HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/15/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A
Time: 6:00–8:30pm
For Reference
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 970-221-6265
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Bartholow, chair Joe Halseth
Kelly McDonnell Jeremy Sueltenfuss
Harry Edwards
Luke Caldwell
Bob Mann
Nancy DuTeau
Staff Present
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
John Stokes, Natural Areas Department Director
Jen Shanahan, Environmental Planner
Bob Overbeck, Councilmember
Guests
Ken Kehmeier, Senior Aquatic Biologist, Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife
David Tweedale, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:00pm
Public Comments: none
Agenda Review: no changes
Approval of Minutes:
Harry moved and Luke seconded a motion to approve the March 2015 NRAB minutes as presented.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 1— Northern Colorado Integrated Supply Project (NISP)
John Stokes, Natural Areas Department Director, briefed the Board on the City’s preparations
regarding the Northern Integrated Supply Project.
There are three large water projects (Glade, Halligan, and NISP) that the Army Corps of Engineers
has decided to group together for collection of baseline data. Staff expects publication of
supplemental DEIS in June and can provide comments to Army Corps of Engineers. There are many
partners in the project. Water quality of Horsetooth is a concern. If delivering from Glade to
1 | Page
Horsetooth it changes the content of TOC in water. Concerned for water treatment and wastewater
treatment as requirements have become stricter for wastewater in the areas of chemical constituents
and water temperature. Impact to habitat is a concern as well. Have to look at cumulative impacts of
activities and developments along the river. Halligan enlargement is undergoing Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) review which is expected to be complete in 2016. There is not much storage in
Fort Collins for a city of this size. Would increase capacity 8100 AF to help carry through drought.
The Corps has selected Glade as a potential alternative to expanding Halligan. Corps may choose to
approve one or two projects, rather than all three. Hard to know what other 15 partners would want
as well. Council work session is May 12: Donnie Dustin will explain the project and there will be a
conversation with Council about staff response. Will prepare comments and provide review to
Council, then submit to Corps. Team of staff and consultants is meeting regularly.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Anticipate same level of effort as 2008?
o Have good team; many of same people as 2008. Ability to comment will be
influenced by whether we receive a better product than in 2008 and how much time
the team has to spend on it. Team will prioritize where to focus efforts. Important
topics: Water quality (treatment is expense), does project affect morphology of river,
flooding conditions, etc.?
• Memo to Council last November said NISP would supply about 5% of Fort Collins. Have
heard larger numbers. How does it relate to build out?
o Small group of people potentially served. Future supply. 3000 AF for Fort Collins
Loveland Water District. A portion is within Fort Collins GMA.
• Water put into Glade was skimming the top off high flows? Or fill up then skim high flows?
o Will take high flows May–July. Can only take water when other rights are not in
front of them in priority (junior right). On average over time, can take water in 4 of
10 years. Will be years when can take very little water. Can take throughout year, but
most in that high flow time frame.
• Evaporation loss throughout year?
o Will have loss. Making reservoir large because have to over-amp storage.
o Low efficiency system. Factored in?
Not sure.
• Public comment period: what is staff’s take on importance of public comment on final
outcome?
o Very important. In 2008 were 1000s of comments from individual citizens, water
districts, municipalities, etc. Made a difference to Corps; they realized needed to start
over.
• Explain how TCE was selected as contaminant.
o Old missile silo off Hwy 14. Cleaned missiles with TCE, so there is remaining plume
in groundwater. If a forebay up and reservoir are put in, the pressure could push
contamination into the river. Northern hired consultant who rebutted concerns.
• Many partners and communities impacted. Lone voice or consistency among partners?
o All partners are water-short. Fort Collins has good portfolio, so not in same boat as
more quickly growing communities. Staff limits comments to impacts on Fort Collins
reach of the river. Not critiquing purpose and need analysis. Depletions of project
2 | Page
will mostly be in Fort Collins. EIS should tell us impacts. Staff helps disclose where
EIS may be right or off track. Up to community and Council what to do with that
info.
AGENDA ITEM 2— Colorado Parks & Wildlife Mitigation Process for Rivers
Ken Kehmeier, Senior Aquatic Biologist for the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife,
provided an overview of the process/flowchart that his agency uses in crafting mitigation
recommendations for water development projects.
State agency is cooperating agency in water projects. State statute puts state in position to mitigate
impacts. NEPA process: 450 day minimum for federal EIS to be completed. Previous draft lacked
cumulative impacts analysis. A common technical platform has been put in place as a result. Parks
and Wildlife looks at habitat and winter range losses/impacts. One NEPA requirement is from the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, stating that it must be determined what mitigation is appropriate
for the project. Previously, participants had no input on mitigation or cost. Water providers came to
legislature with issue of increased project cost. Statute was put in place to put water providers in
position to have say in mitigation. “Reasonable manner” is subjective; economics play a big part.
