Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/18/2012Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 1 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, October 18, 2012 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Steve Balderson, 223-7915 Wade Troxell, 219-8940 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Steve Malers, 484-1954 Brian Janonis, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Steve Balderson, Vice Chairperson Steve Malers, Board Members Becky Goldbach, Eric Garner, Liesel Hans, Brian Brown, Brett Bovee, Lori Brunswig, and Duncan Eccleston Board Absent Board Member Phil Phelan Staff Present Kevin Gertig, Jon Haukaas, Donnie Dustin, Susan Strong, Jason Graham, Ron Russell, Adam Jokerst, Dan Weinheimer, Lindsay Kuntz, Lois Rellergert, Lindsay Ex, and Harriet Davis Guests Tom Fulton, Greg Grablander, and Ashley Quick Bear Meeting Convened Chairperson Balderson called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of September 20, 2012 Minutes Board Member Brown moved to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2012 meeting. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Work Session Review Vice Chairperson Malers gave an update on the October Work Session. The board discussed oil and gas regulations, reducing the size of the board, and topics for the annual work plan. The next session will be held Thursday, November 1, 2012. Staff Reports Monthly Water Resources Report Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin provided this report for the agenda packet. Mr. Dustin also introduced new Water Resources Engineer Adam Jokerst. Mr. Jokerst will focus on long term water supply planning. Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 2 Water Supply Outlook In addition to the monthly Water Resources Report, Mr. Dustin presented a report on the Water Supply Outlook: 2012 Summary  Fire impacts impaired the Poudre River (no river water for three months)  Fires have impacted water quality  Irrigation season has ended  100 percent Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) quota (allowed for unrestricted use)  Prior conservation efforts helped 2013 Conditions  New water year starts November 1, 2012  Assume dry-year demand (generally not more than 6 percent above projected)  Assume 30 percent Poudre River flows  CBT system still has decent storage (approximately 120 percent quota available if 2013 is similar to 2012) Mr. Dustin presented a graph showing the CBT Project end of month active storage levels for Granby, Carter, and Horsetooth Reservoirs from 1998 to 2012. He also presented a chart showing the potential surplus or deficit supply in acre-feet with dry-year demands, and the Shortage Response Plan showing the different levels of restrictions. Mr. Dustin presented information on potential CBT increases and financial impacts. Summary  Uncertain Poudre River supplies (unavailable during and after rain events)  CBT supplies unclear until April (quota set)  Monitor supplies and demands  Possible restrictions next year, may affect agricultural community  These conditions may persist for several years  Communications efforts are coming soon Highlights from the discussion:  A board member questioned if, depending on the water levels next year, the City decides not to rent as much surplus water to agriculture, can ag take the water from the river? Mr. Dustin stated that the snow packs will not matter in this scenario. The water would go to the next priority.  A board member asked for the projected gallons per capita per day (gpcd) number. Mr. Dustin stated the projected number is based on the gpcd for previous years.  A board member asked if staff is comfortable with presenting the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (WSDMP) to City Council. Mr. Dustin stated staff is comfortable presenting this to Council regardless of the events this past summer. Nunn Telephone Company Request for Fiber-Optic Cable Easement on Meadow Springs Ranch (Attachments available upon request). Technical Services Supervisor Ron Russell introduced the item and introduced Water Reclamation and Biosolids Manager Jason Graham and Real Estate Specialist Lindsay Kuntz. Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 3 Meadow Springs Ranch is managed by the Water Reclamation and Biosolids Division (WR&B) as a site for biosolids application. Biosolids are the treated residuals from the wastewater treatment process, and are applied to the ranch as fertilizer. The ranch is also a site for several research projects. Mr. Russell presented a map showing the location of Meadow Springs Ranch (north of Fort Collins). Proposed Easement Nunn Telephone Company is upgrading their copper system to fiber optic cable to offer broadband service to their customers. Since other cable routes were denied, they request an easement on Meadow Springs Ranch. The easement will align with abandoned Highway 87, and will be approximately 7 miles by 10 feet wide. There will be a 15 feet offset from the center of Highway 87. Mr. Russell presented a map showing the proposed easement. Installation Process Mr. Russell described the installation process. This includes a caterpillar-pulled implement that will create a slot 2 inches wide by 4 feet deep. The cable duct is placed as a slot is created. The slot closes behind the implement as the caterpillar moves forward. More equipment will follow to compact the disturbed soil. Surface Disturbance Mr. Russell described the surface disturbance with the project. The vegetation will be distributed the width of the caterpillar. Access vaults will be placed at 1 mile intervals. Seeding is not expected to be necessary. Natural Areas recommended the vegetation naturally reseed the disturbed area. A seed mix is not recommended because there would be variations with the existing vegetation. Conclusion  The easement route is on previously disturbed land.  