HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 March 2023 packet
Agenda items are subject to change – Times are approximate and are also subject to change
Agenda | March 16, 2023
River Park Center
Second Floor Conference Room
123 Emma Road, Basalt CO 81621
TIME ITEM
Administrative Items
4:00 PM Board Comment Public Comment Additions/Deletions to Agenda
4:10 PM Approval of Minutes Feb 16, 2023 Outreach/Education/Grants
4:15 PM Colorado Parks and Wildlife Partnership Opportunity – Matt Yamashita,
(no packet materials)
5:00 PM Healthy Rivers Board Grant Committee Survey Report and Discussion –
Kirstin Neff, Wendy Huber, Chris Lemons
6:00 PM Healthy Rivers Board Scholarship Committee– Andre Wille, Kirstin Neff
(no packet materials) Staff Reports
6:15 PM Healthy Rivers Staff Report- Lisa Macdonald and Lisa Tasker
6:30 PM Open Discussion
6:45 PM Adjourn
1
HEALTHY RIVERS AND STREAMS CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
Regular Meeting February 16, 2023 4:00 PM
123 Emma Road, 2nd Floor Basalt, CO 81621 River Board members present: Wendy Huber, Chris Lemons, Kirstin Neff, Chuck Ogilby, Bill Jochems. Chairman Lemons and Andre Wille appeared via Zoom.
River Board members absent: Chris Wheatley
Attendees in addition to presenters: Lisa MacDonald, Lisa Tasker, Laura Makar, Matt Annabel, Heather Sackett _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Board Comment: Ms. Huber provided an update on the grant re-write sub-committee. A questionnaire will go out to the board for review and comment that will then be distributed to past grant awardees. The re-write will be discussed at the March meeting.
Public Comment: None
Additions/Deletions to the Agenda: None Approval of the minutes for Jan 19, 2023, Nov 17, 2022, Nov 21, 2022 and Aug 18, 2022 Chairman Lemons moved to approve the minutes from January 19, 2023, Nov 17, 2022, Nov 21, 2022 and Aug 18, 2022. Mr. Ogilby seconded. The motion passed 5/0. Mr. Wille joined the meeting at approximately 4:40 pm
Lincoln Creek Water Quality – Kurt Dahl, Pitkin County Environmental Health Manger Mr. Dahl gave the board an update of the activities surrounding the water quality monitoring now happening on the tributary to Lincoln Creek above Grizzly Reservoir and below on Lincoln Creek, and above and below the confluence of Lincoln and the Roaring Fork River. Water quality monitoring and fish surveys were implemented by CPW after they reported a fish kill at Grizzly Reservoir in late 2021. Data indicate numerous water quality impacts and the fall 2022 survey data will be further discussed on a Teams meeting between EPA, CPW, CDPHE, Pitkin County Environmental Health, TU, RFC, USGS, and USFS on February 28th. The data that has already been collected will be discussed and next steps will be explored. The current question is what in the area surrounding or within the abandon mines themselves has recently changed and will continue to need to be explored. Work by the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company will begin at the Twin Lakes dam this summer and there are concerns regarding potential future impacts from those activities. Mr. Dahl was asked to look further into what mitigation measures are planned during the construction activities this summer and to keep the board in the loop going forward. In addition to Mr. Dahl, Ms. Tasker has been attending all of the EPA scheduled meetings. Mr. Wille left the meeting after the close of Mr. Dahl’s presentation.
Healthy Rivers Fund Update and 2023 Projections – Connie Baker, Pitkin County Budget Director Ms. Baker provided the Board and update on the Healthy Rivers fund and 2023 predictions for sales tax.
