HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/01/2015 - RESOLUTION 2015-082 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TOAgenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Resolution 2015-082 Directing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the City's
Comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Integrated Supply
Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review, and to consider endorsement by resolution, comments directed to the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS) for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). Please note that this Agenda Item
Summary and the attached comments to the Corps are intended to protect the interests of the City by
identifying the City’s concerns with NISP and the SDEIS. The comments are further intended to create a
record that establishes a firm foundation for the City’s participation in future administrative, legal, and informal
processes associated with NISP in order to address direct impacts in Fort Collins and to the City.
As noted for Council’s July 28 Work Session, staff believes certain areas of the SDEIS represent a significant
improvement over the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Common Technical Platform
(CTP) required by the Corps for the hydrological modeling underlying the SDEIS has provided valuable
baseline information to its analysts and reviewers. Furthermore, the CTP is being used in the City’s EIS
process for the Halligan Water Supply Project. Based on the CTP, the impacts analysis of the SDEIS has
been strengthened in certain key areas. In addition, the SDEIS includes a conceptual mitigation plan put
forward by Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern) that provides an overview of how
Northern has initially proposed to deal with some of the unavoidable impacts of NISP. The City welcomes
Northern beginning the conversations around mitigation.
Notwithstanding these valuable improvements and potential benefits, as summarized below, staff continues to
have numerous significant and fundamental concerns with respect to NISP’s impacts to the City and the failure
of the SDEIS to adequately or accurately describe all of the impacts. The concerns include:
The absence of a critical water quality and stream temperature report that quantifies the water quality
impacts. Many of the potential impacts to Fort Collins hinge on the report’s findings.
The inclusion of a no-action alternative that is not bona fide; this improperly skews the entire analysis
in favor of the preferred alternative.
The potential for water quality degradation that could affect source water and wastewater treatment
facilities.
Flawed analyses and conclusions related to the project’s reduction of peak flows which are likely to
harm the environment and potentially increase flood risk.
In general, flawed analyses and conclusions regarding long-term degradation of habitat.
A failure to analyze an alternative that would avoid most negative impacts to Fort Collins.
A conceptual mitigation plan that is premature and inadequate because the impacts of the project have
not yet been correctly described.
A conceptual mitigation plan that includes an augmentation flow that, as currently described, is not
likely to be allowed under Colorado water law and administration.
Significant negative impacts to the recreation values of the River.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 2
Where possible, the City’s comments include suggestions for how to improve the analysis or resolve the City’s
concerns.
Please note that the comments provided on NISP to the Corps could lead to potentially significant delays and
increased costs to the City’s Halligan Water Supply Project, since changes to the analysis of NISP as a result
of these and other comments will likely be required for both projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has drafted a resolution for Council consideration that expresses support for the NISP participants in their
quest to acquire water supplies. Given, however, continued fundamental concerns with respect to the
shortcomings of the SDEIS as well as demonstrable threats to the City’s interests, the resolution expresses the
City’s inability to support NISP as currently described in the SDEIS and expresses support for further
improvement of the SDEIS and, ultimately, the conceptual mitigation plan.
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Introduction
The Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) is a municipal water supply project designed and sponsored by
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern) and fifteen municipalities and water districts,
including the Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD), a municipal water provider serving a portion of
Fort Collins. As discussed by staff at the May 12 and July 28 Work Sessions, NISP would involve substantial
diversions of water from the Poudre River. The preferred alternative for NISP (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. Comments on the SDEIS are due on or before
September 3.
In 2008, City Council endorsed a set of comprehensive comments to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) regarding the NISP Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Those comments can be found
at: <http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/> Council also adopted a resolution 2008-082, stating that it opposed
NISP as it was described at the time.
The Corps decided to perform a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) which
describes the proponents’ preferred alternative (as well as three additional alternatives). It was published on
June 19. The SDEIS is a federally-required detailed review of the environmental impacts of the proposed
project alternatives. The Corps must issue a permit before the project may proceed to construction.
Staff and a consultant team have reviewed the SDEIS and prepared the comments attached as Exhibit A to
Resolution 2015-082 for Council consideration. Staff focused most of its efforts on the alternative preferred by
Northern (which has two variations).
Previous Council Direction and Staff’s Recommendation
At the May 12 and July 28 Work Sessions staff presented background on NISP as well as staff’s proposed
approach to commenting on the SDEIS, which Council approved. The approach to the current SDEIS is
similar to the City’s approach to commenting on the original DEIS in 2008, such that the City is examining and
preparing comments on various “themes” or topics that are directly relevant to the City’s interests, including
investments and policy decisions. Pursuant to Council direction, staff has thus taken an analytical and data-
driven objective approach, and not taken an approach based on a position either for or against the project. In
addition, although a primary purpose of any review process is to provide a critique, staff also has made
recommendations as to how the SDEIS could be improved to address the City’s concerns.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 3
In developing the recommended resolution, staff considered several key factors and options. Factors
considered include:
NISP will provide water for a portion of Fort Collins and for other communities in the region.
Comments the City makes regarding NISP have the potential to affect and delay the Halligan Water
Supply Project.
Staff and the consultant team continue to believe that there are serious shortcomings in the SDEIS.
Staff and the consultant team continue to believe that NISP has the potential to cause significant harm
to the City’s interests.
The need to protect the interests of the City and to create a record that establishes a firm foundation
for the City’s participation in future administrative, legal, and informal processes related to NISP.
Staff considered several options for the recommended resolution that included:
Complete support
Conditional support
Neutrality
Conditional opposition
Absolute opposition
In the end, staff concluded that the City’s interests were best served by adopting a position of conditional
opposition due to the shortcomings of the impacts analysis, the anticipated harms to Fort Collins, and the
inadequacies of the conceptual mitigation plan. The draft resolution thus states:
“That the City Council cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed in the
DEIS and SDEIS, with the understanding that the City Council may reach a different
conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP that addresses the City’s fundamental
concerns expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS and comments to the SDEIS.”
Please note: the comments of the City team focus primarily on the preferred alternative. There are two
versions of the preferred alternative. The major distinction is the potential in one version for delivery of water
into Horsetooth Reservoir from Glade Reservoir.
Context for Consideration of NISP
Poudre River
The Poudre River is the main source of water for a large area of northeastern Colorado. For over 150 years,
water has been diverted for agricultural, residential, and commercial uses. The Poudre River is a remarkably
successful example of a river that effectively delivers water for these needs. In addition to the economic
achievements represented by diversions of water from the stream, significant environmental needs or values
also have been achieved; for example, the Wild and Scenic designation of much of the canyon reach of the
River provides long-term protection for this beautiful area. Moreover, Fort Collins has taken many actions to
enhance the River corridor in and around the City, including its trail and Parks system, as well as restoring and
actively managing its natural areas for high value wildlife habitat.
In spite of these valuable conservation efforts, however, maintenance of the environmental and ecosystem
service values of the River below the canyon mouth has been modest when compared to diversions and
development. The Poudre River literally dries up at certain times of the year in Fort Collins because of
upstream diversions; and furthermore, its flows through town have been reduced by approximately two-thirds
of historical, pre-water development flows. NISP would reduce flows by an additional 21% as measured at the
Lincoln Street Gage in downtown Fort Collins. These significant flow reductions are damaging to the long-term
health of the River because flows are the single-most important factor in sustaining habitat as well as a river
channel that can handle flood events, among other values.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 4
As northern Colorado continues to grow, there will be additional pressure on the Poudre River to be the water
source for the new residents, businesses, and other uses. The SDEIS notes that the ultimate additional
demand in the NISP service area (which includes portions of Boulder, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties)
thru 2060 are predicted to range from approximately 100,000 to 140,000 acre feet per year (these amounts are
in addition to the NISP firm yield of 40,000 acre feet). The SDEIS predicts that the NISP supply will only meet
the demands of participants until 2030, when new supplies will be needed. Thus, although only a portion of
this ultimate supply need will be developed from the Poudre, NISP water providers will continue to purchase
agricultural water rights and change them for new uses and to file for new water rights, which could further
deplete the River through Fort Collins. Thus, if Fort Collins and the region are to be successful in achieving a
Poudre River recognizable as a functional river with clean swimmable waters, abundant vegetation, wildlife,
and protection from flood flows - there will need to be regional discussions, agreements, and collaborations.
Moreover, watershed services and the environment should be an integral part of the water supply and storage
conversation.
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
The Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) is a municipal water provider serving portions of southern
Fort Collins, as well as lands outside of the City’s growth management area. FCLWD is one of the NISP
participants. In addition to FCLWD’s other water rights, if approved and constructed, NISP would provide the
FCLWD with 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of firm yield per year. Based on information provided by FCLWD, the
demand increase within the City’s growth management area served by FCLWD is approximately 1,400 AF
through 2040. Thus, while there are various concerns regarding NISP for the City, as described below, NISP
also offers benefits to certain Fort Collins residents.
Halligan Project
The City of Fort Collins Utilities is currently pursuing a permit from the Corps for the Halligan Water Supply
Project. Pursuant to the Corps’ direction, the City is using the same CTP models as NISP to have a baseline
understanding of hydrological and resource affects. The City’s preferred alternative is the enlargement of
Halligan Reservoir. The Corps has selected the enlargement of Glade Reservoir as a potential alternative to
Halligan. The NISP SDEIS, however, does not analyze the potential enlargement of Glade Reservoir as an
alternative to Halligan. This option will be presented in the DEIS for the Halligan Water Supply Project
scheduled to be released in the summer of 2016.
Staff recognizes that the City’s comments on NISP may affect the Halligan project and have considered
potential impacts to the Halligan project in the development of these NISP comments. However, in order to
have meaningful comments on the NISP project that protect the City’s other interests, many of those
comments request additional analyses that may be required of both projects. Even though the impacts of
enlarging Halligan are expected to be significantly less than NISP, the changes requested in the City’s
comments have the potential to result in the current Halligan Water Supply Project analyses needing to be
redone, which has the potential to lead to significant delays and additional costs (given the Corps’ CTP
requires the same analysis and modeling for all Poudre River projects). The City would like to work with the
Corps and Northern in addressing these comments quickly to minimize potential delays to the permit process
for both projects.
Comments Regarding the NISP SDEIS
The Need to Develop a Legitimate No-Action Alternative
The SDEIS analyzes four alternatives that would supply 40,000 acre feet annually to the NISP participants.
The Corps is required to develop a no-action alternative that examines what would happen in the absence of a
federally-approved or permitted project. To be considered a legitimate alternative, the no-action alternative
cannot depend on a federal permit.
The no-action alternative examined by the Corps appears to require a federal Clean Water Act permit. This
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 5
matters to Fort Collins because the no-action alternative is a baseline for measuring and comparing the
impacts of the preferred alternative. Without a true no-action alternative, there is no accurate baseline for
measuring the impacts of the preferred alternative. Furthermore, because the Corps includes Cactus Hill
Reservoir in the no-action alternative, as well as two other alternatives, it prevents the Corps and the public
from meaningfully analyzing alternatives to the proposed action (which includes Glade Reservoir and Galeton
Reservoir).
Proposed Modified Alternative 4
Staff has investigated a modified Alternative 4 for NISP that would meet the NISP participants’ water needs
while providing more water for 23 miles of the Poudre River, including the section of river through Fort Collins.
Similar to other alternatives considered in the SDEIS, the modified Alternative 4 is a storage project and would
entail construction of Cactus Hill Reservoir, but unlike other alternatives, most diversions to Cactus Hill
Reservoir would occur downstream of Fort Collins. As a result, many of the concerns expressed in the City’s
comments on NISP, such as decreased flows through town, harm to wetlands and riparian areas, and adverse
impacts to City and environmental resources, largely would be avoided. Importantly, the modified Alternative 4
would impact fewer wetlands than other alternatives analyzed in the SDEIS, which is an important
consideration for the Corps in selecting which alternative to permit. The modified Alternative 4 does not
alleviate all of Fort Collins’ concerns, since relative to other alternatives in the SDEIS it would result in greater
pumping and greenhouse gas emissions. It would also entail increased pumping costs, although the capital
costs are thought to be comparable to other SDEIS alternatives. Nevertheless, based upon its cursory review,
staff believes that the modified Alternative 4 is practicable and cost effective and that it should be analyzed by
the Corps. Ultimately, based on the outcome of further Corps analysis, the City might wish to consider
endorsing modified Alternative 4 as long as there was appropriate mitigation.
Water Quality - Source Water
Maintaining or improving water quality is of paramount importance to the City. Water quality can be defined by
its physical, chemical, biological, and aesthetic attributes, which are not only important for the protection of
public health, but also the environment.
The City’s concerns about potential negative impacts of NISP operations on the quality of drinking water
supplies are twofold. The first is related to the potential conveyance of NISP water from Glade Reservoir
through the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (PVP). Currently, the PVP delivers Poudre River water to the City’s
treatment plant via the Munroe Canal, which is situated upstream of the proposed Glade diversion point and is
of high quality. Fort Collins Utilities shares use of the PVP with the Tri-Districts (FCLWD, the East Larimer
County Water District, and the North Weld County Water District). As proposed, Northern will convey water
from Glade Reservoir into the PVP for delivery to the Tri-Districts’ Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (SCFP) for use
by the Fort Collins Loveland Water District and other NISP participants. If Glade Reservoir water is of poorer
quality, which is expected due to the size and composition of the project, the quality of the City’s water supplies
obtained through the PVP will be degraded and may require additional treatment costs associated with total
organic carbon (TOC) and solids removal. The City wants this potential impact to be addressed and mitigated.
Secondly, the City has serious concerns about the combined effects of Glade water deliveries through a
proposed Glade to Horsetooth pipeline and the significant (up to 300%) increase in hydraulic residence time in
Horsetooth Reservoir from approximately three years to about seven years. Those two changes create a
strong potential for significant water quality degradation in Horsetooth Reservoir. Long residence times are
associated with increases in algal production and changes in species composition. In turn, these changes can
potentially result in higher TOC concentrations as well as the production of cyanotoxins, which can pose public
health concerns, and elevated levels of nuisance taste and odor compounds. These types of water quality
changes present the potential for very large financial impacts on the City should treatment facility upgrades be
required. However, the reservoir CE-QUAL-W2 model results presented in the SDEIS did not include
simulations of the increase in hydraulic residence time, and therefore, the City was unable to evaluate the
overall likelihood or expected magnitude of impacts that would result from the proposed NISP operations on
water quality in the Horsetooth Reservoir. A complete evaluation of all proposed changes in reservoir
operations under the preferred Alternative 2-Reclamation Option is needed.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 6
Water Quality - Wastewater
Various chemical constituents and temperature are key components of water quality. A fundamental gap in
the SDEIS is the lack of a quantitative water quality and temperature model of the Poudre River. The SDEIS
acknowledges that these critically important components are missing and indicates that they will be provided in
the Final EIS, on which the City may not have the opportunity to comment, or on which the City’s ability to
comment would be limited. While the SDEIS indicates that water quality and temperatures changes are likely,
it does not provide quantitative information that would allow the City or others to understand the potential
impacts to its facilities or their operation. This is a serious shortcoming. (Please note that unlike the impact
analyses in the SDEIS, it will be possible for the City to review in advance the methods proposed by Northern
to model water quality and temperature impacts to the Poudre. Northern has extended an invitation to the City
to do so. The State of Colorado also will review the model.)
Flow reductions impact many of the issues that the SDEIS explores and the NISP preferred alternative
substantially reduces flows through Fort Collins. For example, currently the total amount of water on an
average annual basis that flows in the canyon prior to diversion is approximately 280,000 acre feet (AF). By
the time the River flows under the Lincoln Street Bridge in Fort Collins after upstream diversions, those flows
have been reduced to about 108,000 AF on average. If NISP is built, flows at the Lincoln Street Bridge will
likely be further reduced to an average of 85,000 AF, or a 21% reduction from current levels. Although NISP
diversions may occur in other months (including late summer and early fall), most of its diverted water will be
taken during periods of high flows in the months of May, June, and July. Monthly streamflows in average
years at the Fort Collins Lincoln Avenue Stream Gage in May, June, and July are respectively calculated to be
reduced by approximately 66%, 25%, and 54%.
Diversions of Poudre River water for NISP will affect water quality in the Poudre River below the canyon mouth
to points downstream where the City discharges treated wastewater. Degradation of water quality in the River
as it flows through town could create very difficult issues related to the City’s wastewater discharge permits as
well as the need to potentially provide expensive upgrades to both treatment plants. The River through town
already exceeds some water quality standards or is very close to exceedances (violations) of those
parameters. Thus, what may appear to be modest changes in quality, such as seemingly small increases in
water temperature, can have significant impacts to both compliance with stream standards and the bottom line
of Fort Collins.
Lower flows are problematic for the City’s wastewater treatment plants which operate under strict water quality
permit limit conditions. NISP diversions at the canyon mouth will result in flow reductions downstream at the
Mulberry and Drake wastewater treatment facilities. As noted above, the lack of a quantitative water quality
and temperature modelling information means that the City is unable to determine if lower flows would, in turn,
potentially lead to increasingly stringent effluent limits for Mulberry and Drake and that could cost the City
significant amounts of money to remediate. While the mitigation plan for NISP includes a proposal to augment
flows to 10 cubic feet per second (CFS) from November 1 through April 1 (and potentially September) through
a portion of town, that flow is proposed to be re-diverted into the Timnath Reservoir Inlet (next to Nix Farm)
before it reaches the permitted Drake discharge to the Poudre River. Because of its planned diversion at the
Timnath Inlet, the proposed augmentation flow does not address low flows or dry ups in the lower portion of
the River in Fort Collins.