Water is sometimes worth more than money. Statute says when anyone wants to build with a federal
permit they must go through the process with the Wildlife Commission. The water provider can now
sit with staff to develop a plan for mitigation. There is little ability to say no to a project, but can
mitigate to a reasonable manner for least amount of impact to fish and wildlife. Once public
comment period is over, begin series of meetings to agree on mitigation. Commission must act within
60 days (yes or no), and then plan is given to Colorado Water Conservation Board (additional 60
days). If commission says no and board says yes, then goes to governor. If commission says yes, the
project usually goes forward. If CWCB makes changes, another 60 days are given to come to an
agreement. If the plan is approved by Parks and Wildlife and CWCB then becomes state support of
project. The final plan is submitted to Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. ROD (record of decision)
is the final document from the Corps which sets mitigation and milestones.
The river system was built by historic flows; every time there is a transfer/change of water, it
changes hydrology and hydraulics. Many factors affect biology as well including the channel, flood
plain, geomorphology, physio-chemical, etc. Colorado is currently looking at more water
development than since the early 1900s: Windy Gap, Moffat Firming, Chatfield Reallocation,
Halligan, etc. Examples from Windy Gap of cumulative impacts of mitigation include more water
staying in the river longer, caveats on how Moffat can collect water, releases to protect endangered
species, etc.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Chatfield took 2 years, but commission has short timeline.
o Negotiation of plan happens before official process start date. NISP negotiation starts
in September.
• What opportunities for public to participate in that process?
o Commission takes public comment when plan presented. Would prefer plan available
to public for 30 days before commission reviews. Day 60, when commission takes
action, there is public comment as well. When plan is submitted becomes a public
document. Negotiations are not public.
3 | Page
o City is not a cooperating agency in CIS.
o If City of Fort Collins wanted to come up with own mitigation requirements, how
would that be dealt with?
Through the Corps. Compensatory or other in addition to state mitigation.
State agency does not get into endangered species or wetlands. Federal
agencies take care of these mitigations. If City wanted additional mitigations,
can work through Corps, EPA, and Health Department.
• Who monitors compliance?
o Federal. State monitors own mitigation. Not much ability to enforce. Ask to become
part of ROD, so federal agency can enforce.
• Have adequate staff, time and money?
o No. Two other fishery biologists working on this. Never adequate. Many competing
interests for the river.
• What type of mitigation actions foreseen for Glade?
o Major concern will be water supply year round to river. Minimum stream flow or
channel with water year round for wildlife. Multi-staged channel with access:
concentrates channel to provide habitat. With expansion of Seaman and Glade, put
elk herd on island and will have damage. Cannot have hunters to control population.
Conservation easements to keep migration borders. Recreation on reservoir desired.
Connectivity through system for fish passage; sweeps (diversions that take all water)
should be reconstructed to allow fish bypass and sediment transport. Sedimentation in
channel will become issue.
• Considering flood event dispersals?
o Previous Windy Gap studies showed what CFS would be necessary to have flushing
flow in that area. Will look at these. Water availability issue.
AGENDA ITEM 3— River Health Targets
Jen Shanahan, Environmental Planner in the Natural Areas department, provided an overview of the
process for developing River Health Targets for the Poudre River, for which she is seeking input.
Staff completed an ecological response model to analyze the Poudre River, which helps us
understand river ecological principles and data, and how changes affect river behavior. River health
guidelines define what we want for the river. The project goal is to develop measurable targets for a
healthy and resilient river. Staff is building a framework to evaluate river-related initiatives/projects.
Watershed health is a key component of a resilient watershed system. Team includes Natural Areas,
Utilities, and consultants. Must understand all interests in the river. Natural watershed services
include clean water, recreation/health/wellness (people), stormwater, ecology, and reliable water
supply. These are our common purpose. A rapid assessment framework considers all pieces of the
system. The main systems include hydrology, sediment, chemistry, floodplain, riparian, debris,
morphology, stability, structure, and biota. Staff is developing a grading system for each, using many
sub-variables for each section. Current spectrum of river health falls between highly functioning and
functionally impaired. Public open house May 21. Adoption of report in June. Next will develop
State of the River report card.
Discussion/Q & A:
4 | Page
• Within rating system, anything in place for feedback loop (management wise) if get D or F,
to do remediation?
o Some areas City can affect; some cannot. State of River report should catalyze
implementation, budget support, etc.
• Is this one-shot state of river, or vision to repeat for management strategy?
o Periodically, 3-5 year window.
• Sense of how process could impact response to NISP?
o Gives quantitative values for variables we can use to react to any project, from NISP
to stormwater to restoration. Have been good at saying what don’t like/want; harder
to say what want to achieve. Need range for variables as targets.
• Integrates policies and values with science. Long-term vision and policies to support.
• Does Council need to adopt? Guidelines or targets?
o Depends on Council reaction at work session. Want Council aware of product staff
will be using.
• Impacts of Glade. There are surveys and monitorings of wildlife. Anything in place for long
term monitoring that can be done pre-Glade for diversity, etc. to be able to show impacts of
Glade?
o Numerous variables that have been under study. Lower Poudre Monitoring Alliance
in place due to water treatment plant, and breeding bird survey, flow modelling, etc.
data being used, but other data is missing. Ex: no database on woody debris. Fill in
gaps with rapid assessment tool. Hoping to set up framework before Glade.