2
Sales tax in 2022 was higher than predicted with fewer people in town but more spending. The 2023 sales tax is predicted to be lower but still robust. The river fund is healthy. Request for Discussion/Feedback on Crystal River OST Properties for Future Management Plan Updates Carly O’Connell, Senior Planner Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Ms. O’Connell asked for Board feedback on OST’s Crystal River properties regarding future management plans. She asked for feedback on questions OST had and if Healthy Rivers had plans for work in the Crystal. She will distribute questions to the Board to allow them to digest and be able to respond after some thoughtful consideration. Beaver Education Campaign Plan and Radio/TV Discussion Matt Annabel, Back40 Stories, Diane Schewner, Schwener Design Group Tim Braun, b2 inc. The Comms Team provided information regarding increased radio and TV presence as requested by the Board at the January meeting. Mr. Jochems moved to approve the Radio Presence including KAJX, KDNK and KMTS recommended items contained in the packet for $7,314.00 Ms. Huber seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. Staff will include TV costs to the 2024 budget. The Comms Teams then presented the “Bring back the Beavers” Education Campaign. Healthy Rivers Board By-laws Proposed Amendments – Staff Presentation Staff presented recommended amendments to the by-laws. The most significant changes are the quorum and chair items. Recommended amendments to the quorum will allow for all 7 board members to make up a quorum and not just the Pitkin County resident members. Same for the chair and vice chair. Any member may be chair and vice chair, not just Pitkin County resident members. Also the number of missed meetings that will result in removal of a member has been modified to 3 missed meetings, at which time the Chair may recommend removal of member to the BOCC. Ms. Huber moved to support the recommended changes to the BOCC. Mr. Ogilby seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. Staff Report – Lisa MacDonald and Lisa Tasker Staff provided an update on projects and work as contained in the report in the Board’s packet.
Open Discussion –
Snake River Water District v. Division 5 of the Colorado Division of Water Resources – Laura Makar, Assistant
Pitkin County Attorney Ms, Makar gave a thorough review of aspects of the lawsuit that were of interest to the board. A dispute between the Snake River Water District in Summit County and Division 5 Engineers regarding administration of the Historic Users Pool in Green Mountain Reservoir is what led to the case. It was only filed in July of 2022 and Ms. Makar reminded the board that water cases typically can take a long time to be decided, so this case is considered to be very new. A motion to dismiss was also filed by DNR through the Attorney General’s office for two of the three claims whereby DNR said Snake River Water District in conjunction with the Colorado Water District, also in the case, does not have the right to file those claims. This has been fully briefed now, but no decision has been made. The federal government has also filed an appearance in the case, but all parties are waiting for the decision on the motion to dismiss before engaging the Feds and the case will not move forward until that time. Because its unclear if the case will go forward, it is unknown if the substance of the issue involving Green Mountain Reservoir will even get addressed.
3
Green Mountain was originally created to support West Slope irrigation and domestic water users and has done so since the 1950s. In 1983 the historic users pool (HUP) was legally designated to further ensure it continued as a water source for the Western Slope. Snake River filed a case in 1982 attempting to address augmentation for a group of wells and stating how that would happen. That augmentation case was decreed. Some of those wells were pre-1978 meaning some of them may implicate the HUP for Green Mountain Reservoir as available to augment those wells. Relying strictly on their augmentation plan is more expensive than coverage by the HUP for these wells. The ‘82 case did not explicitly say the wells in the case could use the Green Mountain HUP, but that’s typical of the cases that involve wells on the Western Slope. The history leading up to this case is unclear, but it has influenced the AG’s office and they are now requesting Snake River follow their administrative procedures act at this point. Implied is since Snake River never followed those procedures, therefore they cannot go forward in court. This has led to the current motion to dismiss the Snake River case where Snake River is attempting to retain its HUP benefits. A pressing question brought up by this case is whether there is any change in the way the Division Engineers office intends to operate the HUP? Nothing currently points to that, but the Colorado River District has decided this may bring up some concerns for historic water pool users throughout the Western Slope and has joined the case. The case is very early in the process.
Ms. Neff moved to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Lemons seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0 The meeting adjourned at approx. 7:39 pm
Approved: Attest:
______________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Chris Lemons - Chairman Lisa Tasker
4
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Healthy Rivers Regular Meeting
TO: Healthy Rivers Board
FROM: Staff
SUBJECT: Grant process update DATE: March 16, 2023
Background: In 2014 a small finance committee was selected from board members interested in drafting a
process to distribute grant requests of the healthy rivers program, among other things. Until
that time, entities seeking funding for projects, studies or other needs came to the River Board anytime during the year. In late 2014, the current grant criteria, instructions and scoresheet were developed and approved the River Board and the BOCC. The new process began in 2015. The new process allowed for two meetings a year to hear any funding requests. The Board
then determined whether a grant was appropriate for funding and moved to award funding
during that meeting. There has been desire to amend the process to allow the board more time to deliberate requests and score an application after hearing the request by the applicant. This came about during the
Board retreat, the Board felt at times, awkward moving to approve or deny a request
immediately upon hearing it. A small grant sub-committee has met several times to draft new a new process and reached out to survey 21 past applicants. Those results are attached.
