 here. It's not here yet. Roger Lane. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. First of all, Renee, welcome back. Yeah. I'm excited to be back. You missed us all. I know, I got happy heard. I was like, woo! We're happy to have you back. Excited to be here. Yeah, okay. Let's start with the previous ones for minutes. Any comments or questions about the last meeting's minutes from anybody? Motion to accept. Okay, awesome. Second second. Very good. Yeah, all in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. How about the water's dash before it moves? We'll do that. All right. The flow in the same terrain at Lines this morning was 15 CFS. It's also 15 CFS for the state. The column of St. Rain is Highland number two. And that's a 1881 call. The call on the Mainstown of the South Provider River was approved for a war. The admin of 26302. And that's a priority date of 1922. Ralph Price Reservoir was at an elevation of 6391.6, approximately 14.36 feet. Which is down approximately, that's 14,000 feet. Which is down to part 18, how many feet from full. Union Reservoir was at an elevation of 24 feet or 10,232 feet, which is down to part 20, 2150 feet. And currently the St. Rain base in Storch is at 69%. You know on the top of your head, capacity-wise, like Ralph Price, what percent is it of capacity? I don't know where the top is. It doesn't pop in my head. It's a little under 90%. Because the capacity is 16,197. A little over, probably about 88%. That'd be similar. Similar in how much it's down. Similar in how much it's down. So the union is about just under 13,000. And we were at 10. So union, percentage-wise, is probably down to... Yeah, down to there. So we're, of course, at 20%. Down to 80%. Yeah. And it's because union is just so much flatter and shallower, but it rocks so much cheaper. All right. Well, that's not the scary one. I don't know. Any questions? All right, thanks. I was invited to hear. Any agenda or business? All right, let's get into development activity. Who's going to take that? So there's three specific development activities and only one of which is requiring board action. That's the first one, Boston Sunset Apartments Final Flat. So Boston Station Apartments Final Flat. That's roughly a 12-acre parcel. It's down off kind of in between Boston Street and First Avenue. It happens to include two different annexations. So you have the original town annexation and then also the turkey plant addition annexation. So usually when plants come through, they're all part of one annexation. This particular one is two annexations. So that which was part of the original town annexation because it predated Longmont Water Board. There's no approval on the requirements view on that area. And that which is on the south, which was part of the turkey plant addition. With that annex, there was no historical water rights and there's not been anything satisfied. Therefore, it has three-acre foot per acre. So looked at as a whole, Boston Station Apartments Final Flat has a 26.01 acre foot deficit. And it would be in clients with satisfaction of that deficit. And so what they're looking to put there is I think it's around 12 multi-family buildings with about 367 market rate on our house. Do you have any questions on that one? What's in the room? 367. So just some units are going to have more like 40 or more and there's less than 40, but about 40 per building. And I assume they're doing cash in the room. So I think so. They're entertaining the idea of trying to find some honest work. So let's get there. This particular one might not be satisfied in the later this year, but the group that is developing this develops all over the country. And they specialize in apartments. And so if they can find some non-historic water and hold it until they're ready to satisfy everything, we'll know that they've decided for sure how to assess it. You know, just for my information, we talk about direct flow requirement and storage requirement. We always kind of get that combination between the two in these developments, or some just swing one or the other. So I think I understand your question. So typically, a development when it comes through is annexation. When they bring their historic water, it'll typically satisfy a majority of the direct flow component, that being the two-acre foot berager, and sometimes a little bit of the storage. In this one, in this case, you kind of got the opposite end of the low-spection. You got one part of this that has no further deficits, and the other one's got three-acre feet berager. Where let's just say a typical flat would normally have one or one-and-a-half meter foot berager over the entire flat. So this hybrid here is... So your question is, what do they normally bring in the storage? Usually it satisfies a significant portion of the direct flow, maybe a minority portion of the storage. But with each annexation being unique, it's all over the board. Having done, even having some fully satisfied, we've had some annexation that brought their historic water and when applied, it satisfied the full three-acre foot berager. So really all the way across the board. Any other questions about this proposal? Yeah. Does it really last all year? Is that a gravel fence in the south? Let's just say that again, though. Is there a little gravel fence in the south? It's for the south. That's what it... This is a part of the Dickens Park, south of Boston Avenue. Okay. Do you have any stormwater? I mean, I see that's an outpage. Not a lot. There's a lot of people. Is that the one out there? I would be surprised. Chris, do you have any idea? This is Chris Upper with a couple of words. So there are strange issues with this site, mostly due to the fact that there are sanitary sewer companies that run east to west on the lower side of Boston Avenue, which is interfering with their ability to get stormwater into all this site. The site typically flows from the north to south. Today, it's all over the board. As they try to put on what quality features those types of things, having to get down the running nature of those structures. The answer is about 50 feet. And one of them is 36 inches in a 30-inch pipe. So there are significant pipes to be around. So they're working on holes for the drainage. So does the city not have as-built gaps for that sub-surface infrastructure? Almost there. So they knew that it was there? Yes. Staff has been working on that for quite some time now. OK. So one option that they are looking into is trying to do that part. There's several issues with that. One option is also to go directly east. There are a few by trains. We're about there. Any other comments? I was just going to say it didn't seem like there was any like affordable housing. No more than what's going to be standard requirement. Yeah, I guess. So that was included in the run-down. Right. Usually we've only included it. They're looking for an exceptional above and beyond them. So therefore, this isn't like what we see when we did the one-night across. Yeah, this isn't the same type of thing. And that was because... They went, well, for one, so there was a city, an economic development incentive, and then there was also the affordable housing incentive. What they're proposing here doesn't trigger that. They haven't got to that level. And so that was our last, maybe my last experience with some of this. But that's not necessarily typical. We're back to kind of like your run-in-the-mill development. That's exactly right. Yeah, that's right now with the economics of land prices and building materials. A lot of projects have been planning to build affordable units. I think that can't be the price on the market right now. So we're actually losing the expectation of builders provided over the years right now. Yeah, you know, does that point more to our... Are they given the option to supply money, to build affordable on another site? Is that an option we give them? They can pay the fee in lieu of going to the affordable housing fund. They can donate land. They can build affordable units on another site that is less costly, although I don't know if we've ever had anybody do that. But the fee in lieu is essentially that to pay money. And do we tend to encourage them one way or the other? Is it