The easement will not interfere with City activities at Meadow Springs Ranch.  The disturbed vegetation will recover in time. Highlights from the discussion:  A board member asked if abandoned Highway 87 is used by Meadow Springs Ranch. Mr. Russell stated it is used as a ranch road.  A board member asked if any landowners have issues with the proposed easement. Mr. Russell stated he is not aware of any issues. The easement will not affect many homeowners.  A board member asked if there will be any opportunities for restoration of the old asphalt. Staff has asked that Nunn Telephone Company not disturb the asphalt that is in good condition. The board member expressed concern about old asphalt in a natural area. This is not a concern since there is a 15 foot offset.  A board member asked if the 10 foot easement width is both a construction and a permanent easement. Yes, it is for both.  A board member asked about easement pop-outs at the vaults. The vaults will be within the 10 foot easement.  A board member asked about the seeding. If it does not take, who pays for the new seeding? Utilities will have to work with Natural Areas. There are terms for reseeding as part of the agreement with Nunn Telephone Company. Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 4 Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. MS4 Stormwater Permit Annual Update (Attachments available upon request). Environmental Regulatory Specialist Susan Strong introduced the item. The MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit is required by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) under the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS), and authorizes discharge into waters of the State. Ms. Strong presented the following information on the item:  The Six Minimum Control Measures (MCM) includes the following: Public Education (MCM 1), Public Participation and Involvement (MCM 2), Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (MCM 3), Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control (MCM 4), Post- Construction Stormwater Management (MCM 5), and Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations (MCM 6).  The City is required to report to the State on MCMs 3, 4, and 5. Ms. Strong presented information on the Public Education and Outreach Programs. These include programs such as the Stormwater Business Outreach Plan (Gas Station Outreach), WaterSHED Program, and Larimer County Youth Corps storm drain stenciling. She also presented information on Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination:  Collaborated with the Colorado Division of Fire Safety on management of fire suppression system discharges  Implemented the Regulatory and Government Affairs (RGA) spill response on-call program which included purchasing spill equipment Ms. Strong presented information on Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control, Post- Construction Stormwater Management, and Municipal Operations. She also presented information on the Stormwater Regulatory Update:  Targeted Permit Questionnaire (October 15, 2012)  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Rulemaking to Strengthen the Stormwater Program (Proposed release of the draft rule by June 2013/Complete a final action by December 2014)  MS4 Permit Administratively Extended (Renewal timeline TBD, not until at least August 2013)  CDPS Industrial Stormwater Permit  Nutrients Management Control Regulation (Reg 85) o Nutrients sampling and analysis plan is due March 2013 o Development of programs to control discharge of nutrients from municipal operations (TBD ~ August 2013) Board Member Eccleston moved the Water Board recommend that City Council consider approval of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of the proposed Nunn Telephone Company easement. Board Member Garner seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 5 o MS4 Discharge Assessment Data Report and Gap Analysis (October 2014) Highlights from the discussion:  A board member asked about costs. Ms. Strong stated this is hard to assess until the EPA ruling.  A board member asked who will be impacted by the changes. Utilities would be affected if the fleet facility is permitted. Industries may also be affected.  A board member asked how the fire and drought has an impact. Ms. Strong stated this is not taken into account into stormwater regulations; however, it may have an impact on nutrient monitoring. This may impact the programs that are required to be implemented.  A board member asked if there is feedback from the state on the annual reports. Typically there is no response on the annual reports.  