The grant sub-committee will present recommendations and findings to the River Board today seeking direction on how to move forward. Budgetary Impact: None unless the board has recommendations to increase or decrease the 2024 budget line item amount.
Requested Board Action: Move to recommend amendments to the Healthy Rivers Grant Process
5
Applicant Demographic Questions
1. Choose the applicant type below that best describes you or your organization
(choose one):
4 responses
2. Choose the type of project that best describes the project for which you applied for
funding. (Check all that apply if you've applied multiple times):
4 responses
Copy
Local, State, or Federal government
School or teacher
Non-profit
For-profit company
Private individual
50%
50%
Copy
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Advocacy/public outreach
Education
Capital improvement
Habitat improvement
Sponsorship
Research
water supply monitoring
1 (25%)1 (25%)1 (25%)
1 (25%)1 (25%)1 (25%)
0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
1 (25%)1 (25%)1 (25%)
1 (25%)1 (25%)1 (25%)
6
3. What was the outcome of your application? (Check all that apply if you've applied
multiple times)
4 responses
4. How did you learn about the grant application solicitation? (Check all that apply)
4 responses
Application Process Questions
Copy
0 1 2 3
Full funding request awarded
Partial funding request awarded
Funding request denied
3 (75%)3 (75%)3 (75%)
1 (25%)1 (25%)1 (25%)
0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Copy
0 1 2 3
Direct communication from He…
Word of mouth
Print media
Radio
Social media
Web
from another local water agency
2 (50%)2 (50%)2 (50%)
3 (75%)3 (75%)3 (75%)
0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
2 (50%)2 (50%)2 (50%)
1 (25%)1 (25%)1 (25%)
7
5. What worked well for you or your organization in the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers (PCHR)
grant application process?
3 responses
Everything worked great.
The criteria was specific and organized.
engagement with staff was key
6. What would have made the application process better for you or your organization?
3 responses
Everything worked great, no suggested changes.
Presentation dates at HRS board meetings and Pitkin County Commissioner meetings listed on the grant
application would be helpful for scheduling and planning.
the process and document templates were incomplete, inconsistent, and not well defined
7. Did the grant application process differ from your expectations at all based on the
written Grant Application Process document provided to applicants?
4 responses
7. Comments:
0 responses
No responses yet for this question.
Copy
Yes
No
75%
25%
8
8. Did you find the Grant Criteria clear and sufficient to prepare a complete
application?
4 responses
8. Comments:
0 responses
No responses yet for this question.
9. Was the time from submission of your grant application to review and Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) award decision sufficient to make your project plans
and keep your project on schedule?
4 responses
9. Comments:
0 responses
No responses yet for this question.
Copy
Yes
No
100%
Copy
Yes
No
100%
9
10a. Was PCHR staff and/or Board communication following your application
sufficient?
4 responses
10b. What additional information or feedback (if any) would have been helpful following the
decision on your application?
0 responses
No responses yet for this question.
11. Currently, applicant presentations and Board motions on grants occur at the
same PCHR Board meeting. Do you foresee any issues for you or your organization
if applications and presentations were due for the meeting one month before Board
grant recommendations are made? (For example, applicants would present in August
and the Board would make its recommendation to the BOCC in September)
4 responses
Copy
Yes
No
100%
Copy
Yes
No
75%
25%
10
11. Comments:
1 response
This could make it difficult for the program, scheduling, and teacher communication to happen before school
starts.
12. Currently, applications are reviewed in two annual cycles, one in the Spring and
one in the Fall. Do you foresee any issues for you or your organization if instead
grant applications were only reviewed once annually?
4 responses
12. Comments:
2 responses
It is nice (but not necessary) to have two dates to choose from if there are schedule conflicts.
it depends on the timing of the cycle. with 2 cycles it is easier
Copy
Yes
No50%
50%
11
13. If PCHR were to only review grant applications once annually, would you or your
organization prefer a Spring or Fall review timeline?