their option? It was intended to be their option. It has not been rebalanced in a while. It should have been rebalanced after three years when we were in the middle of a pandemic. So I can forget, but I don't think we did that. We were also... Ken Romney was leaving while it was coming on. So I think that would probably come up before the budgeting cycle begins. Okay. Is there a motion on this project? I can't. So this stage we just... What is our proposition? The form of recommendation to City Council on that these are the deficits that you concur with. Just the calculus of it all. So, yeah, I approve. Second? So the other two that were in front of you... Oh, sorry, yeah, that's approved. All in favor? So the other two in front of you are for information that don't be down on this final subdivision lab. The reason this one is for information is it's already in compliance. There's really nothing further to be to act on because this is a roughly native or marginal located in the south of the Kincrat Boulevard. This one is for 96 town homes in the mixed-use area. And I think there's like 16 rows of town homes on this one, but it's in compliance. So that's what happens. It doesn't need your action. The other one that we have is springs on the south flat. The reason this one is in front of you is it's changing age. The requirement age will change. So it's been updated like that. But it was for 10 buildings. I'm going to total with 212. So I'm not used to current that. That's like changing in the area. Is that going to fill up most of that vacant area? It's just west of Walmart, isn't it? That's right. Or south wall, I know it. So there's... This isn't what we're called... Some people would refer to it as a period up there. This is when you exercised out if you left Walmart. There's already some houses or some kind of units that are there. This is behind those. I don't know what that street is. It runs south of Walmart. It's south of that street. Yeah. I don't know. Whatever it is. It doesn't show there. Yeah. So that was just for informational purposes. Any other comments? This is yours also. What's the posting place? Yes. So each year we're required to designate a specific location where the public can go and find coordinating notices. Since we didn't have a meeting in January, we're doing that now. And so the city attorney's office is recommended that we designate the public portal on the city's left gate and left side as the primary location of its official posting place for monthly whiteboard meetings. And the same green... The center of Lottie has the backup location. And so that would be staff's recommendation. And that's what it was last year and we're recommending just continuing with that. So we needed an affirmative action to establish the posting place. Questions or comments? We'll make a motion to accept staff's recommendation. Sure, I'd like a motion to approve the suggested public posting places. Second. All in favor? So that'll be... on this... I mean, we'll see this coming back again. It'll come back next January. Really? Okay. Daniel, you down there? I'm here. Let me ask you a question to the board members. Was everybody able to access these sites to look at managing plan? Yes, it took me a while to figure out but it was in my junk folder. Which it said very clearly. It's in your junk folder. And I'm like, oh, okay, the access portal. Oh, okay. Everybody get through it? My junk folder didn't catch it. So it was like in my real life. Okay, well, it's pretty voluminous as you know, Daniel. How do you want to go about educating us on what... I wanna... So, what I think we have is everybody's had a chance to look at the document but people have been on the water board for various lengths of time and so have had various exposure to this project. That is why I put together this PowerPoint which I'll go through rather quickly. Keeping in mind that I'm talking to people who may know a lot of this already, picked up a lot of this in the document but I kinda wanna set the scene for people who haven't been sitting here since 2019 when this project kicked off because I presented this at the Parks and Rec Advisory Board and it was the same situation. Some people that were brand new to the board didn't have the context that some other people had. So, I acknowledge that there are a lot of slides, there are 40 slides but I divided it up I'll go through it quickly and then we can talk about it and you can ask your question that's how I'd like to handle it. Is there a remote or something I can put through my slides? Can I bring that down? Yeah. No, no. That shouldn't be called a asphalt. It is, yeah. Send that around. That's exactly it. Okay. What did I do? Yeah. Okay, so this again, lots of slides these numbers are a little off because I keep comfortable with this presentation but 40 slides and I try to divide it logically out into the way that the document was presented to you. How did we do this plan? How did we develop this plan? What methods went into collecting the data because there was scientific data visitor use data and public engagement and then we'll talk about some results and then we'll talk about what we recommend. Okay. So first, where is Button Rock? This group knows where Button Rock is. Here it is, it's in the foothills of Lake Walnut. This is the map that you see currently in the kiosk when we go to Button Rock and it gives you a good sense of the preserved boundary there is the white, but then you see that a lot of the surrounding land is other public land. A lot of it is forest service in the south and southeast you see some Boulder County lands and then you've got some private land some residences that access Button Rock is the only preserve that Lomont has in its system. We have open spaces, natural areas, parks, but this is the only preserve. 2,671 acres managed for water storage in the ecology of the surrounding acreage. This has been a four-year process and one important piece is that we developed a purpose statement for Button Rock which we hope to codify and code as this document process is accepted. This is the only slide I actually do want to read to you so here we go. To protect, preserve, restore and sustain Button Rock preserves municipal drinking water storage and supply native ecosystems wildlife habitat and cultural resources and perpetuity to support preserve management and enhance the ecological function of Button Rock preserves natural systems as well as the greater St. Graeme Creek watershed in which it presides and to prescribe areas suitable for passive use in addition to areas closed for resource protection facility protection or public safety. So keep that in mind as we go through the rest because it informs everything else in the document in the presentation. There are a lot of documents that went into this plan including Vision Longmont including City Council's work plan including City Council's 2019 climate emergency the 2018 open space plan the 2019 wildlife management plan all of those are resources that underpin the the forestry stewardship plan for Button Rock they all underpin this plan even though this is the first management plan that we have for Button Rock and this slide is important because it's reminding you that climate change is a driver of biodiversity and biodiversity is one of the solutions to climate change so why are we doing this plan now? Again these are questions to keep in mind as we go through the rest of the presentation how did we develop this plan we worked with a lot of different agencies we had a technical advisory committee so it wasn't just staff working on this alone we worked with Parks and Wildlife, State Forest Service U.S. Forest Service Boulder County left hand watershed center Lions, the town of Lions and then we had various consultants helping us on the collection as well. The public was very involved throughout this process we have had and have a website called Caring for Button Rock where the public could go if they missed a public meeting and see what happened and read other people's comments, make their own comments and then we've come and updated three boards throughout this process the water board the parks and rock creation advisory board and the sustainability board and when we are done that