Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/14/2016 - NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT UPDATE AND NEXTDATE: STAFF: June 14, 2016 John Stokes, Natural Resources Director Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Northern Integrated Supply Project Update and Next Steps. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to review the City’s past and future approach to the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) and the project sponsor, Northern Water. NISP currently is nearing the final stages of its federal and state permitting processes. To date, the City has fully participated in those processes. Northern Water also has recently proposed modifications to NISP’s operations through town that require consideration by the City and that may present certain opportunities for the City. Going forward, staff plans to engage Northern Water in discussions/negotiations regarding NISP. Such meetings and discussions will not change the City’s position regarding NISP, as currently set forth in Resolution 2015-082, and will not bind the City without subsequent action from City Council. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Are there any questions or concerns regarding the City’s NISP-related work to date? 2. Are there any concerns, questions, or advice regarding the tactic of more directly engaging in discussions/negotiations with Northern Water? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) is a municipal water supply project designed and sponsored by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) and fifteen municipalities and water districts, including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD), a municipal water provider serving a portion of Fort Collins. NISP would involve substantial diversions of water from the Poudre River. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) must issue a permit before the project may proceed to construction. In addition, the project must receive a water quality certification from the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and an approved State Wildlife Mitigation Plan. The preferred alternative under review by the Corps (as well as three additional alternatives) would divert water from the Poudre River below the canyon mouth and above Fort Collins, thereby reducing flows through town. Under the preferred alternative, water from these upstream diversions would be stored in Glade Reservoir northwest of Fort Collins. In 2008, City Council endorsed a set of comprehensive comments to the Corps regarding the NISP Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Council also adopted Resolution 2008-002, stating that it opposed NISP as it was described at the time. The Corps then decided to issue a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) that describes the proponents’ preferred alternative (as well as three additional alternatives). It was published on June 19, 2015. In September, 2015, the City submitted comments and adopted Resolution 2015-082 (Attachment 1), stating that it could not support NISP as described “with the understanding that City Council may reach a different conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP….” June 14, 2016 Page 2 The next permitting steps will include the release of supplemental information related to water quality, the release of a Final Environmental Impact Statement, a water quality certification, and a State-approved Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Assuming all of these benchmarks are met, the Corp would issue a Record of Decision to either approve or deny the project. Northern Water recently announced a modification to its preferred alternative that would deliver more water through the Poudre River at certain times from near the mouth of the canyon to a location just upstream of the City’s Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) near Lemay and Mulberry (Attachment 2). A variation of this modification could deliver the water farther downstream to a location near the City’s Nix Farm facility, provided the City were to agree to certain modifications to the discharge point of the MWRF. The effects of MWRF’s discharge point relocation on the facility’s ability to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations are being evaluated. The modification potentially poses certain advantages over previous versions of NISP. For example, it would eliminate a pipeline and water delivery from the proposed Glade Reservoir to Horsetooth Reservoir. The pipeline was a significant concern to Fort Collins from a water quality perspective. The new proposal also would deliver water to the Poudre River during low flow periods, which is likely to be beneficial. The new proposal, however, does not address other key concerns, in particular the fact that peak flows on the Poudre River will be significantly reduced, which has long-term negative consequences for habitat, as well as potential impacts related to flood- related safety concerns. Moreover, there continue to be concerns related to Poudre River water quality. In short, the modification raises a number of issues that require consideration by the City. To date, staff believes that the City’s comments to the Corps have been effective at describing the City’s concerns as well as influencing the Corps to seriously consider those concerns. Going forward the City will continue to participate in the formal Corps EIS process as well as comment on the State water quality certification and State Wildlife Mitigation Plan. While there may be continued opportunities to influence the analyses and decisions associated with these efforts, staff believes those opportunities are limited as the permitting process begins to wind down after nearly 15 years of effort by Northern Water. Further, as the analysis for NISP winds down, the formal processes will gravitate towards mitigation (required by the permitting