays out priority for visual and environmental impacts. Has not come up yet. Enough other fields to develop. o Would encourage City staff to delineate where potential sites are.  John has seen this. He will find and distribute. • Boardmember commented that have also heard that drilling is happening now so wells can get grandfathered in. o Some newer technology allows producers to drill horizontally. This allows concentration of infrastructure and vehicles. • What would be impact/how would levels change if added more wells? o Don’t have a baseline. Would look at increments. Model is linear so could be added to a baseline, but doesn’t account for chemical reactions of new pollutants with baseline pollutants. • Were samples all taken in day time? o 24-hour samples. • Established whether gaseous hydrocarbons are from leaks, spills, etc.? o No. Could not discern sources. Had wind speed and direction, but sample taken over time. o Wonder about correlation between spills and leaks and ambient pollution.  During this period it was business as usual.  For spills, there are primary and secondary containment processes at wells. The State requires soil sampling after spills. • Containment ponds? o There are natural ponds in the area, and some complaints about H2S (hydrogen sulfide) which is not a VOC. o Part of the phase I study was H2S monitoring. This region is not considered “sour gas,” which would mean sulfur is associated with the oil deposits. Can smell H2S when there is only a tiny bit. Health effects occur much higher. There was none high enough for the monitors to detect. 6 | Page  Hydrogen sulfide is common in oil and gas? • Southern Wyoming has it in underground formations. Don’t have that here. • Normal in wetlands to have H2S. Result of not enough oxygen in decaying matter. Dangerous production is associated with ancient oceans, such as in southern Colorado.  Waste water treatment plants produce H2S? • Three step process. Don’t necessarily produce a lot. • Who funded the study? o Memorial Resources and City funded the Phase I study.  Memorial Resources is owner of gas field. • Phase 2 will be done? o In April. o Will Memorial still be funding?  No. Not sure of next steps. They have satisfied requirements of operator agreement. • What do you do for the City? o Helping to manage the CSU monitoring. CSU’s monitoring is separate from Memorial. o Memorial has requirements for soil samples and other monitoring?  Yes, including H2S sampling. Also have state requirements from State permits.  Anything with water? • State requirement addresses water concerns. • Operator agreement is additional requirements on top of state requirements. o Oil and gas is an ongoing assignment for Cassie. She is working on sustainability assessment tool (SAT)  SAT is a brainstorming tool to make sure triple bottom line is considered early in projects. ACTION ITEM: Request Cassie return to board with CSU study data as available. Will also present on changes to sustainability assessment tool. Board would like to know more about metrics in SAT. AGENDA ITEM 3—Other Business Open Board Discussion • Super Issues meeting tomorrow night. • A-Trail response o Contacted a ranger who gave a thorough response.  Was opinion-based response. o Suggested approach to addressing issue?  Remove signs that bikers yield to hikers, since not yielding. If heading down, stop and let person coming up go through. Response excused the behavior. • Blind curve at Dixon reservoir. Bikers disregard hikers. Path is almost on water line and people are fishing. Add a mirror. Many close calls with small children. o Ask Kristin, head of Ranger program, to come talk.  Discuss trail markers.  Bicycle safety is a big issue. o Hard to legislate behavior. Propose Ranger enforce by issuing citations, change signage, and hope for compliance. 7 | Page  Asking bikers to always yield makes them never yield. Altercations. Rangers have been called. o Would like to see number of reported incidents over time. As trail use increases, are incidents increasing as well? • Board is seeking liaison to Bicycle Advisory Committee. o Katherine agreed to be liaison. ACTION ITEM: Request Kristin Powell, Lead Ranger, speak with board. Announcements • Nancy attended Poudre River Forum. Morning session was on Poudre water shed. A lot of the solution for finding water for growth is taking it from agriculture. Representatives said need to stop short-term planning for water for growth and look at values. If want to commit to agriculture, need to figure out how to make it happen. Agriculture people want unused water to remain in agriculture. Where do we want limited water to go? Need to develop guidelines. • Met woman from Denver gardens who is working on changing water reuse laws. Right now reclaimed water cannot be used on crops. Want to use it for community gardens. Talked to assistant water attorney from City to request letter of support. Have conference call on Friday. o Suggest speaking with Legislative Affairs Committee. City has significant process to have Council make recommendations. Dan can talk to board about pressing legislative issues on Council’s mind. o Board members can give public comment at Council meetings as citizens. Make clear giving personal comment. • April 9 work Session—Honoré Depew will talk about sustainable materials management. Will come to next meeting. • March 2 state master planning on waste disposal. • January 26 Caroline Mitchell took community recycling ordinance to Council. Council has concerns that they want addressed. o o Longmont Council recently approved curbside organics collection. • Recycling center on Timberline will break ground in March. o Seems like a busy area for this purpose. What kind of structures will be there?  Riverside elements will be moved to new site. Will have a couple of small sheds as well. Mostly bins.  Heavily travelled area makes it more efficient for drop off. • Consider an access road. • Has been thoroughly vetted by traffic department. Can access from both directions, but will only be able to turn right at exit. Road widening project on Timberline starting in April. • Poudre River Forum—sat with person from Chamber, who indicated unhappy with how things are going in recycling. In favor of aspirational goals, but wanted more consideration of cost-benefit. • Thanks given to Susie Gordon from John Bartholow and Board. o Susie thanked board for being champions and a sounding board. Katy is very capable, has done a lot of work with Utilities. Will see more around CAP planning in next year. Great to have new people on board bringing new interests. This board has great reputation with staff. ACTION ITEM: Susie will talk to Dan Weinheimer about giving an update to NRAB. 8 | Page Meeting Adjourned: 8:17pm Next Meeting: March 16 9 | Page