HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/19/20151 | P a g e
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 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 Kelly McDonnell
Joe Halseth Jeremy Sueltenfuss
Bob Mann Nancy DuTeau
Harry Edwards
Luke Caldwell
Staff Present
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
Tom Lesson, Interim Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services
John Stokes, Natural Areas Program Director
Guests:
David Tweedale, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:02pm
Public Comments: none
Agenda Review: ESD Strategic Plan moved to second on agenda. NISP memo moved to beginning
due to impending lack of quorum.
AGENDA ITEM 1— Northern Integrated Supply Project Update Memo Discussion
Discussion/Q & A:
Joe moved to accept the memo as drafted with edits based on board discussion after the NISP
presentation. Bob seconded. Motion
withdrawn after discussion.
• Would like to hear John Stokes presentation before voting on the memo. The presentation has
data and opinion valuable to our decision.
• Change in agenda without notice and lost opportunity to hear presentation before taking
action on motion. Request declining motion.
o Have seen John Stokes’ report to Council which was thorough and important in
consideration of draft of memo. Can ask John more questions later in the meeting.
2 | P a g e
Can we add proviso that if as a result of John’s presentation there is a desire of any
board member to add provisions to the memo, to have opportunity to make additional
comment and note who made the comments.
• Could also send in individual letters as individual citizens.
• Can withdraw motion and after presentation can sign memo as individuals rather than as a
board. Can attach note about not having quorum.
o Would lend more credence/weight to memo.
• Joe and Bob withdrew the motion.
o Will generate document at end of meeting that will be signed by members as citizens.
o Can we invite other members to sign if they choose, as individuals?
Agreed.
Include explanatory note about how it turned out coming this way.
ACTION ITEM: Will generate document at end of meeting that will be signed by members as
citizens.
Approval of Minutes:
Harry moved and Luke seconded a motion to approve the July minutes as amended.
Motion passed, 4-0-1. Joe abstained as did not attend meeting. Correction: page 2,
discussion, 1st line—add “you” to make grammatically correct.
AGENDA ITEM 2—Other Business
Review City Council’s 6-Month Planning Calendar/Agenda Planning
• September: CAP, ESD Strategic Plan,
• October: Community Recycling Ordinance, Water Efficiency Plan
• November: ESD Strategic Plan
• December: Dust Prevention and Control
o Project manager Melissa Hovey resigned due to new position. Hiring replacement.
This item may move.
• Unscheduled: Waste to Energy
Announcements/Open Board Discussion
Community Recycling Center
• Staff summoned to speak to Council October 13 to present alternative options to the
community recycling center, along with other ideas to achieve the objectives of the project.
Three options: 1. Basket of new ideas such as new events, build a second Rivendell, etc.; 2.
Build a “lite” version, 3. Revisit entire proposal.
o Longmont does quarterly hard-to-recycle item events.
o Open Streets program could provide a space for that type of event.
Have at events that already attract a lot of people.
Can only estimate costs.
o This board supports staff efforts in this area.
Community Recycling Ordinance
• Consulting team and advisory committee. Draft proposal. Nuts and bolts: Expanding of
curbside recycling to multifamily and businesses, looking at changing fee structure to allow a
base fee to absorb fluctuating costs, and maintaining bundling of fees. Unsure direction for
yard and food waste, but will address in some manner, such as seasonal yard waste
3 | P a g e
requirements and/or food waste being added in a set number of years. Advisory group
meeting Monday.
o Food waste—Jason from waste water treatment plant mentioned wanting more
organics in the water treatment system during presentation to NRAB. Has that been
looked at?
Consultants are aware of this need.
Staff at reclamation plant is hesitant to message putting more down the
garbage disposal.
• Too many fats can clog system. But might be opportunity.
• Approaching awareness. At some point staff might begin messaging
beneficial impact of using garbage disposal more. One proposal in
mid-cycle budget is co-generation at Drake Treatment Plant which
would improve ability to capture and clean methane gas.
• It’s a sorting issue. Dependent on consumer using judgment, so must
be ready to use whatever comes their way.
o Part of reluctance is that some of community does not agree
with decision to apply compost due to heavy metals and other
pollutants.
If NISP goes ahead and we have reduced flows could be dilution issues at
waste water treatment facility. Does that additional waste provide additional
hurdles?
• Adding more food waste into bio-digesters improves ability to
remove nitrogen and phosphorous. Would enhance ability to meet
new clean water standards.