will be five visits to each board and eight visits to city council with interim updates and then our final presentation. This is just a little bit of the timeline like many projects of the city we got a little waylaid by the pandemic so normally we don't take this long on a management plan but here we are okay so some of the methods that went into this plan so we developed goals in the document you'll see ten goals here you'll see three three of the most critical goals and you'll see this upside down triangle the the purpose of Button Rock is to protect the water quality the delivery storage and infrastructure but also conserve the biodiversity of the greater preserve and then also a promise to our residents to keep it open for passive recreation as long as goals one and two are not adversely affected so this is just a kind of visual for that. Scientific data collection hydrology was done in these categories here hydrology was done in these categories here other baseline data scientific data collected roads and trails so mapping science inventory was a complete cultural resource documentation was done and infrastructure was looked at throughout the preserve and then we looked at visitor use the visitation rules rules haven't been significantly updated at our preserve since the 1990s but things have changed a lot at the preserve since the 1990s so we took a look at that sapping and then impacts of the different types of recreation that are allowed at Button Rock another type of method that we used on this project was literature review this is an excerpt of the literature that we reviewed specifically on domestic dogs domestic dogs and nature areas and then part four so now we're getting into results and first I'm going to talk about the results we found in the visitor use category and then I'm going to get into we engage the public what did we learn from the public engagement and what were some of the comments and so first of all here's a timeline I made for people who haven't been here this whole time this four years that this has been going on so in the 80s and 90s the city of Longbad developed a formal trail system because we were starting to see higher recreational use at Button Rock and so in the trails and then in the early 1990s the way we handled allowing passive recreation at the preserve is over time we slowly added more uses so for example rock climbing came in and then maybe fishing and then maybe dog walking was allowed so it wasn't we opened in 1965 and everything happened all at the same time it was kind of an iterative thing that came about and then in 2011 we saw kind of a jump in visitor numbers we'll look at that in the future slide flood happened in 2013 and these are the words of our former Wondershed Ranger at Button Rock, Jamie Freel, social media advertising the preserve that just it was something significant that he noticed that although it's not advertised everywhere everybody was learning about the preserve of social media in 2018 the staff came to Waterboarding Council and proposed changes to the domestic dog policy at Button Rock preserve at the time nothing was changed but then with what was being proposed in terms of dog leashing but then in 2019 that was a bit of a catalyst to this management plan process being kicked off and when we kicked it off and introduced it to council, city council then put in place the interim visitation policy that we currently have which is if you visit Button Rock with a dog there's one dog per person on the leash with the dog pickup and that's what's been in place since 2019 first with educational enforcement for a time and then after that just straight Ranger enforcement and now here we are in 2023 we're down there at the second to the bottom presenting the draft plan to the boards and then next month we'll be presenting it to city council so you are the third of three boards so now back to some of the visitor use results this is what you see in the left box there is a mixture of what we found from the public survey so we surveyed demographics each time we surveyed three out of four surveys we looked at demographics and we found that roughly 65 to 74% of the people that visit to preserve our long lines of code and then here on the right you see visitor numbers over time and these are all Ranger qualitative estimates of visitors until you get to 2018 then we started using automated counters and that's when we also started taking data in on cars as well so cars suddenly show up there in 2018 2022 something went wrong with our counters so we don't have good full year data for that so it's not shown here and then the upper left is just the graphic of what that looks like the cars are there in orange okay so now we're getting into public engagement some of the results of our surveys so in this first survey there are four surveys 426 people participated 45% of people bring a dog most people come to the preserve to hike and most people visit multiple times per year in survey two 67% bring one to two people so 983 people responded to this survey 60% would still visit the preserve if there were a fee 70% would understand that it is Longmont's primary source of drinking water 82% agree that prescribed fire is an important management tool 81% prefer to encounter fewer than 25 people and then in the comments the majority of comments were saying if we were to add amenities what do you want and people were saying restrooms in trash or trash cans survey three 831 participants most people disagreed with eliminating the fishing permit something considered during this planning process and then if there were a fee charged most people support a weekend daily vehicle pass and most people agree with a fee during the busy summer months this is the same survey here we saw 131 written comments and those listed there in the middle are the categories that the comments are in most comments were about dogs and hiking and fees and most people would not ride a shuttle but this survey was conducted at the very beginning of the COVID pandemic in April and May so if we were going to think about that further and collect more data we may want to redo that survey just because of the timing that that was done and most people surveyed here a disagree with the no dog recommendations and staff public survey number four focused on code updates to the button rock code so the purpose that we write at the beginning we were recommending that we codify that in the code because there's nothing written about the purpose of the preserve in the code and then these are some of the other recommendations and what you're reading here is that of all the recommendations the public felt fine about all of them except the dog recommendations in general the majority of people said they disagree with a prohibition on dogs and now into the scientific results so the botany and duology I'm not going to get into all this detail but the point of this slide is that what we have is an incredibly diverse preserve in terms of native plants, rare plants native wildlife and across many categories amphibians, bats and other mammals even insects which were observed but not quantitative and it wasn't part of the baseline data but so the botany and duology showed us just what an incredible preserve we have in terms of biodiversity and now looking into the literature and from what we know as professionals in the field that dogs in a preserve and a protected preserve do have an immediate impact on ecosystems and wildlife that simply impacts that dogs have but one particular study that was done in Hall Ranch which is adjacent to Button Rock is something that we highlighted here because it was interesting it shows the effect of dogs whether they're on or off leash and the effect that they have when a person and a dog on or off leash are on a trail on these different species and these are local species all these species that were looked at in Hall Ranch also exist so you can just see the area of influence with dogs are the dotted lines is greater if a person is walking up that trail in their mule deer nearby then their travel path is going to be changed I have a quick question did you say are these dogs leashed or on leashed they looked at both dogs on and off leash this is a combined result okay