HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/19/20171
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave.
Time: 6:00 pm
For Reference
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison 970-221-6317
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Bob Mann Katherine de Leon
Elizabeth Hudetz Nancy DuTeau, chair
John Bartholow Luke Caldwell
Drew Derderian
Ling Wang
Jay Adams
Staff Present
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison, Environmental Services
Tina Hopkins-Dukes, Minute Taker, Social Sustainability
John Stokes, Natural Areas Director
Jennifer Shanahan, Natural Resources Watershed Specialist
Guests:
David Tweedale, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison
Call meeting to order: 6:00 pm by Bob Mann
Agenda Review: John asked about an update to the Michigan Ditch Raw Water topic. Luke and
Nancy are absent and are the ones who would be providing this information. Bob asked to add to the
agenda the consideration of changes to Utilities Raw Water Requirement Memo, drafted by Nancy,
to follow the presentation.
Public Comments: None
Approval of the Minutes: Elizabeth moved and Jay seconded the motion to approve the June
minutes. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM 1—Northern Integrated Supply Project Update
John Stokes, Natural Areas Director and Jennifer Shanahan, Natural Resources Watershed
Specialist provided an overview of staff’s proposed comments regarding the State of Colorado’s Fish
and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP).
John Stokes mentioned that the draft for this mitigation plan has gone to the state of Colorado and
will be made public tomorrow afternoon. John said that this topic will be a part of Council work
session for July 25, 2017 and Council will consider a resolution during their meeting on August 8,
2
2017. Public comments need to be submitted online July 20-30, 2017 and there is an opportunity for
public testimony to the “Wildlife Commission” August 10-11, 2017 in Trinidad, Co. The Plan will be
adopted by the Wildlife Commission on September 8, 2017. The main focus of the Colorado State
Statute is fish and wildlife. John pointed out some key words in the Statute are “economically
reasonable, and maintains a balance”. John reminded the Board the City’s 2015 position was that
they could not support NISP as described and proposed in the SDEIS but might reach a different
conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP. City Council has not changed their position even
with these comments they are not expected to change their stance. In 2017 City Council adopted
Resolution 2017-024 authorizing the City Manager and his designees to meet with Northern Water to
discuss and explore interests of the City’s pursuant to the terms of the resolution.
John discussed how the water would be delivered which is either by the Douglas Road Pipeline or
through the river. They would divert water into the Glade Reservoir when the water levels were high
and then release it back into the river when the river is lower. They would take out about 40 thousand
acre feet of water and put back 10-15 thousand acre feet. John said 10-15 thousand acre feet of water
is diverted already so this would mean about a net loss of 10-15 thousand acre feet of water per year.
John reminded the Board that their comments are an “If –Then” proposition. “If NISP is built, then
we propose…”
Jennifer discussed the six themes of the City.
Peak Flow Program-This is a tiered approach which allows them to open and close their gates
depending on peak flow days but is focused on the spawning habits of the trout. Staff is
recommending they improve their Peak Flow Program and consider the food base, the insects, and
the overall health of the aquatic riverbed and close their gates for three days completely. NISP will
be taking a lot of water before and after peak flow times. This can lead to potential changes to flood
levels leading to a small rise but big issues in the 100 year floodplain. Wider and further spreads of
the river.
Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance- these are limited and piecemeal and are the
wrong type and scale for impacts. Fort Collins is accepting a risk of flood with NISP. Staff is
recommending a complete 3 day bypass of their gates, a discussion on flow based mitigation of
ascending and descending limbs with CPW and Northern, and a large scale restoration of river-
floodplain connectivity.
Water Quality- there is no data to understand the impact of NISP. Staff is recommending that they do
not adopt this mitigation without data to analyze water quality since the City could be held
responsible.
Adaptive Management- the current management plan lacks concrete information regarding
performance standards or “action” triggers. Staff is recommending they create an independent
monitoring group, establish clear objectives/triggers and use applicable data/programs, not just EIS
and new data.
Cost- dollar amount commitment is too low for the scope/size cost of the project. Staff is
recommending they increase total mitigation expenditures by $18 million.
Big Game- important habitat in vicinity of Glade will be fragmented. Staff is recommending they
conserve State Land Board property west of Glade in perpetuity.
John mentioned that their comments could negatively affect firm yield by 5% which is going to be
tough for Northern and CPW to accept.