agencies) and enhancements (efforts that go beyond what may be required). While continued participation in the formal permitting processes will be important and necessary, staff believes it makes sense at this time to enhance the City’s tactics and enter into direct discussions/negotiations with Northern Water about mutual interests and outcomes. In addition, with respect to the modification proposed by Northern Water, it is staff’s experience that discussions with the proponent of such a proposal may be more fruitful than reviewing the proposal in a vacuum. Furthermore, the modification potentially creates certain opportunities for the City regarding NISP and its operations through town. While the City occasionally has met with Northern Water to discuss NISP, those discussions have been general in nature and there has been no effort to deeply discuss, or even to negotiate, outcomes that meet the interests of both parties. Although there is no assurance that Northern Water would agree to engage in the suggested approach, Northern Water has indicated many times in the past that it would welcome a more involved relationship with respect to NISP. While the outcome of such discussions and negotiations are uncertain, the formal processes also are uncertain. Furthermore, based on staff’s observation, it appears that the Corps and the State may impose mitigation and monitoring requirements that fall short of the City’s expectations. Thus, it is possible that broadening the City’s approach will better protect and represent the City’s interests. Based on these observations, staff recommends that City Council appoint the City Manager and/or his designee(s) to be authorized to meet on a regular basis with Northern Water and to explore mutual interests in order to ascertain whether those interests can be met. If staff is able to develop concepts or plans with Northern Water to better meet the needs of both parties, staff would bring them to Council for its review. June 14, 2016 Page 3 Key issues that would be explored in these potential discussion/negotiations are: (a) Water quality and other adverse impacts to the City’s water supplies that are used by the City to meet treated and untreated water demands; (b) Water quality and other adverse impacts to the City’s wastewater treatment facilities; (c) Adverse impacts to the ecology of the Cache la Poudre River from the point of diversion for NISP to the location where the river crosses Interstate 25; (d) Adverse impacts to the ability of the Cache la Poudre River to adequately convey storm and flood waters; (e) Adverse impacts to the aesthetic and recreational attributes of the Cache la Poudre River from the point of diversion for NISP to the location where the river crosses Interstate 25; and (f) NISP’s diminishment of “peak flows” in the Cache la Poudre River from the point of diversion for NISP to the location where the river crosses Interstate 25. The City’s concerns underlying these key issues are more fully expressed in the comments provided pursuant to Resolution 2008-002 and Resolution 2015-082. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2015-082 (PDF) 2. NISP Configuration Modification (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1 Fort Collins Poudre River Downtown Master Plan Reach - 3 River Miles Enhanced Flow Poudre River - 12 River Miles < @ Canyon Gage Lincoln Gage < @ NISP Delivery Pipeline (Route Approximate) NISP River Delivery Pipeline (Route Approximate) Glade Reservoir River Release Point Timnath Res. Inlet Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community . 01234 0.5 Miles cjb 3/25/2016 Northern Integrated Supply Project Project Configuration Modification 0 100,000 200,000 Overall Average Dry-Year Average Annual Flow (af) 0 50,000 100,000 Overall Average Dry-Year Average Annual Flow (af) 0 50,000 100,000 Overall Average Dry-Year Average Annual Flow (af) Key Existing NISP SDEIS NISP w/ D/S Diversion ATTACHMENT 2 1 City Council Work Session Northern Integrated Supply Project Update and Next Steps June 14, 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 2 NISP Participants 3 4 National Environmental Policy Act (FEIS in 2017) State of Colorado 401 Certification (2016/17) State of Colorado Wildlife Mitigation Plan (2016/17) Record of Decision NISP Permitting Process 5 Water Quality Ecology Stormwater Aesthetics and Recreation City Comments in 2008 and 2015 6 To oppose NISP as currently described; with the understanding that Council may reach a different conclusion with respect to a future variant….. Council’s Position Continue to participate in the formal processes Engage in more direct, detailed discussions with Northern Water – perhaps negotiations Assumes that Northern would be willing Would not change City’s current position Any potential agreements would be brought to Council 7 City’s Approach Going Forward 8 New NISP Alternative Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Fort Collins Poudre River Downtown Master Plan Reach - 3 River Miles Enhanced Flow Poudre River - 12 River Miles < @ Canyon Gage Lincoln Gage < @ NISP Delivery Pipeline (Route Approximate) NISP River Delivery Pipeline (Route Approximate) Glade Reservoir River Release Point Timnath Res. Inlet . 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles cjb 3/25/2016 Northern IGA for Model Sharing 9 • Dynamic temperature modeling for NISP – Also needed for Halligan Project • Intergovernmental Agreement needed to share the model • Sharing models would avoid Halligan delay and ~$400,000 additional costs • Agreement: allows Fort Collins to comment on model results, but not methodology • IGA: Resolution (on consent) for City Council consideration on June 21 General Direction 1) Are there any questions or concerns regarding the City’s NISP-related work to date? 2) Are there any concerns, questions, or advice regarding the tactic of more directly engaging in discussions/negotiations with Northern Water? 10