Water Quality - Natural Environment
Diversions of Poudre River water for NISP will affect water quality in the Poudre River below the canyon mouth
through Fort Collins where the City has invested substantially to improve the natural environment. Water
quality is fundamental to the health of the fishery as well as other biological attributes of the River. The
reduced flows and impacts to water quality affecting the City’s wastewater discharges also directly affect these
attributes.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 7
Operations
The conceptual mitigation plan for NISP’s preferred alternative features a fall and winter augmentation release
from Glade Reservoir to maintain a minimum of 10 CFS at certain locations. However, no other alternative
includes augmentation releases. As a result, when impacts among alternatives are compared in the SDEIS,
the preferred alternative shows fewer negative impacts than the other alternatives that do not include
augmentation releases. This comparison may not be valid. Staff recommends that winter augmentation flows
be incorporated in other alternatives besides the proposed action.
The City’s comments note that most of the water rights Northern proposes to use for the augmentation
program are not adjudicated or permitted for this use. The augmentation program could thus potentially not
operate to address impacts. Thus, the City recommends that any approval of NISP should require that all
water rights proposed for use in the augmentation program be confirmed to lawfully be available for such use.
The SDEIS states that water released from Glade Reservoir for the proposed augmentation program will be
returned to Glade Reservoir, and that the “method of exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir would
be determined between the SDEIS and FEIS.” More information on the method by with augmentation releases
will be re-delivered to Glade Reservoir is needed to properly assess impacts (it is possible that re-delivery
would further deplete Poudre River flows at other times of the year).
The SDEIS mentions that the NISP participants Eaton, Severance, and Windsor would receive water from
NISP via a direct connection between Glade Reservoir and Soldier Canyon Filter Plant, but the method for
such deliveries is not explained. If a new pipeline is required to make these releases, the SDEIS should
evaluate the pipeline’s impacts. If deliveries will be made through existing infrastructure (e.g., the PVP), City
wants potential impacts to be addressed and mitigated.
Storm Water and Hydraulic Comments
Flushing flows are critical to a variety of River health indicators including transport of sediment, turnover of the
bed, and debris mobility. Because most of NISP’s water is diverted during the peaking flows of May, June, and
July it has the potential to reduce the ability of the River to provide regular flushing flows. As noted earlier,
monthly streamflows in average years at the Fort Collins Lincoln Avenue Stream Gage in May, June and July
are respectively calculated to be reduced by approximately 66%, 25%, and 54%.
Moving sediment through the system and the Fort Collins reach cleans the bed for fish spawning and insects
and prevents large-scale sediment deposition and potential channel encroachment. Reducing flushing flows
may have impacts to the ability of the Poudre River to convey storm water and flooding flows through town
without causing damage.
The SDEIS makes a finding that very large flows of up to 10,000 CFS are needed to effectively move material
through Fort Collins. However, the City’s Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model and associated hydraulic
science indicates that flushing flows of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 CFS rejuvenate the River bed. This is an
important difference since diversion to Glade Reservoir can divert approximately 1,000 CFS from the River.
NISP would reduce the frequency of 3,000 CFS flushing flows from 6.5 years to 13 years. To meet the life-
cycle needs of aquatic life, a 3,000 CFS flushing flow ideally would occur every 3 years.
As noted elsewhere in this AIS the conceptual mitigation plan included in the SDEIS addresses low fall and
winter flows. Unfortunately, however, the mitigation plan includes no provision to address the reduction of
peaking flows.
Please note that these comments in particular may affect or delay the permitting process for the Halligan
Water Supply and Storage Project. If the Corps believes that the City’s comments regarding the flushing flow
analysis in the SDEIS are correct and deserve further analysis, it also could be required of the Halligan project.
In spite of this potential, staff agrees that the flushing flow issue is too important to be ignored; in fact, flushing
flows are essential to many of the criticisms the City has of the project on environmental grounds.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 8
Fish
The Poudre River through Fort Collins supports cold water trout fisheries as well as native warm water fishes.
These fisheries are valued by the community for their recreational importance and their role in conserving
native plains fish populations. As noted in the storm water and hydraulic comments above, fish and aquatic
insects rely on peak or “flushing flows” to maintain clean, mobile and diverse riverbed necessary to support
their life cycle needs. The reduction of flushing flows is likely to affect the fisheries because this habitat
maintenance occurs less frequently.
More regular, continuous base flows (as opposed to peak flows) support fish through dilution of nutrients,
chemical pollutants and temperature moderation. The proposed augmentation flow to maintain a minimum of
10CFS proposed by the SDEIS would represent an improvement over current low flow conditions in certain
locations, especially those prone to extreme low flows and dry ups. It is, however, important to note that base
flows for fish in the winter months of 20 to 35 CFS are more suitable for supporting trout survival.
The SDEIS utilizes an industry-standard “2-D” habitat analysis to understand fish habitat availability.
Unfortunately, the data analysis from the 2-D modeling utilizes a nonstandard and greatly oversimplified
averaging approach. This unusual interpretation of the data ignores valuable details in the data and precludes
opportunities to properly understand effects on various species (which is the intended application of the
model).
The potential impact of NISP to the fisheries should be adequately and properly evaluated using accepted and
transparent techniques commonly utilized for the 2-D analytical approach. Staff believes this approach is
appropriate not only because it is the standard, but because it was recently used for one of the other major
water projects and EIS’s in the state, Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project. It also was recently utilized for
development of an instream flow report on the Colorado River.
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
The ribbon of vegetation along the River, often called the riparian forest or cottonwood woodlands, provides
critical habitat for wildlife, filters excessive nutrients or pollutants from the waterways, reduces erosion and,
constitutes a valuable recreational amenity. The Poudre River recreational trail alone attracts approximately
half a million visitors per year. In addition to forest, riparian habitats are typically a mosaic of shrublands,
wetlands, and meadows.
The City’s 2008 comments to the DEIS expressed concern over inadequate analysis regarding potential
impacts to wetland and riparian vegetation. The SDEIS includes a series of new analyses including impacts to
groundwater, wetlands, cottonwood regeneration as well as overall habitat and long-term trends. Staff has
extensive concerns regarding the interpretation of the analyses and the overall conclusions.
While the SDEIS concludes that there will be little to no impact to wetlands and riparian areas, staff believes
that the analyses are inadequate to draw accurate conclusions. In general, staff’s experience and research on
the Poudre (including the science behind the Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model) supports the view
that the lower flows associated with NISP will significantly narrow the riparian zone and lead to the loss of
wetlands.
For example, a close relationship exists between River flows and the quality and extent of riparian habitat. In
particular, moderately high flows that extend beyond the River banks saturate soils and maintain shallow
groundwater levels. The NISP project will reduce the frequency of these moderately high flows and is the
focus of staff’s review related to the riparian corridor.
Also of concern, the SDEIS applied an unconventional and biologically unsupported approach for
understanding potential wetlands loss. The approach is not sensitive enough to predict subtle yet significant
changes that could lead to complete shifts in habitat type.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 9
With respect to riparian areas, the SDEIS applies the Corps hydrology standard for wetlands (and specifically
an inundation requirement of 50% of all years) to cottonwood woodlands. This application of a wetland
standard to riparian forest constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of this habitat type in a number of
ways. Yet this misunderstanding is used as the basis for predicting no adverse impact to cottonwood
woodlands along the Poudre.
Air Quality and Climate Change
NISP would involve pumping substantial amounts of water under the preferred and all alternatives. The
storage of water under NISP would thus consume large amounts of electricity and thereby result in increased
discharges of emissions to the air, including greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The
recreational use of Glade Reservoir will also result in increased emissions from vehicular traffic. The additional
sources of air pollution will occur in a region that already does not comply with ozone standards
(nonattainment area). The resulting impacts include further harm to human health and the environment from
regional ozone pollution and regulatory restrictions on economic growth (limits on air permits). In general, staff
has a variety of concerns regarding the adequacy of the analysis of these issues in the SDEIS.
It should be noted that the Modified Alternative 4 discussed above would require additional pumping and
associated emission impacts. However, given that the proposed Modified Alternative 4 will have far fewer
aquatic impacts than other SDEIS alternatives, the increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with
larger pumping inputs may be justified, especially given that increased greenhouse gas emissions could be
avoided, minimized, or mitigated by the use of renewable energy sources.
Recreation
The Poudre is a major recreational attraction in Fort Collins, attracting approximately 500,000 visitor days a
year. Over many decades Fort Collins has spent tens of millions of dollars beautifying, acquiring land,
building recreation amenities, and restoration natural habitat. Fort Collins owns three parks on the River and
over 1,800 acres of natural areas. In 2014, City Council adopted a Downtown Poudre River Master Plan that
describes a vision for continuing to improve the most heavily visited reach of the River from Shields Street to
Mulberry.
In general, staff believes that NISP will undermine the Fort Collins community’s connection to the river by
reducing flows, impairing water quality and diminishing riparian habitat.
An increasingly popular activity on the Poudre is summertime boating (kayaking, canoeing) and tubing. The
SDEIS acknowledges moderate to major adverse effects on boating recreation in Fort Collins. With the NISP
preferred alternative of constructing Glade Reservoir, the SDEIS determines that boatable days will be
reduced by 35% from 54 days to 35 days annually. The SDEIS describes boatable days as those days with
150 CFS or more. Based on personal communication with boaters in the community, 150 CFS is regarded the
minimum necessary flow for a watercraft. Tubers can float the river with flows of around 100 CFS; flows lower
than 100 CFS will not support tubing or boating. According to an analysis commissioned by staff, in dryer
periods such as the late 1980s and early 1990s, NISP could reduce boatable days by 50% or more.
Clearly the project will have negative impacts to the potential season length at the proposed kayak park in Fort
Collins; however, the City’s kayaking consultant notes that Front Range kayaking facilities regularly experience
seasonal highs and lows and the boating community is accustomed to these fluctuations. Also, given that the
hydrology on the River has been carefully modeled through the CTP process, the designers would take into
account these lower flows and build the facilities to maximize their benefit.
The SDEIS notes that there would be flatwater recreation available on Glade Reservoir with extensive access
and describes it as potential offset to the loss of recreation on the River in town. Staff, however, does not
believe that recreation at Glade is substitute for the user experience along the Poudre in town. The City’s
comments recommend that the Corps require NISP to provide compensatory mitigation to offset recreation
losses in Fort Collins.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 10
General Comments
The overall narrative of the SDEIS is that, regardless of NISP, ongoing degradation of the health of the Poudre
River is inevitable and irreversible. Staff, however, does not agree. Instead, the health of the Poudre River can
be stabilized, maintained, and improved through deliberate, thoughtful, and strategic actions similar to those
the City has been taking.
For example, the SDEIS describes a declining trajectory for riparian vegetation and forests (the SDEIS
acknowledges NISP may accelerate the negative trajectory but does not quantify the trend). The SDEIS
attributes the ongoing decline to an existing flow regime that no longer supports critical riparian processes. In
contrast, however, City research and observations attribute this declining trend primarily to physical constraints
imposed on the urban floodplain as well as an altered forest composition. Furthermore, staff believes that that
with current flows, or otherwise deliberately managed high and low flows; the departure away from a
biologically thriving river is not a foregone conclusion. The window of opportunity for maintaining desired
amenities such as a world class fishery, a spectrum of River related recreation opportunities and an
aesthetically pleasing river is still open.
To support this perspective, the City will be including in its comments to the Corps the Poudre River
Ecosystem Response Model (ERM) as well as the Poudre River Health Assessment Framework (RHAF). The
City ran the ERM model with new NISP hydrology. The model runs confirm that NISP is likely to have impacts
greater than those described in the SDEIS. Fort Collins does not intend the ERM and RHAF or their results to
replace or supersede the various in-depth studies undertaken as part of the SDEIS. They will be provided,
however, to help the Corps understand what indicators are critical to river health (from the City’s perspective)
and to frame the relative scale of NISP impacts and provide guidance as to how NISP might avoid, minimize,
or mitigate those impacts. Staff hopes this guidance will influence the Corps as well as the State of Colorado
in their respective mitigation planning efforts.
With respect to mitigation for the project, staff believes that it is premature to consider mitigation since many of
the project’s impacts have not yet been correctly analyzed or described. Moreover, NISP is required to avoid
and minimize its impacts before mitigation can even be considered.
In the event, however, that NISP is permitted, staff believes that any mitigation plan imposed by the Corps, or
by the State of Colorado through its Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan, must be commensurate to the impacts of
the project. Staff suggests that achieving that goal will require an investment that represents at least 10% of
the project’s total cost. Ten percent of total cost would be an amount that ranges from $50,000,000 to
$90,000,000 (see table 2-12 page 2-61 SDEIS).
While that may seem like a large figure it is important to note that the relative cost of an acre foot of water from
NISP is low compared to the current water market. For example, if NISP costs $800,000,000 to build, an acre
foot of firm yield will cost $20,000. This is far less than the $50,000 it costs to obtain an acre foot of firm yield
from the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) project which is considered to be the “gold standard” in the
marketplace. Thus, adding another 10% for a total price of $22,000 per acre foot would still mean NISP water
is 56% less expensive than CBT.
Finally, an overarching question that has not yet been addressed is to what extent does NISP close the
window of opportunity for improving overall River health with environmental maintenance flows (both low and
high) along with other management actions. Further, to what extent could NISP ensure that appropriate
management actions are taken to sustain the future health of the River? In general, the proposed mitigation
plan falls far short of what would be needed to alleviate the harms that NISP will cause or to improve the River
from its current overall condition.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
NISP has the potential to significantly impact the City’s finances, especially with respect to drinking water
treatment processes and the well-established high water quality expectations of City customers. This is
particularly true if lower quality water from Glade Reservoir is delivered into Horsetooth Reservoir (the
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 11
preferred alternative includes two options, one option includes delivery from Glade to Horsetooth, the other
does not). Costs for remediating this lower quality source water could be in the many tens of millions of
dollars. Without quantitative information it is not clear from the SDEIS whether adverse water quality impacts
will occur; thus the City’s comments recommend that the analysis related to the Glade to Horsetooth delivery
be substantially improved.
In addition, because quantitative water quality and temperature analyses have not been completed for the
Poudre, it is not clear whether or not there will be in-stream water quality impacts that would require the City to
undertake improvements to its wastewater treatment plants. Again, if there are impacts to water quality that
would require additional treatment by the City, the costs could be very significant.
Other potential financial impacts are related to the loss of recreation use on the river by boaters and potential
losses related to aesthetic degradation of the river environment. The SDEIS considers these losses negligible
or minor. However, based on a study commissioned by Fort Collins in 2008 (“Estimating Benefits of
Maintaining Peak Instream Flows”, Dr. John Loomis) a reduction in peak flow of 50% would reduce visitation to
the river by approximately 33%.
The SDEIS describes a very large range of financial value associated with visits to the Poudre River trail and
visits to Natural Areas along the river. Figures for visits to Natural Areas range from ~$2 million to ~$14
million annually. The median value is $8 million. At 500,000 visitors a year, that works out to $16 per visitor.
Although it is not known how many visitors are present during May, June and July a safe assumption is that at
least one-quarter of total annual visitors (~125,000) are present during these months. Thus, a reduction of
33% of these visitors (~42,000) at $16 a visit would represent an approximately $670,000 annual loss. While
these figures may contain a significant margin of error, they conservatively suggest that there would be
significant economic losses related to flow depletions.
Lastly, there is a potential negative financial impact to that portion of the City served by Fort Collins Loveland
Water District if NISP is not approved. The cost of an acre foot of firm yield of NISP water is estimated to be
approximately $20,000. That is far less than an acre foot of CBT water which, as noted above, is considered
the “gold standard” for water sources. An acre foot of CBT firm yield costs approximately $50,000, or $30,000
per acre foot more than NISP. The total amount of water that would serve the City from Glade is roughly
estimated to be approximately 1,400 acre feet. If that water were to be supplied by CBT, which may be
difficult considering the growing scarcity of CBT available for purchase, the total difference in price could be as
much as $42,000,000 (1,400 acre feet X $30,000).
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Informational presentations were shared with the four Boards identified below; recommendations were not
requested.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff held two Council work sessions on this item on May 12 and July 28. Staff attended the Army Corps open
house on July 22. Staff made presentations to the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Water Board, the
Planning and Zoning Board and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. Staff appeared on Cross
Currents to discuss the project with advocates and opponents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map and Participant Boundaries (PDF)
2. Work Session Summary, May 12, 2015 (PDF)
3. Work Session Summary, July 28, 2015 (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
1
September 1, 2015
The Northern Integrated Supply Project
Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
ATTACHMENT 4
2
Purpose of the Agenda Item
• A final review of City comments on the NISP SDEIS
• Consideration of a resolution that expresses:
– Support for additional water supply for project participants
– Continued concern regarding the potential harms to Fort
Collins and the inadequacies of the EIS and conceptual
mitigation plan
– An inability to support the project at this time based on the
City’s concerns
3
Recommendation Options
• A full range of options were considered:
– Complete support
– Conditional support
– Neutrality
– Conditional Opposition
– Absolute Opposition
4
Factors
• The need to protect the City’s interests and create
a record for the future SDEIS processes
• Our comments may affect or delay Halligan
• The project provides water to a portion of Fort
Collins
• The likely harms to Fort Collins from NISP
5
Factors
• It is impossible to correctly understand what the
impacts of the project are until the impacts
analysis is completed and improved
• Further, it is impossible to develop an adequate
mitigation plan
6
Process and Role of Fort Collins
• Fort Collins has influence through its comments,
but the Corps is the ultimate decision maker
• The process still includes:
– A Final EIS
– A Record of Decision (or ROD)
– State Water Quality Certification
– A State Wildlife Mitigation Plan
7
Recommended Approach
Conditional Opposition
“That the City Council cannot support NISP as it is
described and proposed in the DEIS and SDEIS, with the
understanding that the City Council may reach a
different conclusion with respect to a future variant of
NISP that addresses the City’s fundamental concerns
expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS and
comments to the SDEIS.”
