As fracking technology has enabled oil and gas companies increasingly to drill near communities, tensions involving industry, community advocates, state regulators, and local governments have escalated on Colorado’s Front Range. While local governments in western Colorado have had to find ways to address local concerns about the impacts of oil and gas drilling for years, the debate has reached a new level as production has moved to the populated cities on the east side of the Rockies.

Among the strategies used by local governments to address the impacts of oil and gas development are Memoranda of Agreement (MOUs) with operators to define how, and under what conditions, local development may occur. While the use of MOUs has drawn some mixed reactions from stakeholders regarding their efficacy, enforceability and transparency, MOUs have been increasingly utilized to address oil and gas concerns at the local level while avoiding lawsuits over the authority of communities to regulate oil and gas development.

What types of MOU provisions and processes have effectively addressed local concerns while reducing polarization over the issues? Which have done so less successfully? What have been the most significant challenges or barriers to the use of MOUs in this context? What are the greatest opportunities for using MOUs to build broadly supported outcomes? These are among the questions CDR is asking, along with the Intermountain Oil and Gas Best Management Practices (BMP) Project, originally a project of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment at the University of Colorado Law School. With grants from the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, Colorado Energy Office and others, the project will result in a searchable repository of Colorado oil and gas MOUs and the best management practices they contain, as well as a stakeholder assessment regarding the use of MOUs in Colorado.

For more information, please contact Ryan Golten or visit our energy practice page.

Legal conflicts over water often involve multiple stakeholders with varying levels of technical knowledge and political power along with passionately-felt values, needs and fears. Positions can be entrenched and degrees of trust are often low. How can attorneys encourage parties to work collaboratively in this type of environment? What do parties need in order to engage in a collaborative process, outside of litigation? What contributes to building a credible, productive problem-solving process and ensuring key stakeholders are at the table?

CDR’s Ryan Golten was a featured panelist at the American Bar Association’s Water Law Conference in Austin this March to address these questions with an audience of roughly 200 water attorneys. Along with fellow panelist Eric Hecox of South Metro Water Supply Authority, she discussed strategies and approaches for engaging parties in collaborative approaches to multi-party water disputes and transactions. Her discussion and paper included case-study examples to illustrate how to assess the workability of a collaborative approach, structure a credible process, and ensure key stakeholders are involved, along with other strategies to set up a problem-solving process to help ensure a successful, broadly supported outcome.

Click here to read the paper. For more information, please contact Ryan Golten or visit our water practice page.

Building off of years of CDR experience with the Clean Water Act, CDR facilitated meetings regarding program revisions to Michigan’s Section 404 program.

Background

The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 requires permits for discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States. In 48 states, permits are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Michigan is one of two states that have assumed the authority of the 404 permitting program. Michigan’s 404 Program must be consistent with CWA regulations. The EPA is responsible for oversight of the CWA, including assuring state programs, such as Michigan’s, meet the minimum requirements and are not less stringent than the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations.

In 2008, following a program review, the EPA identified inconsistencies between Michigan’s CWA Section 404 program and federal requirements. The EPA published the inconsistencies and required corrective actions in order for Michigan to maintain authority of its CWA Section 404 program. While the State of Michigan addressed many of the required corrective actions through PA 98 it also introduced additional program revisions including changes to the scope of jurisdiction over wetlands and other state waters, new exemptions and permit provisions as well as other program revisions.

The EPA and the Corps will interpret suggested program revisions outlined in PA 98, for consistency with the CWA. Based on the findings, the EPA will decide to approve or disapprove each program revision independently, and determine Michigan’s continued authority over 404 permitting.

Informational Public Meeting and Hearing and Comment Summary

CDR Principal, Jonathan Bartsch, facilitated a public hearing and summarized the public comments regarding the Michigan program revisions. Working in collaboration with EPA Region 5 and headquarters, Bartsch designed and facilitated an informational public hearing attended by over 100 representatives from agricultural, environmental, energy and other sectors.