• What data, modelling, best practices, etc. informed this?
o Standards were incorporated into variables.
• Fires and floods. Does framework have method for dealing with these events?
o Methodology based on natural variability and disturbances. Readily acknowledge
variability in flows including drought and flood. Must consider in recommendations.
Disturbance is natural part of system; trying to support community that lives within
the system. Must consider disturbance to address resiliency.
o What is approach to catastrophic event?
Dynamic equilibrium: ecosystem is in balance. Recovery: system can handle
disturbance and recover.
• Ex: target for silt, but know it varies. Does the target mean it must be cleaned periodically?
How does time figure in?
o Some processes can be measured short term, some on longer scale. Some variables
will have to be caveated with natural variability. Will address upfront in report.
Targets are averages. Ex: spatially will be recommending average width over a length
of river.
• Will board get to see report again? What is input desired?
o Can send final draft for review and/or present to board again in June.
o Project will get refined over time. Learning experience. Living document.
• Many variables outside direct control of City. Ex: temperature of river.
o Report addresses this. What are stresses on topic areas that prohibit success? Identify
control over stresses.
o Fort Collins has approx. 10% of water rights. 26 diversions before Fort Collins.
Control is limited. Role as influencers/resource. Collaboration and cooperation are
5 | Page
critical to change trajectory. Cannot solve problems alone. Efficient river in use, but
environment was ignored for a long time.
• Members and citizens can submit comments online.
AGENDA ITEM 4—Committee Report: Zero Waste Plan (Next Steps)
Bob Mann discussed the public involvement/input process that staff is initiating to update the City's
Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) ordinance, and other zero waste planning work that is underway over the
next six months.
Road to Zero Waste (RZW) was supported by this board and Council, and created new goals for
waste reduction. RZW recognizes that there are portions of community that are currently not well
served including multifamily and small business, and portions of waste stream (green waste and food
waste) that are not well addressed. Also have community recycling facility that will break ground
before fall. How will it impact the guidelines? What marketing needs to happen? Global reduction in
values of recyclable materials has impacted the recycler that has the contract with the landfill.
Historically they paid for recyclables and now will not pay haulers. The City has an agreement with
haulers to set own rates, but trash service rates must include recycling at no additional charge; having
set rates with residents, they are losing money on recycling. Rates were partially based on having
income from recycling. Also, there is increased pressure on the City to look at licensing, pay as you
throw ordinance, etc. The City has an RFP out for a consultant to help look for better models and
opportunities. What have other communities done? What are possibilities? How do we use this as an
opportunity to make recycling services available to a broader range of our community? NRAB is the
only board with focus on solid waste. How might NRAB be more supportive of staff and engaged in
the process? One idea is to convene a group of technical people and community members to work
with staff and consultant to determine next steps. Requesting up to 3 NRAB members to volunteer
for this committee starting in June. Time commitment is 2-3 hours per month.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Kelly and Nancy will determine if they can participate as volunteers on the committee.
AGENDA ITEM 5—Recommendation Regarding Prioritization of BOB 2 Tasks
John Bartholow discussed a draft recommendation to Council concerning the priority of the
Downtown Poudre River Enhancements, with respect to passage of the BOB Initiative (Issue #1) on
April 7.
John requested input on the draft recommendation.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Urgency to this matter. Could be more assertive about biological system needing attention.
• Full support of memo.
• Whitewater Park Coalition is promising $1.2 million.
Nancy moved to approve the BOB2 Prioritization memo to Council. Luke seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
6 | Page
AGENDA ITEM 6—Other Business
Review City Council’s 6-Month Planning Calendar/Agenda Planning
• April 28: BOB2
• May 12: NISP
• May 16/17: Council Retreat
• June 23: Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
o Building codes: Harry sent message to Mike Gebo asking if could have dialogue on
how CAP might affect building practices/codes/costs and did not receive response.
Susie agreed to follow up.
• May meeting: Lindsay Ex and Justin Scharton: Nature in the City; West Nile update; Energy
Policy.
• FC Moves: Pilot program for protected bike lanes in May (Tessa)
• Solid Waste disposal program at Meadow Springs Ranch
Announcements/Open Board Discussion
• New Hires:
o Waste Reduction recycling program planner (1/2 time)
o Air Quality program environmental planner (½ time)
o Green building planner
o New Chief Sustainability Office (Jackie Kozak Thiel) starts in June
• Luke spoke with Clark and Lindsay in Planning about development on reservoir close to
Harmony Road. The northern portion is likely to be developed. They have been in contact
with State to preserve/mitigate with developer. Work in progress.
• Steve Malers, chair of the Water Board, may extend invitation for joint meeting, and/or joint
field trips to Rigden Pond, Fossil Creek Reservoir head gate, and Drake Reclamation Facility
upgrades.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:35pm
Next Meeting: May 20
7 | Page