8
Water Quality
• Water Quality
– Source Water
– Wastewater
9
Water Quality
• Lack of a quantitative temperature and water
quality model
• Required to complete the EIS process
• Required to complete state certification
• Required for Fort Collins to understand full
impacts to infrastructure and river health
10
Flushing Flows
SDEIS concludes that “moderate” flows are not important
City believes that moderate peaking flows are crucial for river health
The SDEIS includes no flushing flow mitigation
11
Flushing Flows
• Please note that the City’s comments regarding
flushing flows may require additional work related
to Halligan
• However, given the importance of this issue staff
believes this comment should be submitted to the
Corps
12
Augmentation for Winter Low Flow
• Key component of Conceptual Mitigation Plan
• Due to water rights issues, no guarantee that the
flow can be provided
13
Riparian Vegetation and Wetlands
14
No-Action Alternative
• The no-action alternative contemplates the
construction of a very large reservoir and dry up
of irrigated agriculture
• A legitimate no-action alternative cannot require a
federal permit
• The no-action alternative appears to require a
federal permit
15
No-Action Alternative
• A legitimate no-action alternative is needed as a
baseline to compare the impacts of the preferred
alternative
16
Modified Alternative 4
17
Recreation
• In general, staff is concerned that reduced flows
will harm the community’s overall recreation and
visitor experience
• SDEIS predicts a loss of one-third of boatable
days
• Staff has noted potential financial harms to Fort
Collins
18
Mitigation
• Too soon to determine
• As described – not yet adequate
• Important to influence as process goes forward
19
Financial Considerations
• Glade to Horsetooth water transfer could cause
significant impacts on the order of tens of millions
of dollars for additional source water treatment
• Lower water quality in Poudre could cause
significant impacts related to wastewater
• Loss of recreation and diminishment of visitor
experience could cause significant impacts
20
Fort Collins Loveland Water District
• Estimated demand increase of approximately
1,400 AF in the GMA
• If NISP not permitted, costs could be far greater
• For example: CBT equivalent could increase
costs by roughly $40,000,000
21
Financial Considerations - Mitigation
• As noted – it’s premature to develop a mitigation
plan or costs
• When it is developed, however, staff believes that
at least 10% of the project cost should be devoted
to mitigation
• $50 to $90 million
• Adds a reasonable cost to a NISP acre foot of
water ($20k to $22k)
22
Final Thoughts
• Narrative of SDEIS is one of inevitable decline
• Is a regional vision for Poudre River health possible?
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2015-082
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT TO THE U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS THE CITY’S COMMENTS ON THE
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“District”) is pursuing
the Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”), a water storage and supply project that would
divert significant amounts of water from the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, to move forward with the necessary federal permitting for NISP, the District
is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to complete an environmental
impact review process, conducted in this case by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) as
the permitting agency under the federal Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, as part of the review process, on April 30, 2008, the Corps issued a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”), and the City timely submitted comments to the DEIS
on September 10, 2008, pursuant to Resolution 2008-002; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the Corps issued a supplemental draft Environmental
Impact Statement (“SDEIS”), and pursuant to a subsequent extension of time, provided for
submission of public comment up to September 3, 2015; and
WHEREAS, at the May 12, 2015, City Council work session, City staff presented
background on NISP as well as staff’s proposed analytical and data-driven objective approach to
commenting on the SDEIS, which approach City Council endorsed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction of City Council, City staff, working with the
assistance of outside technical experts, undertook a thorough and detailed technical analysis of
the SDEIS primarily as it pertains to the NISP proposed action and its direct impacts in Fort
Collins and to the City; and
WHEREAS, at the July 28, 2015, City Council work session, City staff presented
preliminary analyses and findings related to staff’s review of the SDEIS; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to express its support for other communities, including
participants in NISP, in their quest to acquire reliable water supplies without significantly
adversely affecting other communities and the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the SDEIS is deficient under NEPA and the
federal Clean Water Act in various respects, including in its analysis of potential impacts to the
City, as set forth in the City’s comments to the SDEIS; and
WHEREAS, staff has concluded the project will be harmful to Fort Collins based on a
- 2 -
thorough review of the impacts described by the SDEIS as well as the impacts that staff expects
from the project; and
WHEREAS, in view of the significance of the impacts that NISP would have on the City
and the Fort Collins community, it is in the City’s best interest to comment on the SDEIS, to
continue to participate in these proceedings, and to monitor the responses to the comments of the
City and others.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council cannot support NISP as it is currently described and
proposed in the SDEIS, with the understanding that the City Council may reach a different
conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP that addresses the City’s fundamental
concerns expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS and comments to the SDEIS.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to submit to the
Corps formal comments to the SDEIS that are substantially similar with those attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, in accordance with the deadline for such
submission.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of September, A.D. 2015.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Comments on Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the
Northern Integrated Supply Project
Dated: September 3, 2015
EXHIBIT A
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 2 of 108
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ 7
SECTION 1: INCORPORATION OF FORT COLLINS’ COMMENTS TO DEIS .......... 11
SECTION 2: VALIDITY OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................... 12
2.1 The No Action Alternative Violates NEPA and Renders Its Alternatives Analysis
Invalid .......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 The Proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir Requires a Section 404 Permit Under the CWA,
and Therefore, Is an Action Under NEPA ............................................................................... 12
2.1.2 The Failure To Consider A Legitimate No Action Alternative Renders Its
Alternatives Analysis Deficient under NEPA and the CWA ................................................... 13
SECTION 3: FAILURE TO CONDUCT ANALYSES ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, FAILURE TO FULLY ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND
UNCERTAINTY REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................. 15
3.1 The Failure To Conduct and Disclose Analyses On Certain Environmental Impacts In
The SDEIS Violates NEPA and the CWA ................................................................................ 15
3.1.1 A Hard Look at the Environmental Impact of NISP Has Not Been Taken Due to a
Failure to Complete All Necessary Evaluations ...................................................................... 15
3.1.2 The Failure to Conduct All Relevant Studies Violates NEPA’s Requirement That The
Public Is Fully Informed Of NISP’s Environmental Effects.................................................... 16
3.1.3 There Is Insufficient Information to Determine Compliance With Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines and the CWA’s Public Interest Review ................................................................. 17
3.2 Failure to Fully Address Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA and the CWA ............... 18
3.3 Uncertainty Regarding Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 18
SECTION 4: PROPOSED MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 4 ................................................. 20
4.1 The Corps Should Consider Fort Collins’ Proposed Modified Alternative 4 .............. 20
4.1.1 Summary of Alternative 4 in the SDEIS .................................................................... 20
4.1.2 Summary of Fort Collins’ Proposed Modified Alternative 4 ..................................... 21
4.1.3 Other Considerations for Modified Alternative 4 ...................................................... 23
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 3 of 108
SECTION 5: WATER QUALITY COMMENTS .................................................................. 25
5.1 Comments Regarding Incomplete Analyses Related to Water Quality ....................... 26
5.1.1 No Analysis of Antidegradation Regulations and Mulberry and Drake WRFs ......... 26
5.1.2 No Analysis of Chlorophyll ....................................................................................... 26
5.1.3 No Quantitative Analysis of Temperature ................................................................. 27
5.1.4 No Quantitative Analysis of Water Quality Effects Below Glade Reservoir ............ 27
5.1.5 Water Quality Monitoring Is Not Mitigation ............................................................. 28
5.2 Comments Regarding Impacts to Source Water Quality for the FCWTF .................. 29
5.2.1 Changes to Hydraulic Residence Time in Horsetooth Reservoir ............................... 29
5.3 Comments Regarding Impacts to the Poudre River and Wastewater Dischargers .... 36
5.3.1 Augmentation Program and Wastewater Discharges ................................................. 36
5.3.2 Use of Cottonwood Trees to Reduce Increase in Water Temperatures ..................... 36
5.3.3 Trichloroethylene Plume at Glade Reservoir Forebay ............................................... 37
5.4 Resources for Section 5 ..................................................................................................... 38
SECTION 6: OPERATIONAL COMMENTS ....................................................................... 39
6.1 Inclusion of the Augmentation Program in Alternative 2 Only .................................... 39
6.2 Inclusion of Reclamation Option in Alternative 2 Only ................................................ 40
6.3 Augmentation Program Concerns ................................................................................... 41
6.3.1 Use of Water that Has Been Diverted to Storage ....................................................... 42
6.3.2 Proposed Use of the Grey Mountain Water Right for Replacement and/or
Recreational Uses ..................................................................................................................... 42
6.3.3 Proposed Re-Use and Successive Use of Water Attributable to the Grey Mountain
Water Right .............................................................................................................................. 44
6.3.4 No Analysis of Substitutions and Exchanges on Augmentation Program Flows ...... 45
6.3.5 No Analysis of the Ability of the District to Deliver Flows in the Augmentation
Program Past All Intervening Headgates ................................................................................. 46
6.3.6 Augmentation Program During Times of Drought .................................................... 46
6.3.7 No Analysis of Subsequent Exchanges Using Augmentation Program Flows .......... 47
6.4 Impacts on the PVP ........................................................................................................... 47
6.5 How Deliveries to NISP Participants are to be Made .................................................... 48
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 4 of 108
6.6 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 6 ............................................................................................... 48
SECTION 7: CHANNEL STRUCTURE, STORM WATER, FLOODPLAIN, AND
HYDRAULIC COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 49
7.1 No Analysis of Costs and Flooding Risks in Fort Collins .............................................. 49
7.2 Lack of Support for Conclusions of Minor Impacts ...................................................... 50
7.3 Incorrect Analysis of Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport ........................... 53
7.4 Incorrect Data on Grain Size ............................................................................................ 54
7.5 Augmentation Program’s Ability to Maintain the Environment .................................. 55
7.6 Need to Address Flooding and Storm Water Issues ....................................................... 56
7.7 Resources for Section 7 ..................................................................................................... 57
SECTION 8: AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMENTS .......................... 59
8.1 Comments Regarding Incomplete Analysis Related to Air Quality ............................. 59
8.1.1 No Analysis of Impacts from Increased Traffic .............................................................. 59
8.1.2 Analysis Missing Numerous Air Pollution Sources ........................................................ 61
8.1.3 Inadequate Air Quality Analysis May Lead to Violation of NAAQS For Ozone ..... 64
8.1.4 Determination of Air Quality Impacts and Their Significance Did Not Consider
Requirements of All Air Quality Regulations .......................................................................... 65
8.2 Comments Regarding Incomplete Analysis Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions ... 66
8.2.1 Analysis Missing Numerous Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources ............................. 66
8.2.2 Claimed Minor Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................ 68
8.3 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 69
8.4 Fugitive Dust Emission Control Plan and Additional Mitigation Measures for Vehicle
Emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 69
8.5 Resources for Section 8 ..................................................................................................... 70
SECTION 9: RECREATION AND AESTHETICS COMMENTS ...................................... 71
9.1 Impacts to Boating ............................................................................................................. 71
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 5 of 108
9.2 Impacts to Recreational Experiences ............................................................................... 72
9.3 Aesthetic Impacts ............................................................................................................... 73
9.4 Mitigation of Visual Impacts ............................................................................................ 73
9.5 Augmentation Program and Mitigation .......................................................................... 74
9.6 Resources for Section 9 ..................................................................................................... 75
SECTION 10: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES COMMENTS............................................... 76
10.1 The Poudre River Is Not on an Inevitable Downward Trajectory as Claimed in the
SDEIS, and the Ecological Response Model and River Health Assessment Framework Can
Be Used as Tools .......................................................................................................................... 76
10.2 Comments Regarding Cottonwood Establishment .................................................... 79
10.2.1 Inappropriate Assumption that Cottonwood Forests Are in Decline ......................... 79
10.2.2 Inappropriate Analysis Based on Future Conditions.................................................. 80
10.2.3 Inappropriate Conclusion That Current Flows Are the Primary Limitation .............. 80
10.2.4 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding the Crossing of a Biological Threshold ......... 81
10.2.5 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Green Ash ...................................................... 81
10.2.6 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment .............................. 82
10.2.7 Inaccuracies Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment and Moderate Flow Events ........ 82
10.2.8 Disregard of Non-Major Recruitment Events ............................................................ 83
10.3 Comments Regarding Aquatics and Fisheries ........................................................... 84
10.3.1 Lack of Temperature Analysis ................................................................................... 84
10.3.2 Approach to Impacts on Aquatic Biological Resources............................................. 85
10.4 Comments Regarding Analyses of Wetlands and Riparian Areas ........................... 86
10.4.1 Lack of Defined and Objective Standards.................................................................. 86
10.4.2 Inconsistent Identification of Acres of Effected Wetlands ........................................ 87
10.4.3 Inconsistencies in the Riparian and Wetland Analyses .............................................. 87
10.4.4 Failure to Adequately Consider Long-Term Changes Resulting from NISP............... 89
10.5 Comments Regarding Ground Water Analyses and Issues ...................................... 89
10.5.1 Inaccurate Assumptions about Ground and Surface Water Interactions.................... 89
10.5.2 Shortcomings in the Data Used for the Ground Water Analysis ............................... 90
10.5.3 Misinterpretation of Data ........................................................................................... 92
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 6 of 108
10.6 Comments Regarding Analyses of Poudre River Wetlands ..................................... 93
10.6.1 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes in River Stage of 0.5 Feet or Less ................ 93
10.6.2 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes of a Duration of 10% or Less ....................... 95
10.6.3 Inappropriate Assumption Regarding a Shift in Wetland Vegetation........................ 97
10.6.4 Failure to Consider Permanent Shift in Poudre River Flows ........................................ 97
10.6.5 Inappropriate Reliance on CDOW Mapping .............................................................. 98
10.6.6 Failure to Identify the Data Source for the Acres of Wetlands Impacted .................. 98
10.7 Comments Regarding Effects to Riparian Habitats and Ecological Processes ....... 99
10.7.2 Inappropriate Exclusion of Certain Riparian Forests ................................................. 99
10.7.3 Incorrect Conclusions of Impacts to Riparian Forests ............................................. 100
10.7.4 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding Impacts of Recent Flooding on Riparian Forests 100
10.7.5 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding the Response of Cottonwoods to the Diversion of
Peak Flows ............................................................................................................................. 102
10.7.6 Failure to Analyze Ecological Services ................................................................... 103
10.8 Comments Regarding Wildlife Analyses .................................................................. 105
10.8.1 Inadequate Analyses of Impacts to Wildlife ............................................................ 105
10.8.2 No Basis for Assertion of Adaption of Species........................................................ 106
10.9 Comments Regarding Cumulative Effects, Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation................................................................................................................................... 106
10.9.1 Complete Analysis Is Needed .................................................................................. 106
10.9.2 Current Proposal Omits Certain Needed Elements .................................................. 106
10.10 Resources for Section 10 ............................................................................................. 107
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 7 of 108
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins (“Fort Collins”) respectfully files and submits to the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) these comments to the Supplemental Draft Supplemental
Impact Statement, dated June 2015 and issued on June 19, 2015 (“SDEIS”), and its associated
technical reports and related documents, regarding the Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”
or “Project”), for which the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Northern” or
“District”) is the applicant. Reference materials are identified in the comments and the majority of
such reference materials are being provided to the Corps in electronic format. These reference
materials should be considered to be a part of these comments. Fort Collins reserves all rights to
provide additional and supplemental comments on the SDEIS and/or NISP, as may be appropriate.
To the extent permitted by the short comment period, Fort Collins has completed a thorough,
scientific review of the SDEIS by expert City staff and consultants summarized in Appendix A.
Several of Fort Collins’ concerns regarding the original NISP draft environmental impact statement
(“DEIS”) remain. The SDEIS has also created new issues under National Environmental Policy Act,
42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370h (“NEPA”), and the rules and regulations and guidelines thereunder, the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387 (“CWA”), and the rules and regulations and guidelines
thereunder, and other relevant legal requirements, as discussed herein. In short, the SDEIS remains
inadequate for the Corps to discharge its obligations under these requirements, including its selection
of the least environmental damaging practicable alternative (“LEDPA”) for the Project. See 40
C.F.R. § 230.10(a) (“[N]o discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the
aquatic ecosystem …”).
If a Section 404 permit under the CWA is awarded for the Project, substantial compensatory
mitigation will be needed, in addition to any avoidance and minimization measures. It is Fort
Collins’ understanding that mitigation for NISP will be finalized with any Record of Decision
(“ROD”), and that avoidance and minimization measures may be finalized before the ROD. As
discussed further herein, Fort Collins notes that, at this point, the District’s plans in these respects,
which are summarized in Appendix F, are conceptual and offer limited information on specific
measures. Appendix F indicates the intent of the District to recognize and react constructively to
impairment of interests other than those of the District and the NISP participants, to be cooperative
and responsive, and to participate in all reasonable efforts to address impairments to resources or
interests caused by NISP. Where the document does not define specific limits or features of these
commitments, however, it is of limited use except as a statement of general intent. Clarification on
these efforts is required by NEPA and the CWA. As the entity most impacted by the Project, Fort
Collins would welcome the opportunity to participate in mitigation-related discussion and efforts.
Fort Collins’ comments on the SDEIS provided herein are organized by general topic area.
In general, the comments begin with broader, more conceptual concerns regarding the SDEIS and
the Project, and thereafter turn to more specific issues. The following is a brief summary of the
subsequent sections of these comments.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 8 of 108
SECTION 1: Incorporation of Fort Collins Comments to DEIS. The comments included
herein are a supplement and in addition to the previous comments made to the original DEIS for the
Project. Several issues raised in the DEIS have not been adequately addressed.