so this is not Button Rock this is at Hall Ranch this is a study that was done at Hall Ranch in 2008 we worked with river restoration consultants and they collected hydrology data for us so they went and they looked and they mapped out all the drainage basins at Button Rock preserve so all those drainage basins you know draining into the North St. Crane Creek and the Ralph Price Reservoir and the Longmont Reservoir that we have there in the middle of our preserve so this graphic just kind of shows you that it's all connected how long that previous life was that in years and miles years you talking about the dog years and if you like when I put slide numbers on here so we can go back to things so you're looking at impact on either side of the trail so like mule deer are really affected 100 meters on either side of the trail dogs also have we've waste behind and some of it gets picked up and some of it gets half picked up and some of it doesn't get picked up and that has an immediate impact on the water and the soil and the biodiversity of the preserve here are some of the impact recommendations these are recommendations from staff after all this data has been collected and in conjunction with our technical advisory committee of all of those agencies that we worked with to put this plan together Parks and Wildlife, Hulu County Town of Lyons etc so we do recommend implementing a no dog policy at Button Rock Preserve because like I said it's our only preserve and while this data doesn't necessarily show okay we can point to an acute problem and I can give you that this equals this we know that we have significant diversity in our preserve we know we have incredible resources that we're trying to protect so doing nothing staff feels is not is not a good way forward given present day circumstances and visitor use the way it is today also on this slide is just some data from the last couple of years in terms of ranger contacts at the preserve the most significant amount of contacts happened for dog violations dogs out of leash more than one dog in 2021 210 ranger contacts for dog violations in 151 in 2022 also good neighbor not something I've talked about yet but we are adjacent to Boulder County and they all ranch designed their trails so the trail that is connected to Button Rock Preserve that goes back and forth they do not allow bikes on that trail they do allow bikes in the hall ranch but not on that trail because we don't have bikes so they did us that they worked with us on that planning effort to make sure that worked for us and since we allow dogs we do sometimes have dogs going into hall ranch so they in the intervening years put up signs at the various forest border places to say you're entering hall ranch there's a dog prohibition here something that we heard something that I have heard is that there aren't a lot of other places to take your dog and so this is just some of the other places that you can take your dog if you're never in the beginning we're surrounded by U.S. Forest Service land at the preserve and U.S. Forest Service allows dogs in most places and then you know City of Long Island has lots of places we have another two that have a six hundred acre preserve but we've got another 2400 acres of parks and open spaces and natural areas where dogs are allowed and we've got six dog parks that don't feed our community here and another recommendation that is coming out of this plan is dividing the preserve into management zones now that we have all this really important botany and duology data it's kind of clear how the preserve could be divided into management zones so you can see up here in the upper left with the checkered that would be a seasonal closure for elk but you know the rest of the year when it's not seasonally close for elk it would be part of zone 3 natural areas this is a habitat conservation area there are quite a few important resources and so keeping this area close for biodiversity protection is a recommendation so management zones and then a lot of management actions came out of this plan as we saw it's got to be end there some of those tables at the end of the document and then we recommended a level of importance and a timeline for these long-term or something that would be ongoing and then they're divided into the categories you saw in the plan so for example we do have water sampling points that are going on up there we want to continue to collect that data it's going to be more useful in the mid-term which is five years plus as we get more years of data in a row this is a very important piece of data that we want to continue to collect and work with water quality lab on other do you want me to go back I have one plan to add raw water supply do you know what you said about that so do you recall in the document we showed a figure of just the research that has been done on the expansion of Ralph Price reservoir in the future it's something that's off in the distant future but we did look at what it would look like what would the footprint look like and so now we can see it in terms of where we've put our management zones and where that would be in terms of existing infrastructure trails and things like that expansion it would be an extension it would allow button rock to be a place where we could have increased capacity for storage almost these are just the other categories that we put things in terms of the timeline and priority list and code updates we want the button rock section of code to stand on its own we want people to be able to go there and all the rules and regulations that applied to button rock and we want them to be updated to align with the present day uses that we're seeing at button rock and here in the corner I've started to populate this box with the results that we're seeing from our three boards so Parks and Rec Advisory Board voted 5-1 to accept this plan and to recommend it to council and this is the end I've got this dog thing seems to be pretty controversial Boulder County allowed dogs in any of their areas they allowed dogs in most of their areas actually they don't allow dogs at I believe it's called Dodd Lake Caribou Ranch Hall and Heil Ranch so in 2006 after doing seven years of work and study they proposed and then adopted a dog moratorium at Hall and Heil Ranch and so those are the four places that just no dogs are allowed leash dogs are allowed at some places Hall, sorry not Hall, but some places are split where you have to have dogs can be on certain trails dogs can be on leash on certain trails I don't really know all the details I really know where they have a dog moratorium and the Forest Service what's there? The Forest Service and BLM are kind of in one category in terms of how they their philosophy in terms of recreation and where dogs can be and then I would say National Park Service and then there's Fish and Wildlife Service they're in a different category those are in a conservation versus a recreation focus so if you're going to go to Rocky Mountain National Park dogs are allowed in very developed areas parking lots where people are their cars and things like that and that's about it they don't want dogs out on the Alpine Tundra and things like that but Forest Service almost every single trail dogs are allowed Yeah I'm wondering in the places where dogs are allowed versus not allowed outside but not do those do their rules take into account the contribution of watershed? I'm not sure I'm able to answer that one because that's I mean I think it depends right it depends on the organization in which place you're talking about and it is part of the watershed and it's some watersheds like boulders watershed no dogs it's the watershed so boulder takes that into account we're not sure about the Forest Service I would just point out too that the Silver Lake drainage managed by the City of Boulder it's not just no dogs it's no people no recreation no public access at all you're thinking about the area beyond the Rainbow Lakes Trailhead so as Danielle pointed out there's a spectrum of how watershed protection is approached by land management agencies again Danielle pointed out the conservation ethic of the National Park Service they don't allow dogs at all you have the kind of on that end no public access at all