3
Discussion/Q&A:
Close their gates for three days every year?
o Yes, all years
Which three days?
o The Engineers will decide which days based on snowpack and other predictors for peak
flow.
What if they ignore your comments?
o That is possible. The State of Colorado is the ultimate decision maker.
Elizabeth said June rise is important to the river. Sounds good but I am concerned about
downstream water. This will affect air quality and values of homes.
o Greeley is not a part of this project. 40,000 acre feet of water will be delivered to
customers who will be south Fort Collins residents.
Will you be telling State Commissioners about Council’s stance?
o Yes
Do you expect the Commissioners to be receptive to flood concerns?
o No.
Do you plan on using your Poudre River scorecard as a part of your comments?
o We did reference the document and flow/connectivity areas.
What do you want from this Board?
o We are not asking the Board for actions but you can if you want. If you want to develop a
memo before the final consideration on August 8, 2017 you should do so by August 1,
2017.
There is a lot of uncertainty and lack of commitment from Northern.
o We do have specific comments on that. They have committed very little to building a
dam.
The purpose for NISP is because of population growth?
o Yes, the water will support other towns to the south such as Windsor, Erie, Fort Lupton,
Firestone, and Fort Morgan.
Jennifer Shanahan stated that staff comments would become public tomorrow afternoon and can be
accessed at www.fcgov.com/NISPreview. Staff has created a website dedicated to NISP and more
information can be found on that website for anyone interested.
Bob asked if the Board wanted to comment on the Mitigation Plan.
o Jay said yes but what difference would it make?
o John and Elizabeth said yes to providing comment as a Board.
o Bob explained that the comments would be in regards to the Mitigation Plan and not
about NISP
o Elizabeth suggested the Board review the document once it is available to the public
and then draft something
Bob asked for volunteers to draft something using everyone’s comments. John and Elizabeth
agreed they would draft the comments for the Board.
AGENDA ITEM 2—Review Draft Memorandum Regarding Changes to Utilities Raw Water
Requirement and Cash-in-Lieu Rate
Bob asked to open this Agenda Item as a discussion.
John moved that NRAB draft a recommendation to Council supporting and thanking staff for their
work on the Mitigation Plan and affirming that the Board supports the additional mitigation
actions identified by City staff and remains opposed to NISP as currently described. Motion
passed unanimously 5-0.
4
John commented on the wording in regards to the word “specifically” and asked what does
that mean?
Bob said he thinks that what Nancy meant is that the follow items are what the Board
specifically supports/endorses.
Jay asked where Nancy got this information.
o April meeting
Bob asked for a ten minute recess so that the Board could review the April minutes
Jay asked why the fees are not higher.
o Bob thinks that the dollar amount is the value
o John thinks that is the cost. He said that existing users are using less water now but
paid more originally and he thinks the community as a whole should not be used to
subsidize water costs for new development.
Jay asked if the Board should wait and see what happens since it will be more work for staff
to ask for even more money.
Elizabeth said she would like to see a provision for new development to be more eco-
friendly.
Bob suggested making an amendment to the first paragraph and rather than put a dollar
amount we should affirm staffs hybrid approach.
John suggested changing the wording to say that the rates charged should reflect cost of
service.
Ling mentioned updating fees every five to seven years depending on growth rates.
Bob offered some options for the Board which are 1) Take no action, 2) Adopt Nancy’s language for
the memo as it stands, 3) Do something completely different.
The final decision for the memo to be drafted:
The Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends Council adopt changes to the Utilities Raw
Water Requirement and Cash-in-Lieu Rate. It has been many years since the Raw Water
Requirement portion of water fees for redevelopment has been updated. The current system no longer
reflects the real costs of water. The Natural Resources Advisory Board supports a modification of the
existing rates and requirements to more nearly reflect water use data, current costs of water rights,
environmental costs for storage and transportation, and conservation by current utilities customers
and to provide periodic review of such rates.
Jay moved to amend the memo Nancy crafted and Drew seconded. The motion passed unanimously
5-0.
Announcements/Open Discussion
Ling asked if the Board submitted comments to Council on the Running Deer project
o Yes- however that item has been delayed
If there is nothing too pressing we may cancel the August meeting
Meeting Adjourned: 7:55 pm
Next Meeting: September 20, 2017