SECTION 2: Validity of the No Action Alternative. The SDEIS includes consideration of
a “no action” Alternative 1, which purportedly would not require federal action. However,
Alternative 1 is developed around the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir that, based on the information
provided, appears to require an individual Section 404 permit under the CWA. If the proposed
Cactus Hill Reservoir requires a Section 404 permit, then under NEPA, the Corps must revise its
alternatives analysis in a new SDEIS to develop a new, true “no action” alternative that can serve as
the baseline for analyzing the proposed action’s environmental impact. In violation of NEPA and
the CWA, the SDEIS’s current “no action” alternative skews the analysis to reduce identified
impacts, thereby altering the selection of the LEDPA. If the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir would
not, in fact, require a Section 404 permit under the CWA, the SDEIS must expressly set forth why no
such permit is needed.
SECTION 3: Failure to Conduct Analyses on All Environmental Impacts, Failure to
Fully Address Cumulative Impacts, and Uncertainty Regarding Mitigation Measures. The
SDEIS defers several key analyses of impacts to a later date, namely, quantitative water quality
analyses. The failure to provide these analyses violates NEPA and such analyses must be provided
to Fort Collins and other stakeholders for review before any determination on the Project can be
made. The SDEIS also does not fully describe how the cumulative impacts from NISP, Fort Collins’
Halligan Water Supply Project, and Greeley’s project to enlarge Milton Seaman Reservoir will be
assessed to each project. Additionally, the SDEIS’s proposed measures to mitigate the
environmental impacts of each alternative are vague and the effectiveness of the mitigation has not
been adequately documented at this point in the process.
SECTION 4: Proposed Modified Alternative 4. Fort Collins has investigated a modified
Alternative 4 for NISP that would meet the NISP Participant’s purpose and need while
simultaneously maintaining relatively more water in the Poudre River through Fort Collins than all
other action alternatives presented in the SDEIS. Such additional flows through Fort Collins would
address many of the concerns identified in these comments. The modified Alternative 4 is
contemplated to operate in such a way as to significantly reduce NISP diversions upstream of Fort
Collins as compared to Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred action), as well as Alternatives 3 and 4,
resulting in relatively more stream flows and relatively fewer impacts to aquatic and riparian
resources along a 23 mile reach of river through Fort Collins than the other alternatives considered in
the SDEIS. The Corps should consider and fully analyze this modified Alternative 4 in its analysis
and consideration of NISP.
SECTION 5: Water Quality Comments. The SDEIS was issued without several
quantitative analyses that would have allowed Fort Collins to meaningfully analyze possible effects
on its interests related to the quality of water Fort Collins treats, as well as the quality of water in the
Poudre River. To comply with NEPA’s “hard look” standard and the Section 404 Guidelines,
additional analyses must be performed and the Corps must address the specific deficiencies
discussed in these comments.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 9 of 108
SECTION 6: Operational Comments. The SDEIS’s description of Alternative 2 (the
District’s preferred alternative) includes a proposed flow augmentation program, and certain
descriptions of other NISP operations, such as deliveries to NISP Participants. However, the
proposed flow augmentation program is only proposed with Alternative 2, which unjustifiably skews
the analysis towards the selection of Alternative 2 as the LEDPA. Both NEPA and Section 404
require equal treatment of all alternatives. Also, as proposed in the SDEIS, the proposed flow
augmentation program appears to be premised on various incorrect assumptions and errors and raises
various concerns regarding its operations that could undermine its ability to meet its goals to address
the impacts to Fort Collins. The SDEIS also lacks needed analysis and specificity on various aspects
of the proposed operations regarding Alternative 2.
SECTION 7: Channel Structure, Storm Water, Floodplain, and Hydraulic Comments.
While the SDEIS is an improvement over the DEIS, the stream morphology and sediment transport
analysis in the SDEIS contain several flaws such that the analysis cannot be used to meaningfully
analyze NISP’s impacts on Fort Collins in the areas of drainage, storm water, and floodplain
impacts. The SDEIS also contains assertions and conclusions that that lack factual bases and are
arbitrary, including assertions regarding flushing flows. Revised analyses and considerations are
required in order to correctly and meaningfully evaluate the impacts. The mitigation measures
outlined in Appendix F do not properly evaluate or estimate the amount of sediment that will
accumulate within the river through Fort Collins due to the reduced flow from the Project. This
amount of sediment needs to be properly quantified and assigned a mitigation cost.
SECTION 8: Air Quality and Climate Change Comments. Fort Collins is concerned with
the adequacy of the air quality and climate change analysis in the SDEIS, as well as the impacts of
the proposed action. In general, the SDEIS does not fully analyze these impacts, which are
understated throughout the document. The Corps has failed to take a hard look at the impacts under
NEPA, and the lack of analysis prevents Fort Collins and other stakeholders from meaningfully
analyzing these effects. To comply with NEPA and the Clean Air Act conformity regulations, the
Corps must conduct revised and additional analyses. The Corps must conduct such analyses and
present them for public review and comment in a draft general conformity analysis. Neither the
DEIS nor the SDEIS provide a conformity analysis under 40 C.F.R. Part 93, despite the
acknowledgement in the SDEIS that it is necessary.
SECTION 9: Recreation and Aesthetics Comments. The SDEIS identifies significant, but
does not adequately analyze, impacts on boating opportunities and recreational experiences in Fort
Collins. The SDEIS does not provide a full and complete evaluation of the aesthetics impacts from
NISP. NEPA requires that the Corps further evaluate and provide additional information on those
impacts so that Fort Collins and other stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate them.
SECTION 10: Biological Resources Comments. The SDEIS’s unproven assertion that the
Poudre River is on a trajectory of inevitable decline is contradicted by the facts. Neither NEPA nor
the CWA allow agencies to disregard the impacts of proposed actions by assuming that
environmental resources will be lost regardless. The Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model and
the Poudre River Health Assessment Framework can serve as effective guideposts and decision
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 10 of 108
support tools as NISP. The SDEIS fails to include a quantitative temperature analysis, as noted
above, which is needed to meaningfully analyze the impacts from NISP on aquatics and fisheries.
The SDEIS also relies on oversimplifications and includes assertions that are not based on defined
metrics. The SDEIS does not properly assess impacts to the Poudre River’s wetlands and riparian
areas (including its ground water component). The SDEIS further includes various incorrect
assumptions, errors, and inappropriate conclusions, all of which result in under-quantification of the
identified impacts of NISP on the Poudre River’s wetlands and riparian areas. The SDEIS analyses
of impacts to wildlife are inadequate because they are based on the flawed analysis for the Riparian
and Wetlands sections of the SDEIS. The Corps must revise these so that Fort Collins and other
stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate the impacts.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 11 of 108
SECTION 1: INCORPORATION OF FORT COLLINS’ COMMENTS TO DEIS
Fort Collins hereby incorporates by reference its comments on the original DEIS for NISP,
including comments on the regulatory framework, which Fort Collins provided on September 10,
2008 (“2008 Comments”). The original DEIS contained flaws that rendered it insufficient under
NEPA and the rules and regulations and guidelines thereunder, the CWA, and the rules and
regulations and guidelines thereunder, and other relevant legal requirements.
The Corps has addressed some of the comments made by Fort Collins and other stakeholders.
However, the SDEIS remains inadequate for the Corps to discharge its obligations under these
requirements. Among flaws that carry over from the DEIS and identified in Fort Collins’ DEIS
comments are:
• Lack of compliance with the CWA requirement to analyze, avoid, and minimize
impacts associated with NISP. See 2008 Comments at 13-17.
• Failure to provide adequate analysis (including modeling of water quality and other
effects) at the DEIS stage. See 2008 Comments at 17-22. As discussed below, the
SDEIS fails to provide the quantitative analyses of impacts it must provide.
• Failure to properly study and address effects of Total Organic Carbon (“TOC”) levels
in Horsetooth Reservoir. See 2008 Comments at 23-25.
• Flawed and incomplete analysis of the effects of the alternatives on lost peak flows
and resulting impacts. See 2008 Comments at 26-28.
• Vague and insufficient avoidance, minimization, and mitigation planning and
commitments. See 2008 Comments at 30-36.
These continuing flaws render the SDEIS inadequate and in violation of NEPA, the CWA, and other
relevant legal requirements. As discussed below, the SDEIS also contains new flaws and
inadequacies under those laws.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 12 of 108
SECTION 2: VALIDITY OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
2.1 THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE VIOLATES NEPA AND RENDERS ITS ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS INVALID
The SDEIS’s alternative analysis is flawed and violates NEPA. The analysis of alternatives
under NEPA is “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v.
Bureau of Land Mgmt., 531 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). In the
SDEIS, the Corps must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to
that action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). An integral component of the alternatives analysis is the Corps’
consideration of a no action alternative that serves as “a baseline for measuring the effects of the
proposed action.” Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., 765 F.3d 1264,
1269–1270 (10th Cir. 2014). The no action alternative is a measuring stick that highlights the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and allows them to be compared to the proposed
action’s benefit. Without a true no action alternative, there is no accurate baseline for measuring the
effects of proposed action in the SDEIS. Thus, the current alternatives analysis for NISP is
fundamentally flawed. To comply with NEPA, the alternatives analysis must be revised to include a
true no action alternative that accurately serves as the baseline for its NEPA analysis.
2.1.1 The Proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir Requires a Section 404 Permit Under the
CWA, and Therefore, Is an Action Under NEPA
Alternative 1 is developed around the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir as a “no action”
alternative. See SDEIS at 2-16. However, based on the information in the SDEIS and associated
reports, Cactus Hill Reservoir requires a Section 404 permit under the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, and
is an action that would therefore be subject to NEPA review. The treatment of Alternative 1 in the
SDEIS as a no action alternative is thus improper and in violation of NEPA.
According to the SDEIS, the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir component of the no action
alternative would be a major construction project that will impact, among other things, 31.8 acres of
wetlands, including 1.4 acres of wetlands impacted by fill discharges and 30.4 acres of wetlands that
would be inundated by reservoir. See NISP Vegetation and Wetland Resources Technical Report at
13–14. Based on this information, Cactus Hill Reservoir would require an individual Section 404
permit and Alternative 1 is therefore an “action” under NEPA.
It is well-established that, under NEPA, the issuance of a Section 404 permit is an “action.”
See, e.g., Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir. 1996) (“If a federal permit is a prerequisite
for a project with adverse impact on the environment, issuance of that permit does constitute major
federal action and the federal agency involved must conduct an EA and possibly an EIS before
granting it.”). See also Stewart v. Potts, 996 F. Supp. 668, 672 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (stating that
issuance of a Section 404 permit by the Corps is deemed to be a “major Federal action” to which
NEPA’s mandates apply ). See also, e.g., Daniel R. Mandelker, NEPA Law & Litig. § 8:19 (2d ed.
2014) (explaining that “[f]ederal permits” are “typical examples” of major federal action triggering
NEPA). Based on the information in the SDEIS and the various technical reports, the treatment of
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 13 of 108
Cactus Hill Reservoir as a no action alternative—when the project would require a 404 permit and
NEPA analysis—is arbitrary and capricious and violates NEPA.
If it is the Corps’ position that Cactus Hill Reservoir would not require a Section 404 permit,
then the Corps must provide a comprehensive explanation and factual basis for this conclusion—
including a delineation of the wetlands on the proposed site of Cactus Hill Reservoir under the
Corps’ new “waters of the United States rule,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015), and a
demonstration why an individual Section 404 permit is unnecessary. The justification would be
especially important here, because the Corps’ entire alternatives analysis hinges on measuring the
impacts of the proposed action against a major construction project with significant wetlands
impacts.
The information provided in the SDEIS indicates that the estimated wetland impact caused
by the Cactus Hill project would not fall within nationwide permits. For instance, Cactus Hill
Reservoir’s impacts exceed the Nationwide Permit 18’s threshold requirements for minor discharges.
77 Fed. Reg. 10184 at 10202 (Feb. 21, 2012). Also, given that the Corps estimates that Cactus Hill
Reservoir would impact 257 acres of wetlands and other waters (SDEIS at S-45), the Project would
cause more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment and
would require an individual permit. See 33 U.S.C. 1344(e). See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 10288.
As further example, the level of wetland impacts, both in terms of fill discharges (1.4 acres)
and reservoir inundation (30.4 acres), for construction of Cactus Hill Reservoir for the no action
alternative is more than the amount Fort Collins preliminarily estimated as being impacted from the
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, an action for which the Corps is requiring an individual Section
404 permit.
2.1.2 The Failure To Consider A Legitimate No Action Alternative Renders Its
Alternatives Analysis Deficient under NEPA and the CWA
The use of Cactus Hill Reservoir as the no action alternative skews its entire analysis of
alternatives, in violation of NEPA. The no action alternative is intended to “provide a baseline
against which the action alternative” is evaluated.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States
DOI, 623 F.3d 633, 642 (9th Cir. 2010). Without “[accurate baseline] data, an agency cannot
carefully consider information about significant environment impacts … resulting in an arbitrary and
capricious decision.” N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067,1085 (9th
Cir. 2011). See also Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)
(holding an agency’s no action alternative in its NEPA analysis invalid because it improperly
defined the baseline); Openlands v. Dept. of Transport., No. 13 C 4950 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2015)
1
(“The flawed ‘no build’ analysis also dooms the ROD and EIS’analysis of the direct effects of the
proposed Corridor”; same with indirect impacts).
1https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5946396167037980773&q=ILLIANA&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_ylo=20
15 (last visited August 6, 2015).
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 14 of 108
The SDEIS tables comparing alternatives illustrate the problem with treating Cactus Hill
Reservoir as a no action alternative instead of action alternative. In its comparison of alternatives,
the SDEIS arbitrarily and simultaneously treats Cactus Hill Reservoir as both the no action
alternative and as part Alternatives 3 and 4. SDEIS at 2-17, Table 2-3. See also id. 2-61. A “no
action alternative in an EIS is meaningless if it assumes the existence of the very plan being
proposed.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Scarlett, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1105 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
Because Cactus Hill Reservoir is an action that would have significant impacts requiring the Corps’
review, it cannot serve as baseline against which the Corps’ can compare the preferred alternative
(Alternative 2). The consideration of Cactus Hill Reservoir’s impacts as a consequence of no action,
including environmental effects and financial costs, artificially reduces the significant impacts of the
proposed action. This in turn precludes a meaningful alternative analysis and makes it “impossible
to accurately isolate and assess the environmental impacts of the [proposed action].” N.C. Wildlife
Fed’n v. N.C. DOT, 677 F.3d 596, 602 (4th Cir. 2012).
The no action alternative cannot include a project that requires a Corps permit and is an
action under NEPA. The treatment of Cactus Hill Reservoir distorts the alternatives analysis and
prevents the Corps, other agencies, and the public from “objectively evaluat[ing] all reasonable
alternatives” to the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). Further, in arbitrarily treating the
Reservoir as both a no action alternative and as a major component of the Alternatives 3 and 4, the
District fails to satisfy Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines’ high burden imposed on projects that are not
water dependent. Because the proposed action is not water dependent, the District must overcome
presumption that practicable alternatives that do not involve impacting wetlands are available. See
40 CFR § 230.10(a)(3). To satisfy the Guidelines, the District must “clearly demonstrate” no
practicable alternatives are available. Id. In treating Cactus Hill Reservoir as the no action
alternative, the District has failed to rebut that presumption.
To comply with NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must conduct a reevaluation of the
alternatives and present that information in a revised or second supplemental DEIS. And that
analysis must include a true no action alternative that will serve as the baseline for an accurate and
informed alternatives analysis.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 15 of 108
SECTION 3: FAILURE TO CONDUCT ANALYSES ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, FAILURE TO FULLY ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND
UNCERTAINTY REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT AND DISCLOSE ANALYSES ON CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS IN THE SDEIS VIOLATES NEPA AND THE CWA
Like the DEIS, the SDEIS defers critical environmental impact analyses to the final
environmental impact statement (“FEIS”) rather than providing them at the DEIS stage. For
example, the SDEIS provides only incomplete and vague qualitative analysis of critical impact
categories like water quality, as discussed further below. See SDEIS at 4-85 (“Results of Phase II
water quality modeling will be presented in the FEIS”) (emphasis added). Additional examples of
such deferrals are included in the specific comments below, such as in Section 6.3.7 of these
comments (No Analysis of Subsequent Exchanges Using Augmentation Program Flows). In
deferring key analyses to a later date, the Corps violates NEPA’s mandate that an agency timely
“consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action” and “inform the
public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.”
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). The SDEIS
falls far short of satisfying either objective by failing to include in the SDEIS analyses of issues that
are central to the evaluation of the proposed action.
CEQ regulations governing implementation of NEPA state that a draft impact statement
“must fulfill and satisfy to the fullest extent possible the requirements established for final
statements in [§ 4332(2)(C) of NEPA].” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9 (emphasis added). Moreover, the
regulations require that an insufficiently detailed DEIS be supplemented or revised: “if a draft
statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate
a revised draft of the appropriate portion.” Id. (emphasis added). See also N. Buckhead Civic Ass’n
v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1540 (11th Cir. 1990) (it must be ensured that environmental effects will
not be “overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or
the die otherwise cast.”). To comply with NEPA, the missing analyses must be conducted and
included in a revised or second supplemental DEIS. Without that information, the Corps, other state
and federal agencies, and the public cannot conduct a fully informed evaluation of NISP and its
LEDPA.