in the Silver Lake drainage to you know kind of everywhere in between the USDA Forest Service generally allowing dogs generally allowing dogs off leash however they also have wilderness areas where dogs are required generally to be on leash and they sometimes have buffers for camping and things like that around lakes in their wilderness areas and recreation areas so there's a spectrum across the country in terms of how these resources are managed well I mean I'm just looking at the plan and I kind of hold my most of the comments I guess to the end is I really like that you're prioritizing in the plan that it is water resources preserved not a recreation facility I think that that's something that gets lost a lot of people are like hey I'm going to go recreate and it's like cool but that's not the primary purpose here so thank you for prioritizing that I think that's huge because I think it contextualizes what we're asking for when we do that for you know dog limitations or no dogs or you know it's pretty basic but it ties it in so thank you for that I was also kind of interested to see that the visitor counts are just up like they were nuts in 2020 but so is everything else but they've been you know half that's like for five or ten years now there was a root and then a step up in this fight in 2020 but it's and it hasn't really gone down like it looked like it went down but it went down to the original thing kind of got everybody nervous and I think that's important too in your recommendations did you include a recommendation to charge so we surveyed the public about that I was delighted to see there was public support for it during high high times I was like that's great but we didn't make a recommendation at this time because we feel that we want to further study that we we guide there and you can go into the appendices and really see the question we specifically asked and we really dug in and said like if it's a pass what kind of pass you know on what days and we presented that here but it's not something that we're ready to recommend at this time we think with management zones a dog prohibition and the code updates and you know codifying the purpose and the rest of the code updates for present day that these will be really effective tools but we also acknowledge that this is a adaptive plan right and it's just based on today's best science and so if more science comes in and as we continue to do the studies that we're recommending and further studies and more pointed studies we want to we want to go in and be able to update the plan I I'm gonna harp on the theme just a little while I actually was really keen to see public support for it and I also know that if we're spending staff time I'm gonna talk about people in Longmont who are paying utility bills and you know that sort of thing that's supporting staff time to deal with public and when people outside the community come in and also create a need for that staff time I'm very comfortable asking them to help pay for it you know it's kind of one of those things to pay for what you use and so it's pretty cool I did like you know that there is an element in the plan where it was you know if you have a utility bill you get one rate and if you can't provide a utility bill you get a higher rate and that's kind of one of those things that I was kind of digging that too to your point which is definitely a cycle I appreciate you looking over the plan one of the policies that we surveyed the public about was rescinding the Ralph Price Fishing Permit I'll fill in public disagree with rescinding that but it's something that we research that is a fee that we do have in place for fishing on a Ralph Price during a specified season and we have two fee rates for utility and non-utility customers so just wanted to speak to that so that's already in place well specifically just for fishing correct it has been for some time so that's that's kind of awesome because it's like you're trying it out and I guess part of the reason I also see fee is I can see fee reducing people counts because you know dogs are an issue in terms of dog waste dogs are an issue in terms of wildlife interaction but to be honest with you people are an issue too I mean there's there's ways to bury source of people and then of course my fear from a water resources perspective is fire and you know I know there's no camping fires out there but you know people can't follow the dog rule just fewer people fewer fires it's kind of I mean I put a lot of pictures and I ran into people's fire pits and things like that and that's scary that I mean that's scary the effect of fire on a water shed is just how long do you have it now? I first of all I think I think I think the dog recognition seems to make a lot of sense specifically because you so nicely outlined the hierarchy of priority for the space right so that it is a water preserve first, a biodiversity preserved second, a recreational opportunity is somewhere on the list as well but that we really need to kind of like prioritize those first two things it makes a lot of sense to me that you know dogs are not necessarily the best situation for prioritizing I had a question about the fishing so the issue here is whether or not to rescind the special permit for a state you have to carry the state one no matter what and it's not the issue of like whether to not like a prohibition on fishing the question that was asked to the public was we were seeing especially with our former water shed ranger it was selling the permits and working on the permits you know if the permits if we offered 600 permits and they weren't selling out every year do we need the permits and we asked the public do you think we need the permits and we actually did sell out during the pandemic you know and the public clearly said yes why would you get rid of this you know this is going to control look at recreation why would we take something away and if you take something away like that it's going to be hard to read and see so I'm just curious about I mean there would be two purposes potentially a couple of purposes for the permitting number one of course would be kind of like a quota system making sure that it's not being overused or overfished revenue perhaps is the extra fee and permit system a source of revenue that somehow does something for permit fee amount was set originally not price reservoir was not official it was just a string of help when we opened in the great 1990s not price reservoir fishing or two concerns one is we just get in it's been closed for 30 years there's monster fishing it wasn't but it's okay so there's a concern it would be too much to pressure too many people and then the fishing permit fee was set to cover the cost of administering really yes we do get some money but basically that's what it costs us to check the licenses run the program it really isn't not to Jerry we have we still have a cap on the licenses if you do 600 we originally were 500 we moved it to 600 and then for years, never years we didn't sell it during the pandemic because you didn't know anywhere else there was close now lately if we sell out I think it's probably the season 2021 we came very very close and then it hasn't been as close and it wasn't as close in 2022 I think we around the top of my head I would say high 400s in 2022 2021 was pretty close to selling out and we switched over to online sales which reduced the ranger staff time involved in administering at least the sale for very certain about checking permits both state licenses and city permits and as the pandemic eased we switched back over where we have online sales we also do in person sales and phone sales which is helpful for people who don't have access to the internet or is not currently with how to access the city's recreation website we considered in the late 1990s early 2000s to eliminate the permit system a lot of outreach got the exact same result now we want you to keep selling permits well I mean from this perspective you probably don't want to be out there elbow to elbow with a thousand people making sure that if you are able to get one of the permits of course then you know it will be not as busy as perhaps other businesses you know it's like curiosity do we allow votes I'll contact