Meadow Springs Ranch Field Trip Friday, September 18, 9:00-3:00
• Members of Water Board are also invited. Susie and at least one other staff member will
attend. RSVPs requested as will rent van for transportation. Lunch will be provided. Jason is
excited to show historical sites as well as.
o Heavy metal issue has been studied extensively.
Budgeting for Outcomes, mid-cycle budget proposals
• Input on mid-cycle proposals. Are there any public input opportunities?
o Will ask Lucinda when she arrives.
AGENDA ITEM 3—Vine Street/North College Avenue Revitalization Study
Tom Leeson, Interim Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, provided
information about the Vine Street/ N. College revitalization study.
North College URA life cycle is half done. 1st phase of road improvements funded by TIF. King
Soopers, Innosphere had partial TIF also. Big area. Need to be more proactive and come up with
action plan for URA. Momentum around Innosphere at Vine and College: Woodward, Power House,
Museum, etc. Tom reached out to development community. They want to be near downtown but
cannot afford. This area has potential. Revitalization study to show constraints and opportunities in
the area. Area bounded by river, Linden Drive, College Ave., Natural Area. Evaluate existing
conditions in terms of zoning, existing development, public infrastructure, Vine Drive, feasibility,
and potential actions for redevelopment. Did not want to create a plan; will not result in proposed
changes to zoning, codes, or policies. Information will dovetail with Downtown Plan—major long
range plan for downtown. Downtown Plan is broken into character districts which will have policies
based on character. This section is Innovation District. Interfaces with natural areas and river
improvement projects. Opportunities for redevelopment on north side of Vine directly across from
natural areas. Have mapped floodways and flood plain. Have looked at recent public and private
4 | P a g e
investment. Railroad presents hard boundary and properties to south of railroad will not have much
change. Mapped opportunities and constraints. Underutilized sites, Vine Drive is opportunity to
create improvements/complete street (pedestrian, sustainable stormwater, bike lanes, etc.), potential
for reducing floodway, open space and natural areas are an amenity for users of area, character
enhancing urban design as part of North College improvements that can be continued to create sense
of place. Playing off innovation theme. Opportunities for pedestrian connections between North
College, downtown and river. Constraints include not being able to have residential or high
occupancy in floodplain, Vine will continue to be a truck route (classified minor arterial), gas and
electrical substations, self-storage, and railroad tracks. County facility, City facilities, proposal for
alternative fuel station (City fleet will use), so need roadway that is inviting to pedestrians but can
also accommodate truck traffic. Also looking at bike lanes to the east of College, but railroad
property and out of URA districts. Next steps are to refine opportunities and constraints, provide
choices, and community can decide on actions.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Has Redwood gone through yet?
o As part of Aspen Heights will make connection and create portion of Suniga, which
will eventually be alignment for new Vine.
• Mostly commercial redevelopment?
o Mix of warehouse, office space, flex-lab space, less industrial (not big enough sites),
but because of floodplain can’t do mixed use with residential. Predominantly similar
users. Also, graduates of Innosphere would like to stay in area. Many have moved to
old airport due to affordable space.
• Any residential between College and Linden on Vine?
o Historic home being used as an office. Might be one or two residences.
• Huge building across from New Belgium has been vacant for years. Owned by Pat Stryker.
• How does TIF interact with something that exists like the storage facility?
o TIF works as redevelopment happens. Property values go up as result of
redevelopment, which raises property taxes incrementally, which goes to TIF.
Looked at area predominantly north of Vine as redevelopment will increase value and
result in tax increment, which can fund improvements of Vine Drive. Development
will have costs for road improvement and the URA can help with those costs.
• What is western boundary?
o College Avenue.
• Always a contingent concerned about bottle neck of natural areas around College Avenue.
Getting bundled and some concerned about Kayak Park. Revitalization should be sensitive to
natural areas. River gets squeezed at College and opens quarter mile later. Wildlife has
difficulty getting through. Be cognizant of natural area connections.
AGENDA ITEM 4—Environmental Services Department Strategic Plan
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director, provided an overview of the department’s first
Strategic Plan, which follows a model recently used by the Economic Health and the Social
Sustainability Departments; the draft plan will be reviewed by City Council at the September 22
work session.
