Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/20/2011Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Gina Janett, 493-4677 David Roy, 217-5506 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Steve Balderson, 223-7915 Brian Janonis, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Gina Janett, Vice Chairperson Steve Balderson, Board Members Brian Brown, Brett Bovee, Johannes Gessler, Becky Goldhach, Lori Brunswig, Phil Phelan, and Duncan Eccieston Board Absent StaffPresent Brian Janonis, Kevin Gertig, Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley, Marsha Hilmes Robinson, Lisa Voytko, Cliff Hoelscher, Carrie Daggett, Dennis Bode, Robin Pierce, Lindsay Kuntz, Jenny Lopez-Filkins, and Susan Smolnik Guests Chandler Peter, Army Corps of Engineers; Gary Wockner Meeting Convened Chairperson Janelt called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Introduction of New Board Members Lori Brunswig and Rebecca Goldbach were introduced as new Water Board members. Ms. Brunswig, Ms. Goldbach and current Board members shared some background information about themselves and their interests in serving on the Board. Public Comment None Minutes of December 6, 2010, Meeting Vice Chairperson Balderson moved to approve the minutes from the December 6, 2010, meeting. Board Member Gessler seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Army Corps of Engineers Briefing (Presentation available on request) Project Manager Chandler Peter, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), reviewed key milestones related to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), contributing factors to delays associated with the Halligan project, and steps which led to development of a common technical platform with the Northern Integrated Supply Project (N ISP). Water Board Minutes January 20, 2011 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, January 20, 2011 • The Corps’ regulatory permitting process is inherently slow. • Colorado water law has resulted in a lot of sophistication in the amount of information issues are reviewed against. • Hydrology modeling has a large impact on the process. The Corps is still reviewing the modeling to catch any misrepresentations of basin conditions and activity. • Three water supply projects in the same area, all with municipal and agricultural uses, add complexity to the issues that must be considered. • The degree of organized opposition and controversy has heightened awareness of the need for careful analysis on the Corps’ part. Board discussion: • A question i’as asked about the Common Thchnical Platfirin. Baseline data and methodologies for all three projects are the same. • Can instream flows fir ecosystem restoration in the North Fork and the Main Stem of the Cache la Poudre River be considered, along wit/i the other purposes of the project? Mr. Peter responded that the City did not go with a multi-purpose project. • A question was asked about wildlift habitat. Fish and Wildlife Services designated specific areas for critical wildlife habitat. It impacts both Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs, depending on the design of each reservoir. The Corps currently needs the modeling output to run specific assessments, such as geomorphology, and fish and wildlife. The size of water needed has decreased since the Tn- Districts withdrew from the project. A lot of work will be accomplished this year, leading up to the release of draft reports to applicants around March 2012. Many unpredictable factors may arise that can impact the timing. Agencies are given a deadline for comments/feedback to the Draft EIS. • Among all ojthe environmental and socio-econoinicfictors to conside,; how is the decision made? The Corps has specific regulations as to how certain things can be weighed. Mitigation can also be added at the Commander’s discretion. Mr. Chandler noted Section 404(b)( 1) of the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa. gov/owow/wetlands/pd f/4OcfrPart23O.pdf • What about the Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead agency, and the Corps has a co-operative role. The Corps looked at BLM analysis between Moffett Tunnel and WGFP projects for west slope issues. The Corps has not completed the water quality analysis. If an interconnecting pipeline is built, the Corps would look at the cumulative effect of WGFP on Horsetooth Reservoir since it is part of Fort Collins’ water supply. Analysis will he done this summer. It’s uncertain when BLM will release the WGFP EIS. Greeley and Fort Collins are on the leading edge of trying to modify the Corps’ process with the pilot of Shared Vision Planning. The process ran parallel to the EIS and did not utilize what the Corps is using for the EIS or have an impact on the Corps’ schedule. Water Board Minutes January 20, 2011 Sale of Oxbow Levee Remnant Parcel (Presentation available on request) Water Planning and Development Manager Ken Sampley brought this topic to the Board for recommendation to Council. In 2006, the City constructed the Oxbow Levee on the Cache Ia Poudre River to reduce flooding risk and damages to the Buckingharn neighborhood north and east of the river. The Oxbow Levee is adjacent to Linden Street between Linden and Lincoln Avenues. A small remnant parcel of the levee is no longer needed for flood control purposes, and the adjacent property owner, PS Poudre River. LLC. has expressed interest in purchasing this small remnant parcel from the City. Board discussion. • Can l,roperly be dei’eloped without this piece? It is not needed for the levee or by any entity of the City. The remnant parcel is a quarter of an acre in size and has very little value due to its location in the lloodplain. • Would it be useful for a future riverbank restoration project? The parcel is isolated and located on the wrong side of the levee. Lindsay Kuntz, real estate specialist with the City’s Real Estate Services, noted that values from past appraisals done by the City’s Real Estate office were used to calculate the value of this remnant parcel. The parcel is undevelopable by itself and located in the 500-year floodplain. It’s mapped in the moderate risk area due to the nature of the