A board member asked how often Utilities has been audited. Ms. Strong stated Utilities has not undergone a full audit.  A board member asked how many years has Utilities submitted annual MS4 reports. The reports have been submitted for almost 10 years. Oil and Gas Regulations (Attachments available upon request). Environmental Regulatory Specialist Lois Rellergert introduced the item and introduced Policy and Project Manager Dan Weinheimer and Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex. This item was also discussed at the October Work Session as well as at some other City board meetings. Staff was asked to develop a section of the Land Use Code that will apply to oil and gas operations within the City of Fort Collins. They also needed to address the concerns of Fort Collins residents and align the code with state regulations. Staff has created a standard review and an expedited review process for permitting of new oil and gas developments within the City. Staff requests the Water Board’s support on the following items:  Standard review and expedited review processes  Requirements for water quality and water resources protection outlined in the draft land use code Staff recommends the board outline their recommendations regarding the issues noted above in letters to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. Staff also recommends the board consider a recommendation regarding provision of Utilities services to the oil and gas industry. Ms. Rellergert noted a change to the expedited review process since the item was discussed at the Water Board Work Session. The requirement for abandoned oil and gas well assessments has been removed. Ms. Ex stated the regulations were modeled after Boulder County’s regulations; however, this particular item does not apply to City of Fort Collins regulations. Ms. Rellergert opened the floor for questions. Highlights from the discussion:  The board members discussed the changes in the proposed regulations since the October Work Session.  Per a board member’s request, Ms. Ex presented a summary of other board meetings attended: Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 6 o At the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, they specifically talked about how the regulations would impact natural areas. They also talked about the expedited review process. The board also requested an eligibility requirement. o They discussed air quality monitoring requirements at the Air Quality Advisory Board. The board requested a longer dialogue on this topic; however, they did support the standard review and expedited review processes. o The Natural Resources Advisory Board supported the regulations and the overall process with a five to one vote for the proposed regulations. o Staff also met with the Economic Advisory Committee. They discussed conducting an economic impact analysis on the community.  A board member stated he feels comfortable with the process since this is consistent with other development approaches the City uses.  A board member asked for clarification on the floodplain issue for critical facilities. All of the floodplain standards apply whether the operator is applying for the standard or expedited review process. A wellhead will not be allowed in a floodplain.  A board member feels both the standard review and expedited review processes are straight forward.  A board member asked for clarification on treated water use. Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager Jon Haukaas stated there is a filling station at the Utilities Service Center, but this is not set up for high volume of semi-truck usage. Access could be granted through metered fire hydrants.  A board member asked about the process for allowing operator trucks to fill with water. Mr. Haukaas stated the standard process is a hydrant rental application.  A board member asked if the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach was used to develop the regulations. Ms. Rellergert stated the process was used to develop the memo regarding possible requests for Utilities services from the oil and gas industry. The board member feels “fracking” would not pass the environmental aspect of the TBL analysis. The board member feels it could not be properly regulated.  A board member asked about the plan for updating the regulations. Does staff feel they have assembled the Best Management Practices as seen with other municipalities? Ms. Ex stated staff feels they have incorporated the best practices they can apply to the City of Fort Collins. She stated the Land Use Code is updated on an annual basis; however, changes can be presented before the annual update would take place. Ms. Rellergert stated the Utilities Regulatory and Government Affairs (RGA) Department looks at regulations on a regular basis. Mr. Weinheimer also stated there is collaboration with Colorado State University (CSU) on the subject matter.  A board member feels the proposed regulations are an attempt to get the issues in front of the industry, rather than the other way around. Discussion on the motion: A board member asked for clarification on the timeline for City Council. Mr. Weinheimer stated the item will be presented to City Council for first reading on December 4, 2012 and second reading on December 18, 2012. It will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 1, 2012. Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board support the proposed Standard Review and Expedited Review processes proposed by City Staff for permitting of new oil and gas development within the City. Board Member Garner seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 7 A board member asked for clarification on the discussions with oil and gas operators. Mr. Weinheimer stated staff had an initial meeting with Prospect Energy, an operator in Fort Collins. A second meeting has been scheduled. Vote on the motion: 8 for, 1 against. Reason for the nay vote: Board Member Brunswig: The proposed regulations are not protective enough to her satisfaction. Additional discussion:  A board member feels that monitoring air quality is very important. Mr. Haukaas stated this item will continue to be discussed at the Air Quality Advisory Board.  Mr. Weinheimer presented a map showing existing well activity. Currently, no permits are issued in the City.  A board member asked for a definition of “temporarily abandoned.” Temporarily abandoned means the well is not formally abandoned and equipment is still present.  A board member asked what other municipalities are doing in regards to the issue. The City of Loveland is going through the process of developing regulations.  A board member feels Fort Collins can provide a model for other municipalities to consider (for example, Weld County or the City of Loveland).  Ms. Rellergert presented a table showing groundwater sampling constituents (“Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Program”). This list will be referred to in the Land Use Code. A board member expressed concern that all the relevant constituents will be a part of the list. Ms. Ex reminded the board the ordinance is still being reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, and it may be revised before the final version is presented to City Council in December. Mr. Haukaas also stated that references listed in the code can be updated without a full code change process.  A board member believes “fracking” operations require a lot of water. The board member feels this may not be the best use of water supply resources. Discussion on the motion: A board member feels the board needs more data. He would like to see the item presented to the board again. A board member is impressed with the level of detail presented by staff; however, he feels it would be helpful to have a table presenting the monitoring timeline. The board members discussed a draft memo to City Council regarding the issue. Vice Chairperson Malers asked Board Member Brown and Board Member Brunswig if they will draft a memo since they were part of the Oil and Gas Committee. Vote on the motion: 8 for, 1 against. Reason for the nay vote: Board Member Brunswig: The proposed Land Use Code regulations will not be protective enough of water quality and water resources to her satisfaction. Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board support the proposed requirements for water quality and water resources protection outlined in the draft land use code regulations for oil and gas development. Board Member Garner seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 8 Additional discussion:  A board member asked for clarification on Board Member’s Brunswig nay vote on the issue. He asked for clarification on her opinion towards the proposed regulations. As part of this discussion, a board member questioned what happens if City Council does not support the proposed motions, and votes against the proposed regulations. Ms. Ex stated the City would still work with operators on operator agreements and serve an active role as a local government designee in commenting on the state permits. Land use code regulations will not be in place.  A board member feels the oil and gas industries cannot “frack” a well and protect ground water and surface water.  Vice Chairperson Malers reminded the board staff is not asking if the Water Board is in favor of “fracking.” He feels the board is being asked if they support Utilities providing water to the industry. He suggested a work session to further discuss the memo regarding possible requests for Utilities services from the oil and gas industry.  A board member asked if the TBL analysis can be addressed to consider the economic, environmental, and social benefits. The board member also feels the issue of water supply may need to be addressed if there will be a low water supply next year.  A board member stated he would like limitations on tiered rates. Is it possible to transfer funds? What are the alternatives if the City does not provide services? The board member feels a cost benefit analysis should be conducted.  A board member asked if Utilities can tier services so agriculture is prioritized over the oil and gas industry.  A board member asked for clarification on the ability to treat “frack” water in a typical water treatment plant. Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Kevin Gertig stated a typical wastewater plant is not capable of treating this type of water; however, this is currently being tested by the EPA.  