CONCEPTS FOR BASIN EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION

CONCEPTS FOR BASIN EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION The following will be used to evaluate a project submitted to the Southwestern Colorado Basin Roundtable: Required: A. Projects must be submitted on an application form used by the State IBCC and CWCB. All applicable sections must be completed. B. Projects must address the values encompassed by the SW Basin Bylaws, especially the following goals and objectives: Seek the involvement of all interested parties and stakeholders. Propose methods or projects, both structural and non-structural, for meeting any future needs as well as utilizing any unappropriated waters. Promote the protection, conservation, and use of water in the Southwestern Colorado Roundtable area. Promote the socio-economic sustainability of the Southwestern Colorado Roundtable area. Promote the protection and conservation of the natural environment, including the protection of open space. C. Provide the financial details of the plan, including cost sharing and other possible funding sources. Give a financial overview and rough timeline for completion of the project. To assist the Southwest Roundtable in determining whether and to what extent a proposed project meets the values set forth in the Bylaws, the following questions should be addressed separately as can reasonably be answered by the applicant. 1. What benefit(s) does the project provide? Are there multiple purposes? Note: this does not mean that a single purpose project would be rejected, but for major funding requests, addressing multiple use needs would be an advantage. There are hundreds of potential mine spills that could happen in Colorado ~ 230 to be exact (source Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_28647978/colorado-faces-230-minesleaking-heavy-metals-into). The lessons learned from the Gold King Mine incident, including how our communities responded, serve as an important point of learning and planning for the future of all water users. It is hoped that through education, the forum itself, and attaining better watershed data, that understanding the impacts will occur as January 4, 2016 Page 1

well as helping the public better understand the consequences and state of the Animas River water quality. As of October of 2014, over $14,500,000 was spent on the Gold King Mine blow out (source: San Juan Basin Health Department, a member of the Incident Command Team). The event brought unwanted attention from across the world to our Southwestern Colorado River to the tune of 19,000,000 media hits. If a community were to pay for such advertising, the cost would be $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 according to the Durango Area Tourism Office. In light of this unanticipated event, the ARCF s aims to benefit the two counties involved and the citizens and entities therein, but also to help a diversity of interests from across the region, the State and the Rocky Mountain West. Additionally, the spill really highlighted the need to connect the different water users through more robust networks and communication streams. The impacts to ditches and agricultural users that were slow or unable to close their ditches were directly impacted. Fisheries, aquatic life, and recreation were impacted through toxic exposure and closure of the river, but also through slower chronic exposure over time. The first results on some of the longer term effects- such as storm surges moving sediment and accumulation of metals in fish tissue and macroinvertebrates- show that we may see impacts at some level for an unknown period of time in the future. 2. Outline the steps needed for completion of the project. What permit issues must be overcome? How will funds acquired in this process be used to accomplish the final goal? There are no permits required to complete this project. The ARCF is seeking funding from a variety of sources, including the SWBR, to fund a coordinator position and costs associated with the deliverables. It should be noted that our local governments, nonprofits and health departments (two are involved) did not allocate any resources to deal with the Gold King Mine spill because, of course, it was an unplanned-for accident. So, there is not an entity that has any dedicated funding or the capacity for the ARCF s mission. The (MSI) is playing a leadership role in submitting this grant and will work with ARCF to raise the match as soon as possible. They will do this by seeking matching funds via ARCF partners and seeking a grant from the Southwestern Water Conservation District and other potential partners (to be determined). At its one-year anniversary in August 2016, the group is going to assess its future but will have a body of knowledge and work that can be readily shared with all who are interested. 3. For prioritization of different proposals and assessment of the merits of the plan, can this project be physically built with this funding. Are further studies needed before actual construction is commenced(if the project anticipates construction)? Will these studies or additional steps delay the completion of the project substantially? January 4, 2016 Page 2