risk. • Can the parcel he developed? Floodplain Administrator Marsha Hilmes-Rohinson responded that no critical facilities regulation would pertain to it, hut the Corps has placed extra restrictions in this unique area of floodplain due to its location by a levee. • A Board member feels the City should receive/air market value fir the parcel. The potential buyer wouldn’t be buying it in isolation. From historical experience, if it were put on the open market, there would be no interest beyond that shown by this developer. There is no access to the parcel, and it is too small. • Depending on how it was developed, if the levee failed, would it be the City’s responsibility? There would he no liability to the City. • Appraisals look at comparable properties. Ms. Kuntz verified that their office looked at comparable properties and pulled from other files of actual appraisals on remnant parcels. The cost of an appraisal would he approximately $1,000. Sale of the parcel would convey the maintenance costs of sending City staff to maintain it. Motion: Vice Chairperson Balderson moved that the Water Board recommend to Council that they approve the sale of the Oxbow Levee parcel to the adjacent property owner. Board Member Phelan seconded the motion. There was no further discussion on the motion. Water Board Minutes 3 January 20, 2011 Vote on the motion: 7 for, 3 against. Reasons for nay votes: Board Member Eccieston: An independent assessment should be done on the parcel. Board Member Waskom: Citizens are not getting any return on their dollar. Board Member Boyce: He is concerned about the price. Fluoride Update Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Kevin Gertig reported on recent media coverage from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) with a proposal to lower fluoridation to .7mg per liter. The City of Fort Collins reports to CDPHE as our regulatory body, and we receive our fluoride recommendations from them. Based on the current recommended standards for fluoridation in drinking water, the City treats to the optimum level of 1 .0mg per liter. Until CDPHE has adequate time to stLldy the new proposed levels, is not ready to advise that cities lower their treatment level. The City will make that decision when CDPHE’s recommendation is released this spring. Staff will notify the Water Board at that time. Mr. Gertig referred to City Code 25.50, which is the directive to fluoridate the city’s water supply. Board discussion: Is this change being made in response to health concerns or has it been determined that there is no need/br that level offluoridation to see the benefit? The Department of Health and Human Services studied the data and determined the prior recommended level of 1.0mg per liter can be reduced. In the 2003 cross-sectional fluoride study in the City, it was difficult to find data. What is involved in making a Code change? Can this Board make a recommendation to Council? An agenda item could be initiated by City staff or a citizen group, and a Code change would be made by ordinance. Have we heard from citizens on this latest development yet? Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis noted a few citizens who primarily favor eliminating fluoride have been in touch with staff. Floodplain Regulations (Presentation available on request) Chairperson Janett noted the Board recommended Option 2 to allow flO new additions or structures in the 100-year floodplain at the August 19, 2010, meeting. Recently, staff has worked to develop a fourth, “no adverse impact” (NAI), option. Water Engineering and Field Services Manager Jon Haukaas noted staff took the NAT option to Council, who asked where this option is being used in industry. Solutions are more difficult on the Poudre River, and there are no feasible or cost-effective construction projects to mitigate flood damage. Risk must he managed by managing the floodplain. Fill can be added to allow development that creates a wider flood fringe and may cause some structures currently outside the floodplain to he in the flood fringe without the knowledge of affected property owners until new mapping is done. Water Board Minutes 4 January 20, 2011 Mr. Sampley and Ms. Hilmes-Rohinson reviewed the four options with the Board. Option 1: The Poudre River floodplain regulations are revised to adopt a 0. 1 foot rise floodway; or Option 2: No structures in the 100-year floodplain (non-residential structures are possible with variance/no adverse impact analysis); or Option 3: No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative); or Additional Option 4: Allow all non-residential development that meets the standards of No Adverse Impact (NAI). A basic principle of No Adverse Impact is to make certain that one property owner cannot adversely impact another property owner. Staff is working on implementation for this option. Current regulations are very prescriptive. Part of the NAT process is for the applicant to first analyze their impact. Staff will develop very specific criteria to govern no increase in base flood elevation, velocities, erosion or sedimentation, and flood damage, as well as life safety (difficult to quantify), involving a very different thought process. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson explained the steps in a preliminary draft of an NAT Review and Approval Process. This is modeled on what Planning and Zoning uses and makes use of a Hearing Officer. Staff would obtain the technical expertise involved yet eliminate the conflict of interest by using Larimer County resources with no competing interests. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is a FEMA pre-approval process used when working in the floodway or changing the floodplain boundaries. The City will also have to go through this process for their projects, such as trails. Standards will be written as to which items follow the administrative route and which would go before a Hearing Officer (Chapter 10 of City Code). New mandates are coming down from the State which will contain velocity information. The design process will he very iterative. Mr. Hilmes-Robinson demonstrated the conveyance shadow concept. At the January 11 Work Session, Council directed staff to do additional outreach prior to the February 15 Regular Meeting. Staff will go through a variety of Boards and public events. Board discussion: Is staff using best practices to leierage this strategy? NAI research was done by Floodplain Administrator Brian Varrella, and he discovered about 70 techniques. Is the technology doable? Yes. Not all properties will he able to show No Adverse Impact, and that will be the challenge. There are properties in the North College area in the floodway that none of these concepts can help. A Board member noted reading about a difj’rent kind otNo Adverse Impact — not ahloH’imlg an structural changes in the floodplain. Mr. Sampley noted the ability to show no change to Water Board Minutes 5 January 20, 2011 velocities, base hood elevation, etc. is essentially No Adverse Impact. There will he other criteria, br example, wetlands preservation, that the applicant will have to fulfill through other City requirements. Is fill allowed in a buflr? Staff does not know all the details and allowable mitigation at this i me. Is this a slice between Options I and 2? Staff is not changing the delineation of the floodway — same half-foot floodway and floodplain considerations are maintained. We can model and say No Adverse Impacts apply, but is there soinetlung “real 4’orld” we can apply to it 20 years later? Where do you measure velocity? It can be made very restrictive or much less restrictive, depending on single average velocity versus set point velocity. Staff noted HEC-2 (Hydrologic Engineering Center) modeling is still being used for the Poudre River. The state and federal government use an NAI approach to mitigate any impacts to their projects, and staff will look at best practices. If Board members have specific suggestions, please e-mail stall. The velocity that connects to the fill is going to increase substantially, so the area izeecls to be protected. Judgment will have to be applied to this concept, as well as the practical application. Would this approach cause constant reniapping? A request is currently in to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to remap, as much of our data is outdated. Staff will know up front how the project changes the map, so the map stays more updated. The Association of State Floodplain Managers has brought forward the NAT concept. Other views would constitute no development in the floodplain. Under current regulations, a commercial structure can be built in the 100-year floodplain. The rules only cause them to protect their structure, and are not required to protect those around them who may be adversely impacted by their change. This is a vast improvement. A Board member will be curious to know what landowners have to say on the elements of No Adverse Impact. Consultants will be with staff to explain it at the public outreach events. Staff has not developed a full City recommendation yet and will return to the Board with updates. The problem of’cumulative negative effect is a strong point/or Option 4. Our current regulations are an allowable rise, and multiple projects can have a cumulative effect. This provides opportunity for developers to he creative. This is a more complicated process, and developers may wish for it to he more prescriptive, but if so, it would he more stringent. Water Board Minutes 6 January 20, 2011 Motion: Board Member Gessler moved the Water Board supports Option 4, No Adverse Impact. Board Member Bovee seconded the motion. A friendly amendment was suggested by Board Member Eccleston to add “supports the concept. Board Members Gessler and Boyce accepted the friendly amendment. Amended Motion: Board Member Gessler moved the Water Board supports the concept of Option 4, No Adverse Impact. Board Member Boyce seconded the motion. I)iscussion on the i7iOtiO1i. Board Member Boyce noted Option 2 still provides the ability to put money into the project, develop the site, and obtain a variance whereas Option 4 is trying to put structure to the process. Staff noted most development will focus around a structure. Option 4 takes it to the next level and speaks to the entire development. Chairperson Janett doesn’t feel we will ever get there, politically and economically, to restrict structures in the floodplain. Protection is key, and with where we are today with the current regulation, No Adverse Impact moves us toward more safety. She will support the motion. Vote on the motion: 6 for, 3 against. Reasons for nay votes: Board Member Brunswig voted against the motion, because allowing these options is much more costly for the City. A prescriptive approach of allowing no development in the floodplain is fair across the Board, is perfectly clear, and eliminates the vast amount of time and money the City spends in the iterative process. Board Members Brown and Waskorn voted against the motion, because it is schedule-driven. They still support Option 2. Committee Reports Engineering Committee (Vice Chairperson Balderson): Water Conservation Committee (Board Member Phelan): Legislative, Finance and Liaison Committee (Board Member Pillard): Instream Flow Conzmiuee (Board Member Wockner): Water Supply Committee (Board Member Gessler): Committee membership was discussed. Board Members Brunswig and Goidhach would like to serve on the Legislative, Finance and Liaison Committee. Board Member Boyce would like to serve on the Water Supply and Instream Flow Committees, and Board Member Go]dhach would also like to serve on there. Board Member Phelan noted the Conservation and Public Education Committee will meet the third Wednesday of the month after 5 p.m., and he will set the schedule for the next six months soon. Staff Reports Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode provided the Treated Water Monthly Summary and Snotel Report. Water Board Minutes 7 January 20, 2011 Other Business A community dialogue on the Poudre River is scheduled for February 3. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Submitted by Robin Pierce, Utilities Administrative Services Supervisor Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board on 1 7 , 2011 Signed: Board Secretary Date Water Board Minutes 8 January 20, 2011