Each department in Sustainability Services Area is developing a new strategic plan. ESD has history
of strategic planning, whereas social and EHO are much newer. Increasing integration of three legs
of TBL and programs within own department. Also identifying gaps across city in environmental
protection. PDT, Unities, Natural Areas, etc. are other departments that work on environmental
issues. ESD works on air quality, waste reduction, climate action, education and outreach, etc. The
strategic plan is divided into theme areas. Climate Commitment goals include advancing green built
environment, engaging community for action, supporting preparedness for climate change, planning
5 | P a g e
and reporting, and supporting innovation to accelerate CAP goals. Be Air Aware goals include
leveraging air quality co-benefits of CAP initiatives, improving indoor and outdoor air quality for
health, promoting air quality within the organization, and focusing on local actions to reduce
pollutants of concern such as radon and ozone. Road to Zero Waste goals include reducing flow of
material to landfill, increasing focus on preventing high value material from being landfilled,
reducing waste at the source, and providing education, information and access. Lead By Example
goals include advancing organizational progress, educating and inspiring community, leadership and
staff, advancing TBL, collaborating regionally for adaptation, and participating in legislative and
regulatory processes in collaboration with regional partners (ex: local government coalition). Next
steps include public input, Work Session, and Council consideration November 17. Will create
executive summary that integrates all three Sustainability Service Area strategic plans, which will
influence BFO cycle.
Discussion/Q & A:
• RZW: Vision is diverting from waste stream, but have also identified source reduction.
Vision should be more inclusive of source reduction. Struggling with fact that this plan
doesn’t deal with water. Understand dealt with elsewhere, but separation doesn’t seem right.
o Had same thought. Keeping some things in water utility makes sense as complicated
legally, but then that staff doesn’t get benefit of ESD perspective. What are pros and
cons of working differently in regard to water?
Other boards have said the same thing. Will have to talk more with natural
areas and water utility. Strategic Plan not intended to be environmental
sustainability plan, but need to acknowledge interaction with other
departments.
• Can call out better in collaboration section.
• Trouble with Economic Health Strategic Plan and not seeing mention of TBL. Looks like
gently massaged economic development plan. Stands out in graph that aligns three plans.
o EHO was first to develop. They added text about TBL and multiple objectives. Not as
obvious in summary document,
• Internal mechanisms that can deal with conflicts between the goals/services? Ex: Affordable
housing and green building.
o Recognition of absolute policy conflicts. Road map for green building: one of six
priority actions was to list conflicts and work on them. ESD strategic plan talks about
identifying policy barriers and conflicts. Comes up organically. Ex: water
conservation versus streetscaping standards—had a committee and worked out.
Affordable housing and environmental goals create challenges that will need to be
worked through.
SAT is process used to weigh relative conflicts of any given project/program.
• Not applied to everything.
• Board would like to have presentation on SAT.
o What triggers SAT?
o Interdepartmental team came up with tool and guidelines on
what it should be used for. Guidelines suggest everything
going to Council except routine administrative items should
get SAT. In pilot year, about 15 have been done. Council will
evaluate.
o Board can give feedback to Council on SAT.
• Compliment: City has program to provide low/no-cost energy audits to homeowners.
o That is through Utilities and is a great program.
Showcased City reaching out to citizens and providing assistance and
services. Can there be parallel program for low income owners for other
environmental issues such as landscaping, water usage, etc.?
6 | P a g e
Healthy Homes fills that role for indoor air quality. At one point tried to bring
general environmental information to residents as well, but backed away due
to feedback from recipients that is was too much. ClimateWise does this for
business; has been discussed for a long time whether to have similar program
for residential. Home energy assessment has real cost, education is much less.
• Five themes—The first three are ends and the second two are means. Appreciate emphasis on
measuring things. Also like involvement in political process.
o Have spent a lot of time figuring out how to organize. Will consider this comment.
• Draft plan is really good. James Hanson and Global Children’s Trust filed suit against federal
government for failing to take action on climate change when became aware that negatively
impacting children’s health. Group has had success in Europe. U.S. Conference of Mayors
adopted hierarchy of waste, which is zero waste initiative. May want to look at this as well.
• Might be hard for NRAB to find own purpose in this plan, with water and natural areas not
included. Holistic element to environmental stewardship that the City doesn’t have.
Patchwork. Appreciative of a board like this that can see issues more universally and not in
isolation from each other. Risk in compartmentalizing.
o Will have to determine how to address, recognize importance and connections.
Suggest interdepartmental team on water.
• Will there be opportunity for public involvement in mid-cycle BFOs?
o Intended as small update. Package of offers will be made publically available and
boards can weigh in, but public engagement not planned.
• Dust Control Manual, will it get pushed back?
o Yes. Fugitive Dust group still meeting and hoping to bring to Council on a delayed
schedule.