4. How does the proposal envision and anticipate support from its beneficiaries or from other sources in addition to the funding requested here? Would a loan reasonably address the needs of the applicant or, with a grant, should a recommendation be added to assess the future project status for ability to repay a portion of the grant? The ARCF is seeking a grant not a loan. 5. What is the ability of the sponsor to pay for the project? What actions have been taken to secure local funding? Are there supporting factors which overcome the sponsor s inability to pay? (These could be related to basin water needs and compact considerations). The CWCB already provided $3,000 in funding to hire an interim facilitator/coordinator from August of 2015 to January of 2016 (local consultant Marsha Porter-Norton). This funding enabled the group to continue to meet after Senator Roberts first started the group; to set priorities for action and communication; and put a structure in place. There have been many in-kind donations to date (see the narrative of the grant) including meeting rooms and 25 agencies donating time and snacks for the Nov 1 st River Day. At each meeting, we average 40 participants, which equates to an inkind donation of $1840 per meeting (valued at $23.07/hr independent sector volunteer rate). MSI donated its executive director s time to write the SWBR grant. Animas Watershed Partnership s VISTA Volunteerdonated time to develop a Web site and also helped develop a booklet of all the groups involved in the spill including what they do, their role, contact information, etc. The Animas Watershed Partnership coordinator, Ann Oliver, is heading up the data group. 6. What alternative sources of water or alternative management ideas have you considered? Are there water rights conflicts involving the source of water for the project? If so, please explain. 7. How has public input been solicited and is there local support for the project? Have the beneficiaries solicited funding, letters or other documentation to demonstrate support? After State Senator Ellen Roberts convened the group immediately after the Gold King Mine spill in August, the roster and interest has grown and grown. The process has been transparent as all meetings are open to anyone who identifies as an interested citizen or stakeholder. A Web site (www.animasrivercommunity.org) posts meeting minutes, handouts, announcements, etc. The direct beneficiaries of this project are the citizens of San Juan and La Plata Counties. However, as the grant details, this work and any lessons learned will be shared across the region, with other Coloradoans, downstream New Mexico stakeholders, and Rocky Mountain West communities. January 4, 2016 Page 3

8. Is there opposition to the project? If there is opposition, how have those concerns been addressed? There is no opposition to the ARCF. It took five or six meetings for the group to formalize a purpose statement and it was agreed by a consensus of the group that it would continue; that priories would be identified and worked on; and that the group would assess at the one-year anniversary of the spill if there is a reason to continue meeting. This group does not desire or wish to duplicate the effort of the many groups involved in the Animas already (MSI, Animas Watershed Partnership, Trout Unlimited, Animas River Stakeholders Group,etc., etc., etc). Also, the group does not see itself in any governmental role. Rather, the ARCF is a place where all the water users and sectors involved in the spill can come together including: water rights holders, governments, educators, water managers, ranchers, students, scientists, rafters, emergency responders, nonprofits, elected officials, river and conservation advocates, economic groups and private businesses, and more. These sectors do not normally cross paths and the ARCF is the one place where everyone can get on the same page, share accurate facts, and work on projects that have support. The ARCF works on consensus meaning that actions taken have the support of everyone. Further, the group is not a forum for assessing blame or liability for the Gold King Mine incident. The most obvious conflicts related to the Gold King Mine incident are three fold. First, the question of whether the area should be a Superfund-designated site through the EPA or not has been addressed by Silverton and San Juan County asking to be declared a Superfund site (this occurred outside of the ARCF). Negotiations and discussions about the Superfund issue will continue as questions remain around the configuration of the actual Superfund site; what would actually be done under a Superfund designation; and cost issues related to who pays for what. The ARCF can serve as an important source for sharing information as these complex governmental processes and negotiations unfold. Second, the issue of Good Samaritan legislation came to the forefront after the spill. There are various versions of the Good Sam bill and it remains to be seen whether a true bipartisan bill can be crafted at the Congressional level to all parties benefit and support. The ARCF heard about this at its October meeting and will continue to link with federal elected officials staff, the Animas River Stakeholders Group and those closely involved in the details of crafting Good Sam legislation. Finally, the ARCF is not taking a position on any litigious issues related to the spill. Legal action(s) might be occurring but if so, they are outside of the ARCF. 9. How does the project affect the protection and conservation of the natural environment, including the protection of open space? Some in our communities would call the mine spill an environmental disaster while others would call it a temporary blip in water quality. Some people who live in La Plata County do not wish their children, pets, or animals to be in or near the river. Others believe that while it was a disaster, the long terms effects were negligible in January 4, 2016 Page 4