3.1.1 A Hard Look at the Environmental Impact of NISP Has Not Been Taken Due to a
Failure to Complete All Necessary Evaluations
NEPA “prohibits uninformed agency action.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,
490 U.S. 332, 351, (1989). In preparing the SDEIS, a “hard look” at the environmental
consequences of the proposed action and its impacts must be taken. The primary function of this
detailed statement is to ensure “a fully informed and well-considered decision.” Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). The
“hallmarks of a ‘hard look’ are thorough investigation into environmental impacts and forthright
acknowledgement of potential environmental harms.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Dep’t of Navy, 422
F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2005). Contrary to the principle that “accurate scientific analysis” is
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 16 of 108
“essential to implementing NEPA,” Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1259 (S.D.
Fla. 2009), the SDEIS has substantial gaps that are claimed will be filled in later. Delaying
environmental review that should be included in the SDEIS violates NEPA.
For example, in the SDEIS, only the qualitative analysis of water quality impacts is
provided—stating, without explanation, that the quantitative analysis would be provided in the FEIS.
See SDEIS at 4-85. The SDEIS indicates that modeling will be conducted to “facilitate the [CWA
Section ] 401 permitting process” in “coordination with the [Water Quality Control Division
(“WQCD”)] and the EPA using WQCD protocols.” Id. at 4-153. However, the obligation to
analyze and present impacts at the draft EIS stage is independent under NEPA. No sufficient reason
is provided as to why this modeling cannot be completed and included in the SDEIS, or another draft
document. WQCD Section 401 protocols are not needed to provide quantitative analysis of impacts
in the SDEIS. The CWA Section 401 certification is a wholly separate federal process from the
NEPA. It neither supplements the EIS, nor remedies flaw in the NEPA process stemming from the
failure to provide the public with all relevant information on the impacts of NISP.
The incomplete analysis on water quality effects in the SDEIS undermines both the intent
and expressed requirements of the NEPA. As stated above, NEPA is intended to ensure “accurate
scientific analysis” and adequate public involvement. It prevents agencies from making decisions
without timely and adequately analyzing the environmental impacts of a project. Thus, NEPA
expressly mandates that if there is “incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable
significant adverse impacts [that] is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall
costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental
impact statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. And that information should be provided in the draft EIS.
See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9. Here, the fact that plans exist to conduct the requisite water quality
modeling at a later date demonstrate that the information is necessary and available; the analyses just
need to be prepared. The failure to conduct water quality modeling and other relevant studies and
include that information in the SDEIS violates NEPA.
3.1.2 The Failure to Conduct All Relevant Studies Violates NEPA’s Requirement That
The Public Is Fully Informed Of NISP’s Environmental Effects
By deferring certain scientific analyses to a later date, the SDEIS does not satisfy NEPA’s
requirement that agencies “will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information
concerning significant environmental impacts, and that the relevant information will be made
available to the larger [public] audience.” N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dept. of
Transport., 545 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Because all relevant scientific analyses have not
been conducted, the SDEIS is incomplete. In violation of NEPA, this lack of information prevents
the “public and other government agencies [from] react[ing] to the effects of a proposed action at a
meaningful time.” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989). Stated
another way, Fort Collins and others are not fully informed about the impacts of NISP, and cannot
conduct meaningful review of the proposed action, if the SDEIS itself has not fully evaluated NISP.
Where, as here, the relevant information and scientific analyses are not available to the public
for comment, the “[SDEIS] process cannot serve its larger informational role, and the public is
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 17 of 108
deprived of [its] opportunity to play a role in the decision-making process.” N. Plains, 668 F.3d at
1085. As the Ninth Circuit states in Pacific Rivers Council v. United States Forest Service:
The scope of its analysis of environmental consequences in [the] EIS must be
appropriate to the action in question. NEPA is not designed to postpone analysis of
an environmental consequence to the last possible moment. Rather, it is designed to
require such analysis as soon as it can reasonably be done.
668 F.3d 609, 623 (9th Cir. 2012). Given the scope, complexity, and many environmental impacts
of NISP, and the substantial and varied interests in the project, the Corps must fully assess and
provide all relevant information on the impacts before making a decision. The failure to complete all
the relevant studies and include them in the SDEIS is in violation of NEPA.
This is especially the case where Fort Collins made very clear in its comments on the DEIS
how important water quality and riparian health are to Fort Collins, and Fort Collins informed the
Corps that the analyses in the DEIS were vague and qualitative. The DEIS and SDEIS do not
accomplish their purpose when they defer real analysis of some of the most critical issues needed for
informed decision making.
3.1.3 There Is Insufficient Information to Determine Compliance With Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines and the CWA’s Public Interest Review
The failure to conduct all necessary environmental analyses also violates the CWA. Under
the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, a “permit cannot be issued if the proposed discharge will result in
significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem or if there is insufficient information to make a
reasonable judgment as to whether the discharge will result in significant degradation. 40 C.F.R.
§§230.12(a)(3)(ii), (iv).” Utahns for Better Transportation v. USDOT, 305 F.3d 1152, 1191 (10th
Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). The failure to adequately consider (and expose to public scrutiny) the
impacts associated with the proposed action is arbitrary and capricious under both NEPA and the
CWA. Id. at 1192.
The inadequacies of the SDEIS demonstrate that Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines have not been
complied with. To determine whether a proposed discharge will result in significant degradation, the
404(b)(1) Guidelines require detailed factual determinations regarding the effects of the discharge on
the aquatic ecosystem. Id. at §230.10(c). See also id. § 230.11. Discharges which result in
“significant degradation to waters of the United States” are also prohibited. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(c).
Under the public interest review, a permit for NISP may not be issued if it is determined that doing
so would be contrary to the public interest based on a “careful weighing” of the probable impacts of
the project. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a). A “careful weighing” of environmental effects requires more
information—including relevant quantitative analyses—than what is included in the SDEIS. Based
on the current information in the SDEIS, the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and CWA’s public
interest review cannot be complied with.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 18 of 108
3.2 FAILURE TO FULLY ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS UNDER NEPA AND THE CWA
The SDEIS describes the cumulative impacts of NISP with the addition of Fort Collins’
Halligan Water Supply Project (“Halligan Project”), which includes the proposed enlargement of
Halligan Reservoir, and the City of Greeley’s proposed enlargement of Milton Seaman Reservoir.
However, the SDEIS fails to disclose how the cumulative impacts will be evaluated with respect to
each project. Of particular concern, as discussed below, is how responsibility for cumulative
impacts from all three projects will be assessed to each project. As discussed above, such a deferral
is not appropriate. See Kern v. United States BLM, 284 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that
it was not “appropriate to defer consideration of cumulative impacts to a future date when
meaningful consideration can be given now”).
Fort Collins is concerned that much of the assimilative capacity of the Poudre River to absorb
certain impacts will be first apportioned to NISP because NISP is in an advanced stage of NEPA and
CWA permitting relative to Fort Collins’ and Greeley’s respective projects. If true, Fort Collins is
concerned that this approach would leave less assimilative capacity in the Poudre River for later
analysis of the Halligan Project, which may lead to an exaggeration of streamflow impacts of the
Halligan Project relative to an analysis in which the impacts of the Halligan Project are considered
before the impacts of the NISP. This is especially concerning given that the streamflow impacts of
the Halligan Project are expected to far less than NISP given the relative size difference between the
two projects. For instance, the preferred alternative of the Halligan Project is the enlargement of
Halligan Reservoir, which would be an increase of only 8,125 acre feet, which is significantly less
than the volumes of all four NISP alternatives.
The SDEIS should provide information as to how the Corps intends to allocate assimilative
capacity and all other cumulative streamflow impacts among the various Poudre River projects
undergoing simultaneous NEPA and CWA permitting. Additional issues associated with cumulative
impacts are discussed below.
3.3 UNCERTAINTY REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES
It is Fort Collins’ understanding that mitigation for NISP will be finalized with any Record of
Decision (“ROD”), and that avoidance and minimization measures may be finalized before the ROD.
As discussed further herein, Fort Collins notes that, at this point, the District’s plans in these
respects, which are summarized in Appendix F, are conceptual and offer limited information on
specific measures. Appendix F indicates the intent of the District to recognize and react
constructively to impairment of interests other than those of the District and the NISP participants, to
be cooperative and responsive, and to participate in all reasonable efforts to address impairments to
resources or interests caused by NISP. Where the document does not define specific limits or
features of these commitments, however, it is of limited use except as a statement of general intent.
See Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 17 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding an agency may rely on
mitigation measures only when “the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is supported by
substantial evidence”); 40 C.F.R. § 230.75(d) (reliance on mitigation to be reasonable, the Corps’
mitigation measures must “have been demonstrated to be effective in circumstances similar to those
under consideration.”). Clarification on these efforts is required by NEPA and the CWA.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 19 of 108
As the entity most impacted by the Project, Fort Collins would welcome the opportunity to
participate in mitigation-related discussion and efforts. After a complete assessment of the
alternatives, Fort Collins urges that the proposed mitigation measures be demonstrated to be
effective in minimizing the impacts of the proposed action.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 20 of 108
SECTION 4: PROPOSED MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 4
4.1 THE CORPS SHOULD CONSIDER FORT COLLINS’ PROPOSED MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 4
Fort Collins investigated a modified Alternative 4 for NISP (“Modified Alternative 4”) that
would meet the NISP Participant’s purpose and need while simultaneously maintaining relatively
more water in the Poudre River through Fort Collins than all other action alternatives presented in
the SDEIS. Such additional flows through Fort Collins would address many of the concerns
addressed in these comments.
The Modified Alternative 4 is proposed to operate in such a way as to significantly reduce
NISP diversions upstream of Fort Collins as compared to Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred
action), as well as Alternatives 3 and 4, resulting in relatively more stream flows and relatively fewer
impacts to aquatic and riparian resources along a 23 mile reach of river through Fort Collins than the
other action alternatives considered in the SDEIS. This Modified Alternative 4 is expected to entail
costs comparable with other alternatives and would also result in fewer wetlands impacts than all
other alternatives described in the SDEIS. Hence, Modified Alternative 4 is a practicable alternative
with fewer environmentally damaging impacts than those alternatives considered in SDEIS, and
consequently should be evaluated by the Corps in its NEPA and CWA Section 404 analysis. Under
NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must take a hard look at this proposed alternative. 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14(a); id. at § 230.10(a). The Corps should consider and, if shown to be practicable, choose
Modified Alterative 4 as the least damaging practicable alternative. Id.
4.1.1 Summary of Alternative 4 in the SDEIS
Alternative 4 features Cactus Hill Reservoir with multiple diversion points. Alternative 4
functions similarly to both Alternatives 2 and 3, except that rather than all diversions occurring at the
Poudre Valley Canal headgate upstream of Fort Collins, a portion of diversions are made
downstream of Fort Collins at the New Cache Canal headgate. Specifically, Alternative 4 calls for
all New Cache direct flow exchange water associated with the South Platte Water Conservation
Project (“SPWCP”) to be diverted at the New Cache Canal rather than the Poudre Valley Canal as is
common between Alternatives 2 and 3. This modification results in more flow maintained in a 23
mile stretch of river, including the reach passing through Fort Collins, than Alternatives 2 and 3. For
example, Alternative 4 results in flow reductions in June at the Canyon Gage that are 17% less than
Alternative 2 and 31% than Alternative 3. See Water Resources Technical Report, Section 8.1.
The SDEIS does not explain why Alternative 4 only considers diversions of New Cache
direct flow exchange water to Cactus Hill Reservoir at the New Cache Canal headgate rather than
multiple other water sources associated with NISP. SDEIS Section 2.2.7.5 indicates that the SPWCP
exchanges using the New Cache Canal and Larimer and Weld Canal were evaluated for downstream
diversions in various ratios, and that Alternative 4 was configured after “specialists in fisheries,
stream morphology, and water quality … concluded the scenario reflected in Alternative 4 provided
the most environmental benefit.” The SDEIS does not indicate that either the Grey Mountain Water
Right or the SPWCP reservoir exchanges associated with Terry Lake, Big Windsor Reservoir, and
Timnath Reservoir were considered for downstream diversion.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 21 of 108
Diversions for Alterative 4 under the SPWCP exchanges at the New Cache Canal only
represent 20-30% of the total Poudre River diversions for the Project (depending on alternative and
run). For example, in Run 5a, such diversions at the New Cache Canal represent some 12,000 acre
feet of the 42,000 acre feet of diversions. See Run 5a final Post-Poudre Basin Network Processor,
file 5aPPP_20121004_FINAL.xls.
4.1.2 Summary of Fort Collins’ Proposed Modified Alternative 4
Alternative 4 could be formulated to deplete less flow in the Poudre River through Fort
Collins if other sources of water for the Project were delivered to Cactus Hill Reservoir via the New
Cache Canal or the Larimer and Weld Canal with pump stations to Cactus Hill Reservoir. The
Modified Alternative 4 entails the following concepts as summarized below.
Modified Alternative 4 is proposed to include the same general structural components as
Alternative 4 (i.e., Cactus Hill Reservoir, Galeton Reservoir, distribution pipeline network, use of
Big Windsor Reservoir as a forebay, etc.), with the following three primary exceptions:
(1) expansion and lining of the Poudre Valley Canal would not be needed nor occur; (2) pump
stations from the New Cache Canal and Big Windsor Reservoir to Cactus Hill Reservoir would be
expanded, and (3) an advanced water treatment plant, as formulated for the No Action Alternative,
may be needed.
Under Modified Alternative 4, the Poudre Valley Canal would still be used to fill Cactus Hill
Reservoir, but would function similarly to that proposed in the No Action Alternative and would not
require expansion or lining. As a result of not lining the Poudre Valley Canal, Modified
Alternative 4 would result in 47 fewer acres of wetlands downslope of the Poudre Valley Canal that
could suffer permanently altered hydrologic support and 92 fewer acres of other waters that would
be permanently filled as compared to Alternative 4. See SDEIS Summary, Section S.7.6. As a
result, the Modified Alternative 4 would result in fewer wetland effects (34 acres) as opposed to the
Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred action) (65 acres). See SDEIS Summary, Table S-8.
Under the Modified Alternative 4, diversions under the Grey Mountain Water Right to
Cactus Hill Reservoir of up to 200 to 250 cfs would occur via the Poudre Valley Canal. This flow
rate is proposed as it is the existing capacity of the Poudre Valley Canal and is equivalent to the rate
of Poudre Valley Canal diversions proposed for the No Action Alternative. Above this amount, any
Grey Mountain Water Right diversions to Cactus Hill Reservoir would be made at the New Cache
Canal with the water thereafter pumped to Cactus Hill Reservoir.
2
2 Fort Collins acknowledges that this would require approval of a change of water right for the Grey Mountain Water
Right by the District Court, Water Division 1. See, e.g., C.R.S. 37-92-305(3)(a). However, Fort Collins notes that the
point of diversion for the Grey Mountain Water Right would be moved, in part, downstream (not upstream), and that,
based on Fort Collins’ current understanding, the contemplated draft of the Grey Mountain Water Right would not be
expected to change. See Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. City of Aspen, 568 P.2d 45, 193 Colo. 478 (Colo. 1977);
City of Thornton v. Clear Creek Water Users Alliance, 859 P.2d 1348 (Colo. 1993). Such a change would thus not be
anticipated to adversely affect the Grey Mountain Water Right. Provided that such a proposed change of water right
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 22 of 108
Based on Grey Mountain Water Right yields from Run 5a modeling and assuming a 200 cfs
inflow capacity to Cactus Hill Reservoir from the Poudre Valley Canal, Modified Alternative 4
would result in approximately half of Grey Mountain Water Right yields being diverted each at the
Poudre Valley Canal and the New Cache Canal. See Run 5a final Post-Poudre Basin Network
Processor, file 5aPPP_20121004_FINAL.xls. Again using Run 5a modeling, it is estimated that
overall, diversions to storage at the Poudre Valley Canal would be approximately 15-20% of the
amount anticipated under Alternative 2. Additional modeling would be needed to determine
specifics, but it is logical that the reduced Poudre Valley Canal diversions would thus translate to
substantially more flow in the Poudre River downstream of the Poudre Valley Canal as compared to
Alternative 2. This would substantially reduce the impacts to water quality, riparian health, wetlands
and other impacts downstream of the Poudre Valley Canal relative to Alternative 2, as discussed in
the 2008 Comments and these comments. It is assumed that diverting some water through the
Poudre Valley Canal is needed to improve water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir, and is reasonable
considering that expanding and relining the Poudre Valley Canal would not be necessary for
Modified Alternative 4. Additional study by the Corps would be needed on the amount and timing
of Poudre Valley Canal diversions under the modified alternative as these diversions would have the
benefit of improving water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir, but the detriment of depleting Poudre
River stream flow.
The Modified Alternative 4 further proposes that a majority of Poudre River diversions
associated with the SPWCP would be made at the New Cache Canal headgate rather than at the
Poudre Valley Canal. The Modified Alternative 4 proposes that all New Cache direct flow exchange
water and all exchange water associated with Terry Lake and Timnath Reservoir be diverted at the
New Cache headgate for delivery to Cactus Hill Reservoir. In order to reduce pumping and improve
water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir, it is likely desirable to make some diversions under the
SPWCP exchanges at the Larimer and Weld Canal headgate for delivery to Big Windsor Reservoir
with subsequent pumping to Cactus Hill Reservoir. Therefore, under Modified Alternative 4, it is
conceptually assumed that 50% of the Larimer and Weld direct flow exchange water and 50% of Big
Windsor Reservoir exchanges under the SPWCP would be diverted at the New Cache Canal
headgate. Additional study by the Corps would be needed to determine the exact ratio of Larimer
and Weld diversions at each diversion location under the modified alternative weighing
improvements to water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir with the detriments of depleting a longer
reach of the Poudre River.