ACTION ITEM: Staff will provide board with list of mid-cycle budget offers.
AGENDA ITEM 5— Northern Integrated Supply Project Update
John Stokes, Natural Areas Program Director, previewed staff comments on the Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) in advance of the
Council’s discussion at the September 1 hearing.
Presented at work session July 28. Since then internal team has been working on comments and
articulating themes from that work session. Staff will have a lot to say on draft; finding a lot in the
EIS that is troubling. A portion of Fort Collins would be served by this project: 1400 acre feet in
south Fort Collins that is served by another water district. Total is 40K acre feet and serves many
other districts. Also have own water supply project: Halligan expansion. Have been keeping it in
mind as reviewing Glade. NISP is project that should be viewed in continuum of 150 years of
development on the river. 2/3 of water rights removed before river reaches Fort Collins. NISP may or
may not be permitted, but won’t be last project proposed. Identified need of 150K acre feet by 2050.
This is only 40K of that. Much more water will need to come out of somewhere. Poudre is a heavily
managed river. Northern Water tacked on conceptual mitigation plan which includes a flow
augmentation plan. That is unusual. Winter augmentation flow to provide 10CFS between two points
in Fort Collins. Their water rights do not let them do this with current decrees. River is low in winter,
so would help in this reach. Showed photo of 8.5CFS at Lincoln Bridge. General findings are that
there are improvements to the EIS, there have been benefits to the Common Technical Platform (nice
to have hydrological model that can use with own models), and glad included conceptual mitigation
plan. Issues include water quality, environmental impacts, inadequate mitigation, etc. Four
alternatives presented. Preferred alternative includes pipeline to deliver into Horsetooth from Glade.
Concerned that Glade water will not be as high quality and will affect treatment facility. Also appears
that residence time in Horsetooth will be much longer which can cause quality issues that are
difficult and expensive to resolve. Waste water quality problem: very dependent on quality of water
7 | P a g e
in river, including temperature. If water is warmer because less water in river can cause trouble with
discharge permits. Anti-degradation regulations are very strict. Missing critical quantitative water
quality model. Tradition in Colorado to do quality mitigation after permitting. Model won’t be
available until summer of next year at earliest. Without qualitative model hard to know water quality
impacts. Don’t have enough information because this is missing. 10CFS release in winter is only
included in one alternative, which is troubling. All alternatives need augmentation flows modelled.
Alternative 4 would put more water in river and deliver to another reservoir far east of here. Another
alternative they didn’t model would leave more water in river—could run to new Cache and pump to
Cactus Hill. Very expensive to pump, may have diminished quality and water treatment issues. Staff
quick analysis shows this is not unreasonable in scope of cost of this project. 23 river miles that
would not be depleted as a result. Recreation: would decrease “boatable” days by about 1/3. This
would reduce number of days kayak park would have optimal flows. Flatwater recreation would be at
Glade and supplemental draft says may include motorized recreation at Glade. In general reducing
flows will reduce riparian habitat and dry up areas. Flushing Flows: important for many reasons—
they are saying need huge amount of water for flushing. City disagrees. If river is running 2500CFS,
and year after year knock off peak, reduces mobility of material in river and shuts down processes
important for river health. If project were to be permitted, there needs to be a flushing flow
mitigation plan. Fish need flushing flows, and have existing problems already. They did sophisticated
2-D modelling for fish, but has been suggested they did not implement model properly. Asking they
repair this problem. Another gap in perspective is about what happens to vegetation. Corps is saying
impacts will be negligible, and staff disagree. Will change riparian corridor, also affected by flushing
flows. Modelled floodplain before and after NISP at Lemay. Concerned that change in flooding
regime will seriously impact area. Mitigation only includes bypass structures at three locations.
Needs to be more robust. Supplemental draft posits inevitable decline of river and claims NISP will
have little impact. Staff does not agree. Can make improvements, but once you take water out of
system, gets harder and harder. Will include modelling in comments along with river health
assessment framework. Being developed by team at CSU to be used for Army Corps projects
throughout the country. Have 30+ people working on this: attorneys, biologists, morphologists,
engineers, etc. Have a great team. September 1 Council meeting. Comments will be available to
public next Wednesday on website.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Is that water needed currently?
o For projected growth.
• Impacts of Glade radically different than Halligan?
o Yes. Halligan is 8K acre feet new storage and is drought protection.