some people now we do allow people who are fishing in the water in the stream waiting for the process of fishing you can't go out and fish I can't I'm very particular about that is there any it's definitely the most strictly enforced from a regular perspective is the most strictly enforced regulation is the provision on swimming and water contact as well as prohibition on voting the one exception or exception in the municipal code is we do permit if someone were to kayak down the North St. Bering for Maryland's Park to continue in a continuous answering fashion through the reservoir which I understand is more popular prior to the 2013 flood it's extremely professional level and beyond difficulty whitewater upstream of the reservoir so I've been working as a ranger for the city since 2020 I get to see anybody kayak down the North St. Bering and I'm friends with some high level whitewater folks and it seems that it's just not very popular anymore but we do allow for that so people can portage the dams and continue answering they can't put on the water the reservoir except for our trailhead and continue down the street for the parking lot so essentially no voting is allowed Any other comments? I was curious the other board so I think it was a practical decision in terms of emissions we'll go back and we'll see that again I think I'm just curious as to the one on sustainability board the person who dissented did not make any comments so I'm not sure they make any comment the person who dissented on parks and recreation did make some comments and he's he's said that he's heard a lot from public talking to him and saying that it would be a tragedy to not love dogs on button rock and they love having their dogs there and they don't want that taken away so he was really trying to be an advocate for those voices the three that were split so there were two people in parks and recreation advisory board that were kind of in that advocate role for saying that we've heard a lot from the public saying they want their dogs there and they don't want anything to change and then the third person said he has two dogs and what he understands looking at the rules and regulations and the present day circumstances and that the interim rule made sense to him and what he did was he just adapted and it came to putting together the language for their vote they wanted to have that piece in there and about the dog and when it came to that part he voted with the two that were bringing up the public wanting dogs still there did that make sense? how does that vote work then so they accepted the plan but part of the plan is they so they carved out that piece of the plan and they voted on it separately three of them did well I mean six of them did because theoretically it was three, two, three I guess well there was a lot of talk about how does this work and they had a difficult time wording their their quote and so you know if I didn't give a good detailed summary of course the recording is available and you can watch them there they were on the 13th have their discussion if I could maybe characterize it I'll have to characterize it as well they had an earlier vote about the dog and that's there are not three voted for the jury they voted for the jury to come up with the recommendation in that aspect and they considered that obviously two of them voted as they did even though maybe they didn't get a recommendation on that overall they approved the plan with the dog restriction with the dog restriction as they recommended I mean it's not unusual that their purview of course is a kind of recreational purview dogs presumably are a part of that well they didn't debate it that actually okay interesting and not all of them vote that way okay yeah well yeah presumably three of them made some assessment that they all think you weren't part of that I think it's interesting that the sustainability group is a little bit more in favor without the kind of dog standardization I think Water Board has a kind of similar purview let's say it's sustainability I mean it works for a different focus but of course it's more environmentally and kind of and resources focus area yeah just we have to Alice's question um Heather you may know whether it was this person or not there was one person on the sustainability of Water Board who was all regulation wasn't that just interesting you know I'll just tell you my preference rather than us sitting here and debating the dog or no dog I would prefer either you approve the plan or just keep it clean this dog issue is a big issue but you don't approve the plan that would be my preference when we go to vote on this I'm just telling you I don't want to get any big dog debate and out there if you like dogs or don't like dogs you like the plan or don't you so any other comments do you have one more question Ashley so I thought there was a line I thought in the plan that there had been an increase in for example or some more grants could be attached to kind of dog and activity perhaps in the watershed or that show up that you recall it's not something that's the reservoir is too big it's not something that's looked at in particular like that so there's no direct link there's nothing in this that says E. coli has increased so we need to prohibit dogs there's nothing at all like that the question was asked by the public and you might have seen it in a public comment and response either on the website or in the comments in the appendices okay you know PC's cause more than a year it has happened in the Jefferson County watershed where it's been shut down because of E. coli and I did read that in newspaper articles and things with this process but you know my memories it's been a couple of years that is something that occurred and it was because of the E. coli and it but that study was not done that's not part of the data of this plan that has nothing to do with our plan our watershed the result that we're presenting here so I'm not to be confused I was a newspaper article that I read I did not it's not included in this plan I mean I think in general like ruminants and things that don't for example you know herbivores just generally where kind of all happens in counts within their guts and PC's etc dogs of course depends on exactly what we need you know but ultimately they're more omnivorous so you can think of them as yeah so they do want to go because I do know that all life PC's can cause string water they don't okay Daniel thank you for your presentation I guess I will ask is there a motion for anybody to accept this plan for a second move to the second I know yes you can move to the next thank you in making the motion I would like to explain kind of why I'm using it from my perspective I think the healthy watershed is going to be signed first I don't know about the PC's and more but I do think that there's the end of it between wildlife and all these things that's just natural processes so I would support all the recommendations for that at least and respect your recommendations as well because you guys are professional students and I too thank you very much for all the work it goes into any amazing pictures as always okay motion being made in a second I missed it I'm sorry I didn't know the motion in a second motion in a second by one second thank you so that's all in favor all right all right so we don't know who likes dogs or not but we're moving forward but I think I got the message I think it was very important so thanks again for your work on this thank you okay Heather are you doing a just real quickly there were bills that are sort of water related listed in your packet we really haven't been tracking water just like bills but just really isn't much like normal standard CWCB projects bill is in there and longer than any projects on it so it will be passed in a way so we don't have any bills that are passed just actually 45 sessions that's good all right okay monthly water supply updates so at that time of year we might be closer attention to what's going on so we included a packet of different stuff first thing we included is the water supply outlook before coming out beginning of each month so it'll be updated that actually here probably in about a week so we included that what we really