By diverting SPWCP exchange water further downstream at the New Cache Canal,
additional flow will be maintained in the Poudre River between the originally proposed diversion
point and the New Cache Canal. In the case of Larimer and Weld direct flow exchange water and
SPWCP reservoir exchanges associated with Terry Lake, Big Windsor Reservoir, and Timnath
Reservoir, by diverting this water further downstream flows would be improved between the current
diversion locations and New Cache headgate above baseline conditions. As such, Modified
were shown to not adversely affect Fort Collins’ water rights, Fort Collins would likely not oppose such a change of the
Grey Mountain Water Right.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 23 of 108
Alternative 4 could even improve flows in places and times through Fort Collins above what is
observed in the current baseline without any mitigation or augmentation flows.
The diversions to Cactus Hill Reservoir detailed above would result in far fewer flow impacts
along a 23 mile reach of the Poudre River than any other action alternative examined in the SDEIS.
Consequently, the Modified Alternative 4 would not require a flow augmentation program similar to
that proposed by the District for Alternative 2.
4.1.3 Other Considerations for Modified Alternative 4
Under the Modified Alternative 4, water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir is preliminarily
predicted to be comparable to the water quality predicted in Cactus Hill Reservoir for the No Action
Alternative, but worse than predicted for either Glade Reservoir for Alternative 2 or Cactus Hill
Reservoir for Alternatives 3 and 4, especially in terms of total dissolved solids (“TDS”). Using
water quality data from the SDEIS (SDEIS Tables 4-32, 4-37, and 4-39) and predicted relative flow
contributions by diversion location, the TDS conceptually predicted for Cactus Hill Reservoir in the
Modified Alternative 4 is 350-400 mg/L, which is below the 500 mg/L maximum containment limit
and the 400 mg/L upper limit goal used for developing the No Action Alternative in the SDEIS. See
page 4 of Technical Appendix: NISP No Action Alternative Evaluation. However, with such high
TDS it is assumed (similarly to the No Action Alternative) that NISP Participants would construct
advanced water treatment facilities.
Diversions at the New Cache Canal headgate are downstream of wastewater treatment plant
discharges, which raise certain water quality concerns both for users of Cactus Hill Reservoir and
wastewater effluent dischargers. It is likely that the Modified Alternative 4 would lead to a Total
Maximum Daily Load process for nutrients associated with wastewater discharges, such as those
made by Fort Collins, above diversions to Cactus Hill Reservoir at the New Cache Canal.
Under the Modified Alternative 4, annual pumping inputs would be greater than any other
alternative in the SDEIS due to the relatively larger pumping head required to fill Cactus Hill
Reservoir from the New Cache Canal. However, pumping costs are not so large as to preclude the
viability of Modified Alternative 4. For example, and as a worst case scenario, it is conceptually
estimated that if all inflows to Cactus Hill Reservoir were taken at the New Cache Canal the total
energy requirement would be roughly 80,000,000 to 85,000,000 KW-hr. This amount may be
compared to 64,400,000 KW-hr for Alternative 4 and 48,100,000 KW-hr for Alternative 2 under the
Reclamation Action Option or 61,300,000 for Alternative 2 under the No Reclamation Action
Option. See SDEIS Summary, Table S-10. Diverting all inflows to Cactus Hill Reservoir at the
New Cache Canal exceeds that which is proposed for Modified Alternative 4, but was analyzed as a
worst case scenario for illustrative purposes. Under this worst case scenario, total annual pumping
power costs for Modified Alternative 4 are expected to be, at a maximum, roughly $6,000,000, as
opposed to $4,511,000 for Alternative 4, $4,291,000 for Alternative 2 without Reclamation Action,
and $2,663,000 for Alternative 2 with Reclamation Action (from SDEIS Table 2-12). Worst case
energy and cost estimates for Modified Alternative 4 were developed with available information
summarized SDEIS data and are conceptual in nature. Given that Modified Alternative 4 would
likely have significantly less environmental impact than the SDEIS alternatives, including fewer
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 24 of 108
wetlands and streamflow impacts along a vital 23 mile reach of Poudre River, it remains a
practicable alternative in light of the approximated higher pumping costs. Further, the difference in
pumping costs between Modified Alternative 4 and the other alternatives is small relative to the
overall costs of the proposed action.
Because of the increased pumping inputs required for Modified Alternative 4, greenhouse gas
emissions associated with pumping are anticipated to be greater than any other SDEIS alternative,
which may exacerbate NISP’s climate change impacts, which are discussed in Section 8 of these
comments. Nevertheless, given that the proposed Modified Alternative 4 will have far fewer aquatic
impacts than other SDEIS alternatives, including fewer impacted wetlands and fewer streamflow
impacts along a vital 23 mile reach of Poudre River, the increased greenhouse gas emissions
associated with larger pumping inputs may be justified, especially given that increased greenhouse
gas emissions could be avoided, minimized, or mitigated, for example, by the use of renewable
energy sources or by employing other climate change mitigation methods.
Total capital costs for Modified Alternative 4 are expected to be comparable to Alternative 4
costs provided in the SDEIS. Although additional costs are required for upgrading the New Cache
Canal pumping facilities and potentially for advanced water treatment, large cost savings are realized
from not having to expand and line a 30 mile section of the Poudre Valley Canal. Using costs
provided in the SDEIS (SDEIS Table 2-12), it is conceptually predicted that the Modified
Alternative 4 would have a capital cost of roughly $700,000,000. This amount is 38% more than the
Alternative 2 with Reclamation Action, but only 6% more than Alternative 2 without Reclamation
Action. Furthermore, mitigation costs will likely be less for Modified Alternative 4 than other
alternatives given that the environment impacts will be less. Cost estimates for the Modified
Alternative 4 were developed with summarized SDEIS data and are conceptual in nature.
Accordingly, Fort Collins urges the Corps to satisfy its legal obligation under NEPA and to take a
hard look at Modified Alternative 4.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 25 of 108
SECTION 5: WATER QUALITY COMMENTS
The SDEIS describes three major water quality impacts of interest to Fort Collins, as
discussed in detail below: (1) degradation of raw source water quality delivered to the Fort Collins
Water Treatment Facility (“FCWTF”); (2) degraded water quality or flow regime changes on Poudre
River Segments 10a, 10b, and 11; and (3) degraded water quality or flow regime changes on the
wastewater discharge permits issued for Fort Collins’ two water reclamation facilities (“Drake
WRF” and “Mulberry WRF”).
The SDEIS was also issued without several quantitative analyses that are necessary for the
Corps to take a hard look at water quality impacts required NEPA and the CWA. Without this
information, the Corps cannot make a “fully informed and well-considered decision.” Vermont
Yankee, 435 U.S. at 558. Also, the lack of analyses prevents Fort Collins from meaningfully
understanding the possible effects on its interests. To comply with NEPA, the Corps must analyze
the antidegradation regulations for the Drake and Mulberry WRFs and conduct temperature
modeling and water quality modeling for the Poudre River.
The FCWTF currently receives water from two sources: Horsetooth Reservoir (by direct
connection) and Poudre River water routed through the Fort Collins Pipeline and Pleasant Valley
Pipeline (“PVP”). The PVP is a pipeline (separate from the Fort Collins Pipeline) that runs from the
Munroe Canal to the FCWTF. Fort Collins also shares use of the PVP with other entities, including
the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which uses the PVP to deliver water to the Soldier Canyon
Treatment Plant. Under Alternative 2 with the Reclamation Action Option, both raw water sources
would be affected adversely. Residence times in Horsetooth Reservoir would be substantially
increased resulting in poorer water quality in Horsetooth Reservoir. As discussed below, Glade
Reservoir water may be of lower quality than Poudre River water due to long hydraulic residence
times in that reservoir, and would be delivered through the PVP to the Soldier Canyon Treatment
Plant, adversely affecting Fort Collins’ Poudre River water run through the PVP. It is reasonably
foreseeable that both changes would require Fort Collins to perform increased water treatment that
will be costly for Fort Collins to install and operate.
Alternative 2 will affect the Poudre River by diversions into Glade Reservoir decreasing
flushing flows and Glade Reservoir releases back to the river during the warm months changing
water quality. Flushing flows remove algal biomass and excess sediment from the river bottom.
Reduction of these high flows could lead to development of large algal mats and island formation.
Glade Reservoir water has the potential to be higher in certain water quality constituents (TOC, iron,
manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus) than water currently released from Horsetooth Reservoir to the
Poudre River. It is reasonably foreseeable that increases in regulated constituents in the river
upstream of Fort Collins’ permitted discharge points would lead to exceedances of standards in the
river and exceedances of effluent limits in the mixed flow downstream of the discharge point. For
the downstream mixed flow, reductions in river flow combined with upstream increases in regulated
constituents will make exceedances of standards more likely.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 26 of 108
5.1 COMMENTS REGARDING INCOMPLETE ANALYSES RELATED TO WATER QUALITY
5.1.1 No Analysis of Antidegradation Regulations and Mulberry and Drake WRFs
SDEIS Section 4.3.10 401, Certification Process and Antidegradation Review
Statement: “The WQCC is responsible for issuing Water Quality Certifications under Section 401 of the
CWA for projects or actions that are applicable to the provisions of the Colorado 401 Certification Regulation
(WQCC Regulation #82: 5 CCR 1002-82). […] The 401 certification process is a permitting requirement
separate from NEPA compliance. 401 certification and antidegradation review will be required for any
permitted alternative prior to construction. To facilitate the 401 permitting process, additional water quality
modeling will be conducted for the FEIS in coordination with the WQCD and the EPA using WQCD protocols.
The intent of this effort is to use the results of the water quality analysis conducted for 401 certification in the
FEIS and thus, minimize any duplication of effort.”
Comment: The SDEIS does not address the effects of NISP on Mulberry and Drake WRF facilities’
compliance with antidegradation regulations, which are based on maintenance of historical water
quality and not solely on water quality standards. Fort Collins thus cannot meaningfully analyze
NISP’s effects in this respect.
Proposal/Recommendation: NEPA and the CWA require that the Corps address indirect effects of
the proposed action. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). See also id. § 230.11(h) (requiring consideration of
“secondary effects”). Further, the Corps’ guidelines prohibit a discharge that causes or contributes
to violations of any state water quality standards. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b)(1). Thus, the Corps
must conduct additional studies and analyses should be performed in these proceedings with respect
to the compliance of Mulberry and Drake WRF facilities with antidegradation regulations.
5.1.2 No Analysis of Chlorophyll
SDEIS Section 4.4.3.1.1, Poudre River, Flows and Flooding
Statement: “Laporte Reach. Flood flows are predicted to be reduced. […]Fort Collins and Upper Timnath
Reaches. There is a predicted 20% to 35% reduction in flow duration at or above 1,000 cfs, as well as a 20% to
40% reduction in the duration of flows in the interval from 140 cfs to 1,000 cfs. […] For the 26-year period of
record, 23 flushing events under Current Conditions lasting for 325 days in total would become 16 flushing
events under Alternative 2 lasting for 222 days in total.”
Comment: Amounts of attached algae in streams (measured as chlorophyll) are currently regulated
by the State of Colorado under Section 31.17 of Regulation 31 of the Water Quality Control
Commission, 5 CCR 1002-31, under interim values, and the use of these interim values will be used
in the adoption of water quality standards prior to May 31, 2022. Flow velocity exercises strong
control over chlorophyll accumulation in stream channels. The SDEIS does not assess the impact of
reduction of flow volumes and flow velocities on chlorophyll development. Fort Collins thus cannot
judge and meaningfully analyze the effects on Fort Collins.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 27 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must analyze all NISP alternatives’ impact on chlorophyll
accumulation. This is essential both for NEPA and the CWA prohibition on fills that would cause or
exacerbate any violation of water quality standards.
5.1.3 No Quantitative Analysis of Temperature
SDEIS Section S.1.2.2, Planned Activities After SDEIS Issuance
Statement: “Before FEIS issuance, or issuance of a Record of Decision as noted, the Corps anticipates
completing the following activities: […] Complete Phase II water quality and stream temperature modeling in
coordination with the WQCD and the EPA using WQCD protocols.”
Comment: The SDEIS states that temperatures within the Poudre River will be higher as a result of
the operation of NISP, but does not offer quantitative projections that would allow Fort Collins to
meaningfully analyze the likelihood that specific stream sections now in compliance with State
standards for temperature for protection of aquatic life will become noncompliant as a result of the
project.
Proposal/Recommendation: As discussed above, an “accurate scientific analysis . . . and public
scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. The Corps’ deferring analyses
violates NEPA’s requirement that agencies “will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed
information concerning significant environmental impacts, and that the relevant information will be
made available to the larger [public] audience.” N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network, 545 F.3d at 1153.
Without temperature data, Fort Collins and other stakeholders cannot meaningfully review
temperature impacts. Thus, the Corps must supplement or revise the SDEIS to include a quantitative
analysis of temperature for all alternatives, and the Corps should afford Fort Collins and others an
opportunity to review and comment on that information. Because this is a critical water quality
attribute, appropriate analysis is necessary to comply with the CWA. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b).
5.1.4 No Quantitative Analysis of Water Quality Effects Below Glade Reservoir
SDEIS Section S.7.2, Surface Water Quality
Statement: Table S-6. Potential for exceedance of water quality standards.
*Water Quality Standard already being exceeded under current conditions.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 28 of 108
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 4.4.1, Glade Reservoir Water Quality Enlargement (FW-06)
Statement: “Northern Water proposes to evaluate an increase in Glade storage to as much as 192,500 acre-feet
to allow for operational flexibility during the late summer period. This would include the following tasks to be
completed between the SDEIS and FEIS, so that the Corps permit decision can include a potential water quality
enlargement of Glade Reservoir:
• Verification through the use of full CTP hydrology and modeling that an increase in storage can off-set the lack
of diversion during late summer while still meeting full project yield.
• Integration of the detailed water quality modeling with the refined configuration and determination of
potential operational strategies for mitigation of effects or environmental enhancement, including the
evaluation of temperature thresholds above which NISP diversions may be curtailed.
• Validation by the third party contractor that no significant adverse environmental consequences are caused by
either the enlargement of Glade or the change in inflow pattern.”
Comment: The SDEIS forecasts adverse water quality effects of NISP on the Poudre River below
the point of diversion for Glade Reservoir but omits quantitative predictions, which are stated to be
given only in the FEIS. Therefore, Fort Collins and other affected parties cannot judge or
meaningfully analyze whether impairments will lead to new violations of water quality standards as
reflected in 303(d) listing of impaired waters by the State of Colorado. Details regarding the
proposal to enlarge the capacity of Glade Reservoir to accommodate water quality needs are not
given. The changes in stream flows and associated resource impacts from enlarging Glade Reservoir
must be fully described and analyzed.
Proposal/Recommendation: As stated above, NEPA requires that the Corps conduct a quantitative
analysis of water quality impacts below Glade Reservoir and provide that information in the SDEIS
to Fort Collins and other stakeholders. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.22, 1502.9. This analysis is also
essential for compliance with the Corps’ obligation to avoid causing or exacerbating violations of
water quality standards. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b).
5.1.5 Water Quality Monitoring Is Not Mitigation
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 4.4.3.2, Water Quality Monitoring
Statement: “Additional water quality monitoring would be performed to more fully characterize and
understand the effects of NISP operations on Poudre River water quality before and after NISP project
components are built and implemented, and to meet the water quality commitments of this Conceptual
Mitigation Plan. […] Initial data collection […]Long-term monitoring […] The final sites, parameter list, and
frequency for the initial data collection effort will be determined between the SDEIS and FEIS based on the
analyses and modeling being conducted for the FEIS and State 401 water quality certification process.”
Comment: The only specific action item in the mitigation plan addressing water quality impacts is a
water quality monitoring program. Monitoring, without potential actions based on the monitoring,
does not compensate for or mitigate unavoidable impacts. The conceptual mitigation plan fails, at
this point, to address important water quality issues in Segment 11, where dilution water quantity
and quality are critical to compliance with water quality standards and antidegradation rules. Water
quality maintenance in this reach requires commitments to minimum flows sufficient to insure
adequate dilution of wastewater effluent. Low flow augmentation commitments are based on
availability of water at the point of augmentation and not through the downstream reaches. This
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 29 of 108
problem needs to be addressed explicitly with reference to the two wastewater treatment plants for
the City (Mulberry and Drake WRFs).
Proposal/Recommendation: As stated above, the SDEIS water quality assessment lacks key
quantitative analyses. Under NEPA and the CWA, proposed mitigation measures dependent on
incomplete environmental impact analyses fail. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition v. United States Army
Corps of Eng’rs, 479 F. Supp. 2d 607, 627 (S.D. W. Va. 2007). Stated another way, the Corps’
purported mitigation in the form of monitoring is inherently inadequate because it is based on only a
portion of the required water quality analyses. Any mitigation for NISP should directly address the
impacts discussed herein.
5.2 COMMENTS REGARDING IMPACTS TO SOURCE WATER QUALITY FOR THE FCWTF
5.2.1 Changes to Hydraulic Residence Time in Horsetooth Reservoir
SDEIS, Sections 2, 3, and 4
Statement: Page 2-41: “Horsetooth Reservoir releases an average of nearly 60,000 AF to the Poudre River
each year.”
Statement: Page 3-27: “C-BT deliveries to the Poudre River from Horsetooth Reservoir via the Hansen
Supply Canal averaged nearly 75,700 AFY for the period including WY 1952-2009 (CDM Smith, DiNatale, and
Hydros 2011).”
Statement: Page 4-41: “In addition to these releases to the Poudre River and the Poudre Valley Canal,
Glade Reservoir under the Reclamation Action Option would release an average of 10,500 AFY for direct
delivery to the water treatment facilities for Participants FCLWD, Evans, Eaton, Severance, and Windsor (see
the 2014 Operations Report, Section 5.1.1.1). Potential pumping from Glade Reservoir to Horsetooth Reservoir
(see Section 4.2.3.3.3) would average about 400 AFY (averaged over 56 years).”