4 responses
14. Do you have any other recommendations or comments on the PCHR grant application
process that you'd like us to know as we revise the grant process and materials?
0 responses
No responses yet for this question.
Copy
Spring
Fall50%
50%
12
530 East Main Street Suite 301 - Aspen, CO 81611
970 920 5191 office - 970 379-8654 cell
pitkincountyrivers.com
MEETING DATE: March 16, 2023 TO: Healthy Rivers Board FROM: Lisa Tasker and Lisa Macdonald CC: John Ely and Laura Makar
AGENDA ITEM: Staff Report A summary of projects and work is provided below. Administrative: By-law amendments will be formally adopted at the April 11 and 26th regular BOCC meetings. Staff is working with the Back 40 Stories team on standard sign designs and has met with fabricator to work on signage for the Whitewater Park. Cost estimated will be provided within a few weeks.
Projects and Infrastructure: Fisherman’s Park improvements Panels were delivered, and we are still waiting on boulder steps that have been ordered. Construction completion is estimated to be wrapped up in the next few months. Beaver and Cutthroat Project with the USFS The BOCC approved authorization of the fund on Feb 22. The Collection Agreement has been fully executed. Funds will be distributed upon receipt of an invoice from the USFS. Staff and others continue to seek housing opportunities for the interns. Wild and Scenic Efforts Ms. Jacober presented a slide show to the Town of Marble Trustees on March 2 at the Community Center in Marble as a representative of the Crystal Wild and Scenic Coalition. Staff attended and it was well received. Crystal River Restoration Project – Town of Carbondale Partnership on Project The Town received one bid for the project. A company out of Utah will perform the work, Redoubt Restoration. A budget supplemental was in front of the BOCC at a work session on March 7th. The BOCC heard the budget supplemental formally on March 8th and will adopt it on March 22nd. A site visit for the BOCC has been arranged for March 20th.
13
530 East Main Street Suite 301 - Aspen, CO 81611
970 920 5191 office - 970 379-8654 cell
pitkincountyrivers.com
Outreach/Education/Grants
Staff continues to work with the Comms Team regarding the Board’s request to expand our radio presence on KDNK and KMTS. Contracts and invoicing have occurred.
Beaver Education Campaign was approved at the February meeting. Social media and other avenues discussed in February are moving forward.
Spring grant application are due March 31st
Scholarship sub-committee met March 9th to review and choose successful applicants. Twenty scholarships were received. In total- 2 from AHS, 10 BHS and 8 RF. They are on the agenda today to bring updates and ideas discussed at that meeting to the board.
Education and Training 2023:
Colorado Water Congress Winter Conference end of January - Huber, Makar, Neff and Tasker
Colorado Water Congress water sessions Monday mornings when in session - Tasker/Makar
Stream Restoration Bill- Colorado Water Congress Subcommittee, two virtual meetings – Tasker
Audubon/DNR- two sponsored webinars supporting Stream Restoration Bill efforts - Tasker
Watershed Collaborative Meetings- MacDonald/Tasker; board members Huber, Jochems, Neff, Ogilby
UPCOMING- Watershed Collaborative Summit, May 11th Third St Center Carbondale, more info to follow
Roaring Fork Wildfire Collaborative – Tasker, staff when possible
Colorado Basin Roundtable Meetings every 2 months- Tasker
Crystal Wild and Scenic Coalition Core Group meetings- staff
WECo Webinar: “The Upper Colorado and San Juan rivers endangered fish recovery programs: What's at stake as reauthorization looms?” Tasker
A meeting of entities interested in Healthy Rivers/USFS joint actions supporting beavers, sharing their current or future efforts, and eventual beaver re-introduction met on March 9th in Basalt. Those in attendance were mainly local as well as attendees from the Front Range and Pagosa Springs. They included representation by CPW, USFS, Healthy Rivers, Ecoflight, Sierra Club, The Roaring Fork Biodiversity Initiative, National Forest Foundation and even a retired teacher. The next meeting is currently being planned for the week of April 3rd.
Lincoln Creek/Grizzly/Ruby Mine stream impact discussions via Zoom with Pitkin, EPA, CPW, USFS, DNR, RFC, Trout Unlimited, Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co; next one April 6th - Tasker
14