• Peculiar that water quality control commission cannot deny permit because it negatively
impacts applicant’s water rights. Can only suggest mitigation.
• Staff issues?
o We think there will be discharge issues, but don’t know without model. Could
mitigate temperature issues if change diversion under certain CFS. Have to respect
our water rights during part of year because senior right. Also won’t pull water when
they are in priority if minimum flows are not met. Therefore, if river isn’t flowing
enough at Drake treatment plant, that is caused by other senior diverters on the river.
NISP can say not causing that, which is true. They have good people working on
quality issues. In long run they will probably be able to assuage concerns for quality,
but not there yet.
• Does flushing flow issue allow for argument to get higher flows?
o Working with Corps.
o Also duration and frequency.
o Have ideas of what this could look like. Have set ranges of values for various metrics.
Doing this with flushing flows to show they are wrong.
8 | P a g e
• If Glade goes through and riparian areas die off, or city has negative economic impacts, are
there any legal recourses?
o Unsure. Don’t know what the Corps will do with this information. Indirect impacts to
wetlands, which are regulated. Saying would like to include an adaptive management
plan so that would implement changes if direct impacts. Highly suggest monitoring
program.
• What is being asked of Council?
o May propose a resolution that has language that the City cannot support this project
as described. The potential harms are too great. Council will decide whether to send
this message.
• What elements of NISP do people least understand or appreciate?
o 1. People don’t appreciate 100K acre feet of demand not fulfilled; 2. Augmentation
flow is not that great and probably not allowed; 3. Lack of knowledge on impact on
riparian corridor.
• What would it take on part of Corps to provide acceptable plan?
o If permitted, would want to see much more robust mitigation plan. Supposed to get
impact analysis right, then avoid or minimize. Right now don’t have impacts rights,
so premature to get to mitigation. $800M project and 40K acre feet, that is $20K/acre
foot for water. The gold standard for water right is a share of CBT. Would cost
$50K+/acre foot firm yield out of CBT right now. Projects in 21st century ought to be
spending 10% of project budget on mitigation. Would create $80M pot of funds for
mitigation. However, also proposing mitigation far beyond Fort Collins. There is a lot
in their plan that doesn’t benefit Fort Collins. That number doesn’t honor process.
Mitigation should address problems and not be concerned with money. People say
too expensive to do mitigation, but very low cost and water will still be cheaper than
water you can acquire on market.
• Timeline?
o Final draft will eventually be issued. Don’t have to have public comment period, but
think they will. Ultimately will come back with record of decision and permit or no
permit. A few years away.
o Council passed resolution in 2008. Will they issue another resolution?
Yes. That is the language discussed earlier. More of a comment to the
community than to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Trying to think of a way City can make its wishes clear and get buy-in from
Corps.
• City has no more authority than private citizen.
o Influence is limited, but if make valid, grounded, well-
articulated comments, then the Corps may pay attention.
• Impact of posture of City and time, funds, etc. the City put in. This is
public record and may eventually be used in a lawsuit. Indirect
influence.
o Part of strategy is to protect interest of the City. Want to be in
best position to affect outcome of project.
• Water court? Or federal?
o Federal matter.
With City’s arguing for different alternative 4, do they have water rights to do
that?
• Yes.
• Thinking long term of additional 100K acre feet and turning river around from “failed state”
Corps is seeing, can you be proactive for those upcoming challenges?
o Meeting with other Weld county participants. We are good at developing water
projects, but don’t have any consensus around what the river ought to look like in 150
9 | P a g e
years. For the first 150 years didn’t even think of that. Have a long way to go. Eight
basins in Colorado. South Platte Basin Roundtable—John is one of 2 environmental
specialists. Dominated by water developers, and they are making decisions about
water supplies. Diverters on river, but all going separate ways. Need to work
together. That is why City is involved in many collaborative projects/processes.
Long term threats that face Coloradoans need to be thought about. Develop
stronger ties and plans of action.
20 diversions before get to Fort Collins, but some water coming in to river
also.
• Memo will be submitted, though as individuals rather than as board due to lack of quorum.
Comments will be influenced by education from tonight’s discussion. Could also send this
memo to Army Corps of Engineers.
o Council can share with them; our function is to advise Council.
o As public can submit own positions to the Corps.
ACTION ITEM: John will revise memo and circulate to board members for signatures by August 26.
Will include introduction about lack of quorum and process used.
ACTION ITEM: Jen Shanahan can return late fall to talk about River Health Assessment tool.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:41pm
Next Meeting: September 16