Statement: Page 4-46: “Horsetooth Reservoir releases averaged 51,300 AFY, with 49,500 AFY released to
the Poudre River and 1,800 AFY delivered to the Poudre Valley Canal via the Windsor Extension. Under NISP
Alternative 2 with the Reclamation Action Option, Horsetooth Reservoir releases would be reduced to 21,900
AFY (20,200 AFY to the river and 1,700 AFY via the Windsor Extension).”
Comment: The planned decreases in the release of water from Horsetooth Reservoir (from 51,300 to
21,900 acre feet per year) will lead to a substantial increase in hydraulic residence time for water in
Horsetooth Reservoir. Under operational scenarios proposed in this SDEIS, the historical average
residence time of 2-3 years could become about 7 years. Increased residence time for reservoirs in
Colorado often is associated with increased algal biomass and change in algal community
composition in the upper mixed layer of the reservoir during water column stratification season. See
Northern Water, 2014 Water Quality Stakeholders Meeting: 2013 Three Lakes Water Quality and
Operations, or Why Did Shadow Mountain Turn Green, dated March 4, 2014. An increase in algal
production and changes in community composition in Horsetooth Reservoir could potentially result
in increases in TOC concentrations, more frequent occurrence of elevated concentrations of taste and
odor compounds such as geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB), as well as an increased likelihood
of cyanotoxin production. Each of these issues poses significant concern for the FCWTF and would
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 30 of 108
potentially require new and/or costly monitoring and treatment solutions that are currently not
required, including the use of powdered or granular activated carbon.
As described in Fort Collins’ comment regarding SDEIS Section 4.3.4.5 Effects on Water
Treatment Plant Operations, the proposed increase in hydraulic residence time in Horsetooth
Reservoir was not included in the modeled scenarios for the SDEIS. As such, it is not possible to
evaluate the combined effects of increased hydraulic residence time and possible inflows from Glade
Reservoir on algal abundance or TOC concentrations, or to estimate the likelihood of algal
metabolites production like geosmin, MIB or cyanotoxins. Without this information, the FCWTF
remains vulnerable to unexpected and substantial costs associated with new or enhanced treatment
costs.
The City has identified ozone/advanced oxidation as the water treatment solution needed to
manage regular occurrence of cyanotoxins and/or taste and odor compounds like geosmin and MIB
in the Horsetooth raw water supply. See CH2M. 2015. Technical Memorandum: Revised Costs for
Impacts to Water Treatment Operations Resulting from NISP Operations. August 6, 2015 (“Costs
Report”). Capital costs associated with this type of advanced treatment are estimated at $26.9
million, in 2015 dollars, with an annual operating cost of $703,000. Likewise, the ozone/advanced
oxidation is the treatment solution proposed for managing persistent taste and odors issues, with the
same capital and annual operating costs.
Additionally, the use of granulated activated carbon may be required in the event that
concentrations of TOC in Horsetooth Reservoir increase to 5-6 mg/L on a consistent basis and
enhanced coagulation fail to reduce TOC to needed levels. The capital costs associated with a new
organics removal facility are $72.9 million and annual costs of $2.5 million, in 2015 dollars. See
Costs Report. Although the application of granular activated carbon is not considered necessary
under the scenario of a 0.5 mg/L increase in average TOC concentrations, as reported in the SDEIS,
such measures may become necessary in the event that the proposed changes in hydraulic residence
time result in TOC concentrations consistently above 5-6 mg/L. As stated previously, the
information presented in the SDEIS is currently not adequate for addressing this likelihood.
Longer hydraulic residence time also can lead to greater extremes of hypolimnetic oxygen
loss, which facilitates the release of dissolved iron and manganese from bottom sediments (Dortch
1997). Dissolved iron and manganese precipitate when oxygenated upon release from the
hypolimnion. The precipitate forms particles and coatings that interfere with water treatment. Taste
and odor problems may also be caused by anoxic water even after aeration. These issues related to
prolonged hypolimnetic oxygen depletion would likely result in additional treatment costs from
increased chemical usage specifically, pre-oxidation with chlorine dioxide to manage manganese and
iron issues at an estimated peak daily cost of $2,109, or a weekly cost of $14,765, and/or the use of
powdered activated carbon (PAC) to remove taste and odor compounds. See Costs Report.
Proposal/Recommendation: If, due to NISP, TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir reach a
level that the FCWTF cannot treat without installing additional treatment facilities, Northern should
pay for installation and operation of a pretreatment facility to remove some TOC from raw source
water before it enters the FCWTF. If taste and odor compounds or cyanotoxin concentrations reach
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 31 of 108
a problematic level, Northern should deliver treatable water to the FCWTF that can be used until the
water quality in Horsetooth Reservoir reaches a treatable status. In addition, if Horsetooth water
quality is degraded to the point that it is not usable for more than 6 months, Northern should pay for
constant forced destratification. Mixing could reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses that would
normally be released from the reservoir during stratification.
The CWA requires the Corps to take hard look at the potential negative changes in the water
quality of Horsetooth Reservoir caused by the proposed action. Specifically, the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines prohibit any discharge that would cause or contribute to “significant degradation of the
waters” or “violations of any applicable State water quality standard . . . .” 40 C.F.R.§ 230.10(b)(1),
(c). These impacts include “secondary effects” caused by the project including the impacts
discussed above. 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(h). Additionally, NEPA requires the Corps to address
“reasonably foreseeable” impacts and emphasizes the importance of taking a hard look at uncertain
effects:
[I]n the ordinary course of business, people do make judgments based upon
reasonably foreseeable occurrences. . . . The agency has the responsibility to make an
informed judgment, and to estimate future impacts on that basis, especially if trends
are ascertainable . . . . The agency cannot ignore these uncertain but probable, effects
of its decisions.
46 Fed. Reg. at 18031. Given the potentially significant impacts on water quality in Horsetooth
Reservoir, and the potential costs that would be incurred by Fort Collins to address those impacts,
the Corps must assess the potential impacts and mitigation measures discussed above.
5.2.2 Hydraulic Residence Time in Glade Reservoir and the PVP
SDEIS Section 2.5.4.1, Glade Reservoir
Statement: “The modeled hydraulic residence time (the length of time diverted water would remain in the
reservoir) would be 4.6 years.”
Comment: Under operating conditions described in the SDEIS, Glade Reservoir will experience
long hydraulic residence times. The water quality effects of long residence times in Glade Reservoir
are expected to be similar to those described above for Horsetooth Reservoir. As such, Glade
Reservoir water has the potential to be higher in certain water quality constituents (TOC, iron,
manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus) than water currently released from Horsetooth Reservoir to the
Poudre River. Increases in regulated constituents in the river upstream of Fort Collins’ permitted
discharge points could lead to exceedances of standards in the river and exceedances of effluent
limits in the mixed flow downstream of the discharge point. For the downstream mixed flow,
reductions in river flow combined with upstream increases in regulated constituents will make
exceedances of standards more likely. Furthermore, Glade Reservoir water delivered through the
PVP to the Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant may adversely affect Fort Collins’ Poudre River water
running through the PVP.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 32 of 108
Water storage in Glade Reservoir will lead to differential water quality conditions in the
upper and lower portions of the water column during the season of water column stratification. A
multiple outlet structure will be available for Glade Reservoir so that selective water withdrawal is
possible. This measure may not be sufficient, however, to protect the quality of waters released from
the reservoir because of the simultaneous occurrence of impairment of the upper water column (high
temperature, algae) and lower water column (iron, manganese, organics) during the season of
stratification. Release of water from points below the epilimnion of Glade Reservoir during the
summer for purposes of maintaining low temperature or avoiding algal biomass in the epilimnion are
complicated by the likely presence of substantial concentrations in the release water of dissolved
iron and manganese that will precipitate as oxides and hydroxides upon entering the river. (Dortch
1997, Smith 1982). It can be assumed that the engineered release structure will reoxygenate the
water, but the problem of chemical precipitation is not dealt with in the mitigation plan.
Proposal/Recommendation The mitigation for Alternative 2 must include commitment to and
measures ensuring constant destratification of Glade Reservoir in the event that water quality
problems resulting from stratification are observed or expected. Mixing could reduce the amount of
greenhouse gasses that would normally be released from the reservoir during stratification.
5.2.3 Glade Reservoir Forebay Water Quality Issues
SDEIS Section 2.5.4.1, Glade Reservoir
Statement: “A forebay and pump station would also be constructed southwest of the reservoir.”
Comment: The SDEIS describes the building of a forebay in front of the dam, but not the operation
of the forebay. Under certain operational scenarios, it is reasonably foreseeable that water could be
released directly from the forebay into the PVP and/or the Poudre River. The forebay is a small
waterbody that is hydrologically separated from Glade Reservoir. The quality of the water in the
forebay will vary greatly based on factors such as hydraulic residence time, degree of drawdown,
and quality of source water. Waters of the forebay may be subject to warming, wind generated
turbidity, or algal blooms to a degree that would not be expected in Glade Reservoir. As a result,
downstream uses could be impaired if water is released directly to the river from the forebay.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, the Corps must include permit conditions
prohibiting any release of forebay water directly into the PVP or the Poudre River under any
conditions. If the Corps does not prohibit releases, then it must adequately assess the potential
impact releases of the forebay water.
5.2.4 Glade Reservoir Water Quality During the Initial Fill
SDEIS Section 4.3.4.1.1, Projected Reservoir Water Quality, Glade Reservoir
Statement: “Water quality during initial reservoir filling would be affected by the release of nutrients and
organic matter in the soil. During this period water quality may be impaired by high suspended solids, elevated
nutrient concentrations, and potentially high concentrations of algae (Lewis 2003).”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 33 of 108
Comment: The SDEIS recognizes that Glade Reservoir, when in the filling phase, may show water
quality problems that are associated with early stabilization of the reservoir. The SDEIS commits to
withholding water in the reservoir from use for a specific period of time to allow for stabilization of
reservoir water quality.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a permit condition that
the District commit to measures for extending the withholding period as necessary to prevent
impairment of downstream waters to a degree that would not be expected over the long term, i.e., the
startup period during which waters are withheld should not be defined by elapsed time, but rather by
water quality conditions in the reservoir.
5.2.5 Use of the PVP to Deliver Water From Glade Reservoir
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.1, Avoid Munroe Canal Diversions (FW-01)
Statement: “The original Draft EIS considered using the Munroe Canal for two operations associated with
NISP. […] The exchange has been eliminated in the SDEIS analysis, and replaced with a new pipeline directly
from Glade Reservoir to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District) and a new
pipeline directly from Glade Reservoir to the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (for Eaton, Severance and
Windsor).”
Comment: The proposed use of the PVP to convey deliveries of water from Glade Reservoir creates
potential water quality issues, as described above.
Proposal/Recommendation: Due to potential degradation of water quality caused by Alternative 2,
these releases should be made through a second pipeline rather than through the PVP, so that all
water moved through the PVP originates from the Poudre River upstream of the Glade Reservoir
release point. This would allow FCWTF to receive raw water supply of appropriate quality for
treatment when Horsetooth Reservoir and Glade Reservoir are not a suitable source for drinking
water supply. The Corps must also consider the alternative of constructing a pre-treatment facility
for releases from Glade Reservoir into the PVP to maintain the existing water quality parameters.
5.2.6 Analysis of TOC Levels in Horsetooth Reservoir
SDEIS Section 4.3.4.5, Effects on Water Treatment Plant Operations, Pages 4-117 and 4-118
Statement: “The Horsetooth Reservoir water quality model (Hydros 2013) was used to evaluate changes in
TOC concentrations for the Reclamation Action Option (ERO and Tetra Tech 2015). The model was used to
estimate changes in TOC concentrations in the Soldier Canyon outflow, which would be the raw water supply
to the Fort Collins and Tri-Districts WTPs.”
“The model results for the Reclamation Action Option with and without a pipeline from Glade Reservoir to
Horsetooth Reservoir are provided in Table 4-35.
“Table 4-35 shows that for the Soldier Canyon Outflow, which supplies Horsetooth Reservoir water to the Fort
Collins and Tri Districts WTPs, average TOC concentrations are predicted to be higher under the Reclamation
Action Option for the maximum pipeline volume. However, even for the highest average predicted TOC
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 34 of 108
concentration of 3.52 mg/L in the Soldier Canyon outflow, this would be only 3.5% higher than the baseline
average TOC concentration of 3.40 mg/L.”
Hydros Consulting, dated June 4, 2013, “Transmittal of Horsetooth Reservoir Model
Simulation Results for NISP
Statement: “The Horsetooth Reservoir model is a dynamic, two‐dimensional hydrodynamic and water‐quality
model developed in the CE‐QUAL‐W2 (version 3.6) modeling framework. […] The model was calibrated and
validated for the period January 2005 through September 2010.
“To allow for simulation of NISP scenarios which include pipeline inflow into Satanka Bay (located at the
north end of the reservoir), the original Horsetooth model was modified slightly. Specifically, detail was added
to the bathymetric representation of Satanka Bay to create a distinct model branch at this location to allow for
inflows. []Bathymetric modifications were purposefully conducted to maintain the area‐elevation‐volume
relationships of the original model. Simulation of observed conditions for the January 2005 through September
2010 period was performed with the modified model and compared to the same‐period simulation from the
original model. Differences in the water quality and hydrodynamics between the two runs were negligible.
“The simulation of observed conditions with the modified model (described above) for the full calibration and
validation period (January 2005 through September 2010) served as the ‘baseline’ run against which all NISP
scenario runs are compared in the results files provided to ERO Resources. All NISP scenarios for the
Horsetooth Model runs were developed to simulate the same January 2005 through September 2010 time‐
period with varying inflows, outflows, and Satanka Bay pipeline water‐quality assumptions. As such, for all
runs, the same meteorology and Hansen Feeder Canal inflow concentrations were applied.”
Comment: The conceptual approach described within the SDEIS regarding the quantification of the
impact on TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir resulting from the transfer of water from
Glade Reservoir is generally sound. However, a review of the modeling and resulting analysis
suggest that the presented data and analysis are flawed and misleading, and inappropriately minimize
the impact of Glade Reservoir water on expected TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir,
which is a source of treated water for Fort Collins.
Per the documentation provided for the SDEIS and referenced as “Hydros, 2013” and “ERO
and Tetra Tech 2015,” a baseline CE-QUAL-W2 model (“baseline model”) of Horsetooth Reservoir
was developed and used to determine water quality impacts associated with the possible introduction
of water from Glade Reservoir into Horsetooth Reservoir. The documentation of the model (from
Hydros, 2013) suggests that the baseline model at times accurately reproduces measured TOC
concentrations observed near the surface and reservoir bottom adjacent to the Solider Canyon Dam
outlet. There are other times, however, where the baseline model continuously under predicted TOC
concentrations at certain locations. Specifically, the baseline model under predicted observations
made during the summers of 2005, 2006, and 2007 near the reservoir surface adjacent to Solider
Canyon Dam. In 2005, the difference between modeled and observed TOC values appears to exceed
1 mg/L (or nearly 33% of the modeled value). Improved agreement is obtained near the bottom of
Solider Canyon Dam (when compared to agreement at the surface). However, the baseline model
also under predicts (by 0.5 mg/L or 16% of modeled value) TOC concentrations during the summer
of 2005 and 2006. The amount of these under predictions is significant in terms of concentrations
and percentages of modeled values.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 35 of 108
The magnitude of the under predictions of TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir
range from 0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L. By comparison, the modeled average TOC concentration increase
from the introduction of Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir is 3.5% or 0.12 mg/L.
Because the modeled average TOC concentration increase is much smaller than the under prediction
errors in modeled TOC concentrations, the modeled average TOC concentration increase is not
believable or reliable.
In addition, average TOC concentrations should not be utilized to assess the impact of
introducing Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir, as doing so masks any large increase
event(s) that may occur in the specific water that is introduced into the City’s system because such
large increase event(s) are not identified in the average value. These large increase events are not
evident in the results provided within the SDEIS, and would dictate any alternations needed to water
treatment systems before Horsetooth Reservoir water that has been mixed with Glade Reservoir
water could be utilized by Fort Collins.
Aside from concerns regarding the accuracy of the baseline model discussed above, Fort
Collins has concerns regarding the modified model used to simulate Glade Reservoir inflows into
Horsetooth Reservoir. For this discussion, this modified model is referred to as the “proposed-
conditions model.”
Per the documentation referenced above, the proposed-conditions model is similar to the
baseline model discussed above except that it includes model cells representing Satanka Bay, and
incorporates inflows from Glade Reservoir into Satanka Bay. Per the proposed-conditions model
documentation, the impact of introducing Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir via
Satanka Bay was determined by comparing computed Soldier Canyon outflow TOC concentrations
from the proposed-conditions and baseline models, using the same January 2005 through September
2010 time period over which the baseline model was calibrated and validated.
This analysis approach is flawed and misleading. It is inappropriate to model the impacts of
periodically introducing Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir without also altering the
modeled inflows and outflows of water in Horsetooth Reservoir that are expected under Alternative
2, as described in the SDEIS. The results of the comparison of the baseline and proposed-conditions
models presented in the SDEIS were generated without reducing the inflows and outflows in
Horsetooth Reservoir as expected, but rather, with the exact inflows and outflows observed from
2005 to 2010. As the proposed-conditions model is not fully simulating the conditions to be
expected under Alternative 2, the proposed-conditions model results cannot be utilized to assess
TOC concentrations to be expected under Alternative 2. The SDEIS does not adequately present
results showing how Horsetooth Reservoir TOC concentrations would differ as a result of
Alternative 2.