look at at that primarily is car and water in the South Platte Basin end of that I included a couple graphs first being the one for the Colorado headwaters and as of today snow water equivalent was about 121% so today we were in about full over 15 inches snow water and the peak is usually about 16 inches that peak is normally hit on an unable 7 so we're we're pretty good we're in good shape for that Colorado and then for the South Platte we're likewise in pretty good shape maybe not quite as good relative to the Colorado headwaters today we were at 107% on the South Platte and so that was representing about 11 inches with the peak in about 15 inches that we might on the 26th of April so usually we hit the peak earlier on this Colorado river then we do the South Platte Basin but both of which are above normal and then lastly I think I included one for the St. Brain Basin and for the St. Brain Basin keep in mind that it really reflects like one snow tell site I'm kind of on page 3600 but the St. Brain Basin today was at 121% of average but we're actually higher today than we would have normally found ourselves at the peak so what we'd like to see is see that peak grow or sustain as time goes on so then that means we're going to get a better runoff and so we'll keep monitoring that and the last thing we included was the U.S. ground monitor for Colorado and I guess what I wanted to that's the following page and what I wanted to kind of highlight there was when we look at last year a year ago on the state 100% of state was in an abnormally dry condition worse this year a little over 50% was in that abnormally dry or worse condition it was about 45% had snow ground so the general message was much better this year than we were last year which we're all thankful for so that doesn't mean a lot of us are colorful which is you're right and that's what we'd like to see on this map so that's kind of where we're at that was the only initial thing I wanted to bring to your attention as I mentioned in the last status report it was favorable yeah we're in good shape but we really are as always looking for those spring storms so it's going to help us with that peak runoff which is going to be really important to have for storage Jason so for engineering updates we're wrapping up the one big one I wanted to bring up to you is we're wrapping up that up and over same drain pipeline alignment study we had to actually try to scale the wind barrier and give you a presentation today but we did want to cut short Daniel's presentation time so we wanted a little more time to study the barrier so we're going to try to bring that to you in the next months so we'll have Shnavel come as well so she did give you a presentation any questions you have so we'll have our consultants and staff answer those questions we wanted to run that through you guys first before we ensure that you see that's the one big uptake that's it alright can you talk about we're still projects still moving forward even though it's pretty cold this winter there were a number of weather days but by and large because they're they're in a rock quarry portion of the project they kept going ahead it's one of the real big time sets the issues basically green rock rock fell down and of course now the tunnel and the tunnel continue on and they're working for both sides both part goes now so that is going well sure part of the project is the Colorado River connectivity channel because you're out there grand the elevation that has shut down for the winter we're hoping to get going in March a little more low snow up there than normal so might delay a lot but we're still still planning on getting back into construction actually as of last fall they had turned the dam and remember they would take half of the reservoir out turned the main dam created the new dam for the Colorado River to not flow and that dam is up high enough to be safe we would like to get it about one to two foot higher so that's why we're anxiously waiting to get back in and start working but we're waiting for a fall over on the last snow and the last thing I wanted to do was my show account today so we've got I don't know if you'd call it a heavyweight coaster it's dangerous to me paperweight or whatever this is actually the core from the hydraulic asphalt core of the dam the first place was October it's about 40 feet long continue on from there I want to let you see I always try myself to say hydraulic asphalt core rather than just asphalt core because when you say asphalt core people think of the street this is the typical asphalt from the street if you look at that core this is the actual asphalt core from the dam hydraulic asphalt is about twice the content of asphalt the regular asphalt you would have on the street so you can visually it's also smaller grain the reason the additional asphalt is to make it more vital and really self eating when you get the weight of the dam on top of the weight of all the weight of the dam even if you say it over an earthquake or something how potentially self yield also makes it much better to water stop of course in the dam it's not anyway let's see what the actual hydraulic asphalt core is you know that solidifies I thought of asphalt dam I thought switchy dam solid soil anyway so they sound like they had backed off to get the winter behind them or the weather behind them or the west here on this side they've been working here unless you like civil engineers do is make sure the weight of the dam course I have a bunch of old dam ports that have been made into a book bookends because my dad said that when they get bored in the mill that's what they do okay that's true yeah you just it's your creative outlet I guess Jeremy Mahler was really a source of I mean we've got all kinds of toys we've got the shovel the groundbreaking golden shovel a jar of rock all kinds of stuff nice mug yeah alright, Narni water rights filing update just wanted to update the water born on two water rights filings you may recall in December of 2021 we came from a water board for a recommendation to file a new water right on the same green creek basically straight north of here now we're on what we call the same green creek filing 20 CFS filing it was really partially in conjunction with the change case of the bonus stitch but it also gives us downstream water to meet downstream obligations and included a water right in the same green creek filing station kind of a downstream water right we filed that in December of 2021 we had four statements of opposition we just settled with Elastoposer so that case now we'll be putting together the final decree to submit the water quote no opposition we should have final decree the next couple two to three months so we're happy with that that was successful the other water right was a change the bonus ditch the bonus ditch diverges out just east of main street on the same green creek out of general irrigates property east of Baltimore east of Costco actually irrigated the property Costco because all the way out of the sandstone ranch irrigates the city we own 56% of that company primarily a lot of Costco we took that into a water court and filed that case in 2020 got a number of opposers what a huge note does is over first time we ever had an opposition from the city a little over but we've now essentially settled with everybody we don't actually have a statement of opposition inside but the ditch company itself we're doing an operations agreement that's done we've indicated everything's fine the president of the company the president who was a Boulder County boy retired and had to take two months off and then we'll be back in two months he's the president of the company so when he gets back which is in March we'll sign and find lockouts on that we'll have that change case submit for the 500 creators we'll also have two major cases for moving Boulder good news no alright can you talk about the major project system I don't have all that west coming so I just wanted to mention we continue to track some of those things we talk today about the water supply I'm sorry upcoming in April we'll be bringing the water supply out of the next month but on the other topics one of the questions was asked last year about remaining historic water