comparison to the benefits of extractive industries. Regardless of the widely-varying public perceptions, this was an event that effected our environment in the areas of water quality. Thus, the ARCF has identified a need to develop a clear and accurate picture of the health of the watershed using models or resiliency and recovery. The deliverable will be to inventory baseline information both historical (legacy) and current, and to identify priorities for new monitoring (i.e. parameters, locations, timing, etc.). The focus is on monitoring questions (yet to be defined) related to public health, public concerns, and ecosystem resilience. 10. What is the impact of the proposed action on other non-decreed values of the stream or river? Non-decreed values may include things such as non-decreed water rights or uses, recreational uses and soil/land conservation practices. Ditch companies and irrigators lost water rights and some suffered through lack of water for crops, animals, and hatchery fish. The rafting industry, primarily located in Durango, was dramatically impacted by the Gold King Mine spill as it occurred at the height of the summer tourist season. The river was closed for nine day. Layoffs of rafting company employees was common as well as trips being cancelled even after the river was open again. It is hard to gage the long term impact the spill will have on this sector but there were 19,000,000 media hits worldwide. Over 1000 groundwater wells were tested and 10% of those wells did not meet water quality standards; while all of these water issues may not be related to the spill, many now question the quality of their drinking water. Many see the Animas River now as an orange, toxic river. Reversing this public perception will take a lot of creative outreach, education and coordination. 11. How does the project relate to local land use plans? If conflicts exist, how will these be addressed? 12. Identify any intrabasin conflicts and how they will be addressed. There is only one river basin involved in this proposal, the Colorado portion of the Animas River. 13. Identify any interbasin impacts and how any conflicts would be addressed. 14. How does the project support agricultural development or protect the existing agricultural economy? The agriculural economy as well as rural land owners groundwater wells were impacted by the spill. Irrigation water was turned off during the growing season for nine days. The response on the part of water entities, including ditch companies, was to get head January 4, 2016 Page 5

gates and water delivery systems closed as soon as was humanly possible. Some gates were not able to be closed in time and mine sediment was deposited in some of the ditches. One point of learning relates to wells. The San Juan Basin Health Department, the entity in La Plata County that oversees well permits and a member of the Incident Command, has reported much learning has occurred (citing the October 2016 ARCF notes): The EPA has collected 1,489 surface water samples; 1,113 sediment samples and 742 well samples. Of the wells tested, 10% are in exceedance of maximum containment levels (MCLs) in the areas of lead, arsenic, iron and magnesium. Brian reported in some cases, these chemicals could have been in the wells before the mine spill and that it is not possible to tell exactly the sources of the contaminants. Geographically, the wells exceeding MCLs are both near the river and far away from it. The point the SJBHD would like to make is this is an opportunity to educate everyone on their well regarding testing, filtering, treatment, etc. This incident has given us (SJBHD) the opportunity to educate people about their well water quality and the need to address risks, Brian relayed. He also said wells do not have the same standards as what is in place for water quality. Executive Director, Liane Joallan agreed and said this incident has shined a light on a public health issue that the Department is addressing. According to the Durango Herald (11/21/15 article, Financial Claims add up after mine spill): over $1.3 million in claims have been submitted to the EPA to cover direct damages. A quote from the article:.more than 30 individuals and business owners filed Form 95, the claim process for financial reimbursements from economic loss caused by wrongful U.S. government actions. The combined claims total about $1.3 million in damages, but more than half of that is being requested by two property owners. The largest claims were submitted by property owners whose wells were affected by the orange sludge and farmers forced to close irrigation ditches. Seeking the highest to-date amount, a landowner is petitioning for $550,000 to build a new well and cover the cost of the stigma attached to the spill. I am dependent on groundwater to shower/bathe, consume and for my animals to consume, the property owner wrote. My well has been contaminated to the point it is no longer usable. I would like to be compensated for (the stigma) as well as the new well. January 4, 2016 Page 6