A board member asked if the discussion can be broken into “supply” and “waste.” Draft 2013 Annual Work Plan (Attachment available upon request). Chairperson Balderson introduced the item. The draft work plan was sent to the board members and staff for review. Chairperson Balderson noted previous work plans were organized into committee topics. The new format is organized around major responsibilities of Utilities related to water (water, wastewater, and stormwater). Additionally, the category “Regional Issues” was added. These include topics relevant to the board’s goal of maintaining a dialogue on regional water issues. The board members discussed adding annual items to the work plan. The work plan will be discussed again at the November Work Session. Additionally, a board member asked for an update on fluoride and asked if the item should be on the work plan. Mr. Gertig stated this update will be presented on an annual basis. The board chairs encouraged the members to review the draft work plan and provide their comments. Continued Discussion on Board Size Reduction (Attachment available upon request). Chairperson Balderson introduced the item. Highlights from the discussion:  A board member feels there should be different interests represented on the board, and it should not just be based on a number. Other factors include a history of community Water Board Minutes October 18, 2012 9 development, a broader representation of districts, and preference for age or experience. The board member feels the size of the board should be based on the representation.  A board member feels the experienced board members should serve as mentors to the newer board members.  Mr. Haukaas stated Council is looking at reducing the size of the board based on the number of board members for other City boards. In addition, there has been a lack of qualified applicants. However, the board can make a recommendation to Council if they would like to keep the membership at eleven members.  The board members discussed the following criteria for future board members: water supply, wastewater, stormwater, legislative, environmental, research/university liaisons, recreational, developer, financial, agricultural, industry, engineer, environmental health, conservationist, districts, history in Fort Collins, residency, and community involvement.  A board member feels there is value in keeping the board at eleven members if there are enough qualified applicants with diverse backgrounds.  A board member feels there is value in keeping the board at eleven members because each member is more likely to have specific knowledge about particular items.  A board member feels the topic of board maintenance should be added to the work plan when vacancies arise. The board can evaluate their weaknesses each year. The board member feels this might be helpful in recruiting new members. In summary, the majority of the board (6 members) would like the membership to remain at eleven members and sees value in a larger board due to the diversity of members. The board would like the opportunity to better recruit new members. A larger board improves the knowledge continuum through shared experiences within the term limits. Regardless of the board size, the board will evaluate themselves each year and make a recommendation on what criteria is missing. Discussion on the motion: A board member sees the value in a larger board due to the diversity of members. The board member feels a larger board improves the knowledge continuum through shared experiences due to term limits. A board member feels the new work session format will increase the members’ knowledge of particular issues. He feels this will offset reducing the membership to nine members, and is in favor of reducing the membership to nine members. A board member feels this is an opportune time to reduce the membership to nine and still maintain the continuity from 2012. A board member feels the public should have an opportunity to be on the board. The board member feels the public would not be given ample opportunity if the membership is reduced. A board member feels it is valuable to have participation from a wide range of backgrounds during meeting discussions. Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board membership remain at eleven members for the reasons outlined above. Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Regardless ofboardsize, the board would like to evaluate itselfana’make reconiinendaiions on missing experience to/ill in potential gaps tiihin the ineinbemsIiip. Vote on the motion: 6 for. 3 against. Other Business None Future Agenda Items Vice Chairperson Malers noted the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (WSDMP) will be presented to City Council on October 30, 2012. He is planning to attend. The board discussed the November Work Session Agenda. The following topics are on the draft agenda: • Agriculture Discussion (George Wallace) • Watershed Presentation (Jill Oropeza) • Discuss 2013 Work Plan Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Submitted by Harriet Davis, Administrative Assistant, Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board oii .2012 Signed: Board Secretary “11 Date 1 Water Board Minutes 10 October 18, 2012