rights and water rights deficits and so we kind of worked with our GIS folks and I just wanted to give you a real high level report on that so roughly speaking there's about 4,000 acre feet of outstanding of all like this of that about half would be satisfied through the transfer of historic water rights and so the remainder would be non-historic of that roughly 2,000 we're estimating somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 realistically expected of the of the 2,000 acre feet it would mean to be satisfied either non-historic or cashier or anticipating half to two quarters of that would be satisfied because of the cashier I just wanted to get back to answering your questions that you guys have well I'm not planning area so yeah LPA we were both thinking about what would be the other one okay or maybe you wanted to go out to lunch and have a question while I'm at it you know I had I was looking at the status report the union reservoir and the marketing acquisition program we approved it and the council did too moving along so what's going on there that's that's a so 25 years ago we approved the property around the union reservoir once a year or so we just most recently we last updated this when we purchased the partial property on the west side of the reservoir in the Gullard state there was one more partial on the west side we need to acquire the property negotiating with we believe we'll have that information probably in March or April I guess sorry assuming that that partial is acquired the the work through the expansion is not funded on the property it is what is the comprehensive plan in March it's me you're the source March well I haven't brought out the new one yet for quite a while they're supposed to be working on some new versions to envision and it's there's so many land use zoning conflicts that what they're looking at is is to have bifurcate the code so essentially there's one set of land use and building codes for the old suburban style zoning and one set of land use and building codes for the urban rules I'm not sure what's going to happen with that it's going to be exciting actually because there are a lot of people who have rules to change very good okay I guess there's nothing right of no informational items cash and loo we're looking at that next month right okay part of our packet I don't know what you want to say but copy the letter you have your own recommendation that was an email that was sent out some of you said that information at the time that's just the informational items that were attached in the packet okay so here's this whole issue that just kind of continues to be in a state of flux how we're going to resolve all this it is very much so yes and there's a lot of national politics going on yeah does the consideration of future does the do the national politics and this kind of national discussion about the broader and western issue especially and that impacts us solely through through our investment and CT and then also winged out are there any other there's really no other linkages really between us and that broader discussion there wouldn't be in terms of our meetings yeah and any kind of deficits or adjustments that have to be made with offers from CT do you feel like that's going to get spread evenly amongst the stakeholders or do we somehow have priority because we're getting so early or what are the stipulations in like our association the CBT water pretty well allocated or so or humans if there were if it reduces the amount of water storage allocation and that that's a formal process in place for that it just means that it's shared for a lesser amount of which already every year they adjust that number and so we already have a process in place for that and so theoretically it's just perennially we would be allocated less water for every share such that we are in kind of like dry or drought years today but it just it's that's the new norm where we can't think or think chances are the first thing that would happen is I would suspect the terrible program would be in my name surely there would be no regional pool so water that's in the system would start dripping down strictly to use on a yearly basis for all the lattes probably would be enough but understanding that future climate and future yield are very I don't know again I've said for years Colorado is well behind is well below all that what would have to happen essentially before it would impact us major shift more basing over way over uses it's a lot more basing yeah there are a lot of politics there yeah but yeah so assuming we go to war with California seriously so I'm probably the only person here who doesn't know this but percentage of long runs usage there's CBT water versus there's our native basin water how's that breaking all of our water rights planning and our guiding water principles and everything we've kind of set up our plan is for two thirds native basin water and one third transmission water that's a good mix it diversifies our portfolio allow pressure to us to make sure we use our native basin water first we've actually used our actual use it's probably closer to half and half maybe even a tiny bit more west of just because we have excess supplies of both it's a tiny bit easier to use the west of our water treatment plants so because of that actually use has been a little bit more trans basin long term if all of this you know becomes an issue only one third or longer a future water supply right so of course it stops raining on the eastern slope we're still screaming yes climate that part of it is well it is certainly our junior water rights a lot in the rock storage some of those get more impacted our senior water rights because the first and time person right our senior water rights won't be affected junior water rights will get called out completely any other comments on agendas going forward or sorry say very much in water concerns do you know 566 waste rights um yes that's the point of all our children um say right last hand water concerns is the watershed group um pl 566 is a law that wants to make the water rights right to the natural resources conservation service right the districts anybody else I just one question I don't know if this leads to a presentation from the the projections that there's a lot of work that's done in terms of projections of climate future climate etc what do we use as our base resource for projections on the east slope for changes in hydrology to future climate change so it's actually been a while a while back all of the front-range municipalities went together with the waterworks association research foundation and did what called front-range climate change floodability study and that study we can use the biggest names in the climate industry with columns cpcu ccus and a number of the other two prepared a report to look at the future climate we then used those numbers as input to our own future water demand evaluation and out of that we came up with water rights in the same way which water rights helped find out a tree that hurts us and that's how we came up with a number of future water impact or a future water availability based on climate so does that include then future water supply in other words so you said future water demand but included in this assessment then is how much supply we looked at both what's hotter drier climate increase so we look at the increase in usage of demand and then how does it impact our lower supply we look at how it would impact different water rights and how much really increase demand a little bit decrease supply a little bit that's the impact we modeled that as a variability future water demand variability is that public view available we would be happy to come back sometime with a presentation on that I guess it's fresh at some point it looks like we are able to find something interesting to see it's not necessary to do that one question before we go I've got I was looking over some information on our water board annual report do we do that annual are you working on it it will be coming to you next month it's one of your charges one of your requirements is to produce that to one city council okay is there a motion to adjourn so many I'll get it to you thank you all in favor all in favor