The comments from the hearing as well as from written submissions were summarized and organized by CDR to provide EPA the ability to respond to the proposed program revisions. A significant divergence of opinion was expressed regarding the proposed program modifications with a wide range of opinions regarding whether or not to support the modifications. Most commenters, both supporting and opposing approval of program revisions, indicated a desire for Michigan to continue with its delegated 404 authority. The preponderance of comments cited the importance of continuing state administration of the 404 Program due to the improved customer service and rapport developed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) with stakeholders, geographic conveniences including  multiple district offices, timely processing of permits, and an understanding of the unique needs and conditions of Michigan environment and economy.

For additional information, contact CDR project leadJonathan Bartsch, Jbartsch@mediate.org

Stay tuned as EPA makes a decision regarding how to proceed with the program revisions to the Clean Water Act 404 provisions in Michigan.

Coaching helps individuals make significant strides in their lives, in areas in which they want to grow, change or overcome challenges. CDR Associates is now providing coaching services as part of our commitment to help organizations increase their effectiveness and productivity. We support thriving work environments by helping individuals and teams tap into their passions, purpose and expertise, and outline how to make their ideal a reality. Our coaching builds individual’s capabilities to take on increased responsibility, leverage skills and maximize impact. It also helps address challenging behaviors or high conflict situations, and facilitates transitions.

Our coaches ask thought-provoking questions to help clients determine their own paths forward. We are deep and strategic listeners who are able to raise patterns or insights that clients may not be able to see when they are steeped in their individual experiences. We help clients set meaningful goals and next steps and serve as an accountability mechanism. While our coaches are not strategic advisors, there are often times in which it is helpful for us to “take off the coach hat” and share our collaboration and conflict resolution expertise.

Laura Sneeringer, CDR Senior Program Manager, is in the midst of obtaining International Coach Federation certification through the Coaches Training Institute. CTI is a recognized leader in the coaching field with a 12-month comprehensive training program. Its Co-Active Model creates a supportive space for clients to deepen and forward their goals. Laura is also trained as a conflict coach and uses these skills regularly within her projects. Contact Laura Sneeringer to set up an introductory session and learn more about coaching. More information on the full spectrum of organizational services CDR provides is available here.

The WGA is working with stakeholders throughout western states to share best practices in species management, promote and elevate the role of states in species conservation efforts, and explore ways to improve the efficacy of the Endangered Species Act. As part of this effort, CDR partnered with the Ruckelshaus Institute and facilitated in-depth breakout sessions at WGA’s Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Initiative in Denver. CDR facilitated sessions on law and policy challenges and opportunities to improve federal, state and local agency coordination. A signature Initiative of WGA Chairman and Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, the Initiative includes four workshops (in Wyoming, Idaho, Denver and Hawaii) with each building upon previous discussions. WGA describes the purpose to “yield recommendations for improvements to state species conservation activities and the ESA, as well as suggest pathways for states to operate as authentic partners in the Act’s implementation.” The Initiative includes a webinar series and will ultimately result in a WGA white paper based on workshop discussions. The WGA Initiative is described in more depth at http://www.westgov.org/initiatives/esa-initiative.

For more information, please contact Ryan Golten or Laura Sneeringer or visit our land practice page.

The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is in the process of updating its 10-Year Wildlife Management Plan, with an emphasis on its urban prairie dog management guidelines. CDR facilitated a workshop among local and state wildlife management agencies and consultant organizations to provide feedback on Fort Collins’ urban prairie dog management approaches and to share best practices and lessons learned.

Urban prairie dog management has become more challenging as increased land development leads to smaller, isolated parcels of land that do not provide the best habitat. When new development is proposed, it can be difficult to relocate prairie dogs due to limited receiving sites, the need to maintain suitable capacity within current colonies, and associated costs. While some residents are proponents of conserving urban prairie dog habitat, others voice frustrating experiences. Prairie dogs can overgraze leading to dust issues and migrate into adjacent properties. Some people have concerns about reducing property values and perceived health concerns.

The workshop was a meaningful information exchange for all participants. The group discussed a wide range of topics such as the costs and benefits of urban prairie dog management and best practices for coordination with private property owners, trapping and relocation, passive relocation, and fumigation. Fort Collins will use the insights from the workshop to refine its management guidelines, which will ultimately be reviewed more broadly through a public process.

For more information, please contact Laura Sneeringer or visit our land practice page.