Proposal/Recommendation: The modeling effort should be revised, as discussed above, to provide
sufficient confidence as to the accuracy of the predicted TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir
under the District’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2) where water is delivered from Glade
Reservoir into Horsetooth Reservoir. Specifically, the under predictions errors in the baseline model
should be addressed; average TOC concentrations alone should not be used to evaluate impacts, and
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 36 of 108
instead, event TOC increases should be considered in evaluating impacts; and the proposed-
conditions model should incorporate the modeled inflows and outflows of water in Horsetooth
Reservoir that are expected under Alternative 2.
5.3 COMMENTS REGARDING IMPACTS TO THE POUDRE RIVER AND WASTEWATER
DISCHARGERS
5.3.1 Augmentation Program and Wastewater Discharges
SDEIS Section 2.5.6, Flow Augmentation
Statement: “The District proposes to include a flow augmentation program to improve Poudre River
streamflows, primarily during winter months when flows are low and NISP would generally not be diverting, in
Alternative 2 (both the Reclamation Action Option and the No Reclamation Action Option). […]A method of
exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir would be determined between the SDEIS and FEIS.”
Comment: Diversions of water under NISP will decrease flows in the Poudre River downstream of
the Poudre Valley Canal headgate, including at the permitted points of discharge for the Fort Collins
Mulberry WRF and the Drake WRF. The SDEIS offers augmentation of flow just below the
Larimer & Weld Canal headgate in cool months (1 November – 30 April) and in September as a
means of offsetting decreased flows. Augmentation would extend downstream to the headgate of the
Timnath Inlet, including past the location of the Mulberry WRF point of discharge. While the
augmentation amount (to maintain a minimum of 10 cfs) is specified for the augmentation point just
below the Larimer & Weld Canal, the expected augmentation flows reaching the downstream point
of discharge for the Mulberry WRF are not specified, and may be lower than current flows, which
would cause increasingly stringent effluent limits for Mulberry WRF, with attendant compliance
costs. In addition, termination of augmentation at the Timnath Inlet headgate, which is upstream of
the Drake WRF, will reduce the amount of dilution flow available at the Drake WRF. The
augmentation is not secure for all months or for dry years and does not have a defined beneficial
effect downstream at the discharge points for the wastewater treatment facilities of Fort Collins.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a permit condition a
requirement that Northern ensures that river flows immediately above the permitted point of
discharge for the Mulberry WRF do not drop below 10 cfs, as measured by a continuous data logger
at that location, and ensures that river flows immediately above the permitted point of discharge for
the Drake WRF do not drop below 2 cfs, as measured by a continuous data logger at that location.
5.3.2 Use of Cottonwood Trees to Reduce Increase in Water Temperatures
SDEIS Appendix F, Section: 4.3.2, Channel and Habitat Improvements
Statement: “Channel improvements in this reach would seek to narrow and deepen the current channel to be
more consistent with current and future low-flow conditions and increase riparian vegetation, including larger
plains cottonwoods that would shade the river channel. The effectiveness of these proposed improvements to
cool water temperature would be verified during the detailed water quality modeling.”
Comment: The reach of the Poudre River between the Poudre Valley Canal and the Hansen Supply
Canal inflow is identified for mitigation through physical habitat improvement. Temperature, which
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 37 of 108
is regulated by the State for water quality protection, is one of the objectives for mitigation. As
discussed above, water temperature in this cool water reach is expected to increase due to reduced
flows, although the extent of temperature changes has not been analyzed by the Corps. The stated
mechanism for mitigation of temperature in this cool water reach is the creation of new riparian
shading.
There are a few apparent flaws with this approach. First, this reach of the river is above the
natural extent of plains cottonwoods which decrease in frequency as one moves upstream through
the Fort Collins reach. Upstream of Fort Collins, the forests are dominated by narrowleaf
cottonwood. Second, if part of the mitigation approach is to deepen the current channel, the bank
topography will need to be adjusted to maintain river-floodplain connectivity. Without a link
between the channel and the floodplain, periodic peak flows cannot support the establishment and
survival of cottonwoods. Last, while shading is an important component of maintaining cooler
temperatures, there will be a lag time (on the scale of multiple decades) before the trees provide this
function. So, at minimum, in the interim, the Corps must require another plan to improve water
temperatures. Further, without an assessment of the degree to which water temperature would
change, there is no basis for assessing how adequate cottonwood shading would be in mitigating the
impact.
The proposal to grow trees and then study the effectiveness through water monitoring after
permitting represents a flaw prevalent throughout the SDEIS, i.e., inappropriately deferring analysis
when meaningful consideration should take place now. See Kern, 284 F.3d at 1075. NEPA
prohibits “postpone[ing] analysis of an environmental consequence to the last possible moment.”
Pacific Rivers Council, 668 F.3d at 623. Further, the proposal to grow trees, without any analysis of
the effectiveness of that measure, falls far short of NEPA’s requirement that mitigation measures
must be “reasonably complete.” See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352. It also fails to meet the
requirements to avoid violation or exacerbation of water quality standards. See 40 C.F.R. §
230.10(b)(1).
Proposal/Recommendation: The District should propose and the Corps should require a more
realistic program to reduce increased water temperatures resulting from NISP.
5.3.3 Trichloroethylene Plume at Glade Reservoir Forebay
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.4.1, Trichloroethylene Plume at Glade Reservoir Forebay
Statement: “Trichloroethylene contaminated ground water is present beneath the northwest corner of the
proposed forebay …The Corps and Northern Water would develop an agreement prior to construction of the
forebay that determines the respective responsibilities of the Corps and Northern Water for implementing these
mitigation measures.”
Comment: Since 2008, significant progress in remediating the TCE-contaminated groundwater
plume at Missile Site 13. Efforts include installation of six additional monitoring wells, installation
of 54 injection wells, subsequent oxidative treatments, and testing groundwater samples for the
chemicals of concern. The Corps and its consultant, Tidewater, Inc., are reporting success with
oxidative treatments in reducing contaminant levels in the plume (Corps 2014a).
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 38 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as conditions of a permit
a firm commitment and clear definition of respective responsibilities of the Corps and Northern to
the continue remediation efforts at Site 13 until repeat testing of the monitoring wells shows that the
chemicals of concern in groundwater do not exceed the federal maximum contaminant level.
5.4 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 5
• CH2M. 2015. Technical Memorandum: Revised Costs for Impacts to Water Treatment
Operations Resulting from NISP Operations. August 6, 2015.
• Dortch, Mark S. 1997. Water Quality Considerations in Reservoir Management. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
• Northern Water. 2013. Three Lakes Water Quality and Operations … or why did Shadow
Mountain turn green. Water Quality Stakeholders Meeting. March 4, 2014
• Smith, Steven B. 1982. Effects of Water Released from Stratified and Unstratified
Reservoirs on the Downstream Water Quality. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings,
Vol 36.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2014. Final Decision Document for F.E. Warren Air
Force Base, Former Atlas “E” Missile Site 13, LaPorte, Colorado. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Omaha District. September 24.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps 2014a). 2014. Proposed Plan. Final. Groundwater
Remediation at Former Atlas “E” Missile Site 13. July 2014.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Assessing Chemical Constituents in Reservoir
Tailwaters. Technical Report W-97-1. August 1997.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 39 of 108
SECTION 6: Operational Comments
The SDEIS’s description of Alternative 2 includes a proposed flow augmentation program
(“Augmentation Program”) and certain descriptions of other operations, such as deliveries to NISP
Participants. However, the Augmentation Program is flawed, includes incorrect assumptions, and
raises significant concerns regarding its operations that preclude the ability to rely on the use of the
Augmentation Program as minimization or mitigation. The SDEIS also lacks needed analysis and
specificity on various aspects of the proposed operations regarding Alternative 2.
6.1 INCLUSION OF THE AUGMENTATION PROGRAM IN ALTERNATIVE 2 ONLY
SDEIS Section 2.5.1, Introduction/Abstract
Statement: “Augmenting flows in the Poudre River by releases from a designated 3,600-AF release pool in
Glade Reservoir with a target of maintaining a 10-cfs flow below the Larimer-Weld Canal headgate in
November through April and September 1 through September 30.”
SDEIS Section 2.5.6, Flow Augmentation
Statement: “The District proposes to include a flow augmentation program to improve Poudre River
streamflows, primarily during winter months when flows are low and NISP would generally not be diverting, in
Alternative 2 (both the Reclamation Action Option and the No Reclamation Action Option).”
SDEIS Section 2.2.7.4, Winter Flow Augmentation in Alternatives 3 and 4
Statement: “Infrastructure associated with a Reclamation Action Option was eliminated for Alternatives 3
and 4. There would be no pipeline to deliver water from Cactus Hill Reservoir to an upstream location near
the diversion for Greeley’s Bellvue Filter Plant or the Hansen Supply Canal outlet. Therefore, Alternatives 3
and 4 would not include a flow augmentation program analogous to the proposed for Alternative 2…”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, Low Flow Augmentation Release (FW-04)
Statement: “To further improve the cold water fishery on the Poudre River from the canyon mouth through
Fort Collins, Northern Water would integrate a flow augmentation program that would release water from
Glade Reservoir to improve Poudre River streamflow from the canyon mouth through Fort Collins.”
Comments: Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred alternative) includes the Augmentation Program,
which includes fall and winter releases from Glade Reservoir. No alternative other than
Alternative 2 includes proposals analogous or similar to the Augmentation Program. The
alternatives other than Alternative 2 thus lack the proposed avoidance and minimization enjoyed by
Alternative 2. The SDEIS contains no analysis to explain why the other alternatives cannot contain
proposals analogous or similar to the Augmentation Program. When impacts among alternatives are
compared in the SDEIS, Alternative 2 consequently shows fewer negative impacts than other
alternatives. This appears to inappropriately skew the analysis of impacts in favor of Alternative 2.
Due to the selective inclusion of the Augmentation Program in Alternative 2, the SDEIS thus fails to
properly analyze the various alternatives. In violation of NEPA and the CWA, the Corps has not
“objectively evaluate[d] [the] reasonable alternatives” to the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14(a).
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 40 of 108
The SDEIS justifies the omission of an Augmentation Program for Alternatives 3 and 4 by
pointing to the lack of a pipeline between the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir and the Poudre River.
The SDEIS is unclear as to why such a pipeline could not be constructed to allow augmentation
releases. Moreover, the Alternatives 3 and 4 could be formulated to include a Reclamation Action
Option, which would then necessitate inclusion of a pipeline between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the
Poudre River. As further explained in the comment on SDEIS Section 2.2.7.3 below, including a
Reclamation Action Option as part of Alternatives 3 and 4 is reasonable considering the large
amount of infrastructure required to deliver water from Cactus Hill Reservoir to Participants under a
No Reclamation Action Option. Were a pipeline constructed between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the
Poudre River pursuant to a Reclamation Action Option, augmentation releases could be provided by
the alternative. To the extent that the Augmentation Program is avoidance and minimization, such
proposals are necessary.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps inclusion of the Augmentation Program in Alternative 2
only is arbitrary and demands further explanation. To comply with NEPA’s requirement that it
“rigorously explore and objectively” evaluate all alternatives, the Corps must assess Alternatives 3
and 4 with proposals analogous or similar to the Augmentation Program. See 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14(a).
6.2 INCLUSION OF RECLAMATION OPTION IN ALTERNATIVE 2 ONLY
SDEIS Section 2.2.7.3, Reclamation Action Option in Alternatives 3 and 4
Statement: “The Corps determined delivery of water by exchange, conveyance and/or storage using C-BT
Project infrastructure was not practicable due to the location of the Cactus Hill Reservoir in Alternatives 3 and
4. […] The Corps therefore eliminated the Reclamation Action Option for Alternatives 3 and 4 from detailed
analysis in the SDEIS.”
Comment: The SDEIS eliminates a Reclamation Action Option from Alternatives 3 and 4 citing the
difficulties in conveying water from Cactus Hill Reservoir at a distance of 30 miles back to Poudre
River. No other justification for eliminating a Reclamation Action Option from Alternatives 3 and 4
is provided. In eliminating the Reclamation Action Option from Alternatives 3 and 4, the SDEIS
does not provide a proper comparison of the two action alternatives with the proposed action
(Alternative 2), particularly on the basis of project cost.
Despite dismissing the Reclamation Action Option out of concerns with pipeline distance and
pumping inputs, Alternatives 3 and 4 propose pipeline routes in excess of 30 miles with multiple
pumping stations to deliver water from Cactus Hill Reservoir to Participants, at a cost of
$144,536,000 (SDEIS Table 2-12). As proposed in the comment above regarding SDEIS
Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, constructing a pipeline between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the Poudre
River would allow for releases from Cactus Hill Reservoir to be made back to the Poudre River, and
would make practicable the Reclamation Action Option as well as the proposed Augmentation
Program. Extending such a pipeline to Horsetooth Reservoir, similar to that proposed for
Alternative 2, may be necessary to fully execute the Reclamation Action Option. Such a pipeline
would raise water quality issues as discussed elsewhere in Fort Collins’ comments. A Reclamation
Action Option made available by constructing a pipeline between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 41 of 108
Poudre River would eliminate the need to construct the expansive distribution network proposed in
Alternatives 3 and 4. As a result, it is possible that the Reclamation Action Option for Alternatives 3
and 4 would not result in a substantial capital cost relative to the total capital cost for the alternatives.
However, in order to properly compare costs between the Reclamation Action and No Reclamation
Action Options for Alternatives 3 and 4, the Corps should disclose a comparative cost analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: As stated above, to comply with NEPA’s requirement that it
“rigorously explore and objectively” evaluate all alternatives, the Corps should assess Alternatives 3
and 4 with a Reclamation Action Option. The Corps must also conduct comparative cost analyses,
as discussed above.
6.3 AUGMENTATION PROGRAM CONCERNS
SDEIS Section 2.5.6, Flow Augmentation
Statement: “Water that is reduced to storage becomes the personal property of the District. The District
intends to exercise its statutory right to release stored water for delivery downstream for a decreed beneficial
use and to inform the state and division engineers that the water released from storage is to be shepherded
downstream to a specified diversion point without being diverted by others, as required by Colorado law
(Colorado Revised Status [CRS] 37-87-103)[…] For NEPA analyses, it was assumed that the flows would be
re-diverted at the Timnath Reservoir (also known as Cache la Poudre Reservoir) inlet canal headgate […] A
method of exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir would be determined between the SDEIS and
FEIS.”
SDEIS Section 2.5.9.1, Sources of Water for Initial Fill of NISP Storage Reservoirs
Statement: “Until operations of the SPWCP commenced, Glade Reservoir would be wholly dependent on the
Grey Mountain water right.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, Low Flow Augmentation Release (FW-04)
Statement: “The following provides information on the low flow augmentation release program: … the
average annual release to maintain this flow is not increased, and the other aspects of the program are not
materially different from those proposed herein.”
Comment: The Augmentation Program lacks the certainty needed to ensure that it will operate as
claimed to achieve its goals, and that the intended avoidance and minimization will be accomplished.
As discussed below, this lack of certainty creates the likelihood of legal challenges to the
Augmentation Program, and/or a determination by the Colorado State and Division Engineers that
Augmentation Program cannot be administered and/or is not lawful. Because of these uncertainties,
the Corps cannot rely on the Augmentation Program as currently proposed to make the required
findings under Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Problems with the Augmentation Program would
cause Fort Collins to bear more impacts than determined by the Corps in the SDEIS, with limited
recourse to resolve such issues. The following are specific issues regarding the Augmentation
Program and proposals to address such issues.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 42 of 108
6.3.1 Use of Water that Has Been Diverted to Storage
Comment: The SDEIS statements that “[w]ater that is reduced to storage becomes the personal
property of the District” and that “[w]ater which is stored in Glade Reservoir would become the
property of Northern Water” are not correct under Colorado law, as the Colorado Supreme Court
explained in Bijou Irrigation Dist. v. Empire Club, 804 P.2d 175, 184 & n.15 (Colo. 1991). The
Court explained that “[a]lthough we have stated that water once diverted becomes the personal
property of the appropriator … this somewhat overstates the scope of the right.” Id. (citation
omitted). “[W]ater diverted by exercise of a storage right must ultimately be applied to the
beneficial use for which the water was appropriated.” Id. at 184 n.15 (citations omitted).
Under Colorado law, the District only has the right to use the water it has diverted, into
storage or otherwise, pursuant to the terms and conditions of its water rights. Id. See also, e.g.,
Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 54 (Colo. 1999). This legal
error renders invalid the SDEIS analysis of the Augmentation Program, as discussed further below.
Proposal/Recommendation: If NISP is approved, the Corps must require as a condition of the
permit that all water rights proposed for use in the Augmentation Program be confirmed to be
lawfully available for such proposed use pursuant to the terms and conditions of the subject water
right decrees, Colorado law, and current administrative practices of the Colorado State and Division
Engineers.
6.3.2 Proposed Use of the Grey Mountain Water Right for Replacement and/or
Recreational Uses
Comment: The District proposes in the SDEIS to use water attributable to its Grey Mountain Water
Right in the Augmentation Program by delivering water attributable to that water right to the Poudre
River and re-diverting the water at the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate for further use. The Grey
Mountain Water Right was originally confirmed as a conditional water right in the decree entered in
Case No. 1980CW355, District Court, Water Division 1, with the decreed uses being irrigation,
municipal, domestic, industrial, and production of electrical power and energy. See 80CW335
Decree at ¶3.I.
A decree continuing the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right was entered in Case No.
1989CW122, District Court, Water Division 1 (which had been consolidated with Case Nos.
1985CW206, 1985CW207, 1985CW208, 1985CW209, and 1985CW210). 85CW206 et a. Decree at
¶4 (identifying Case No. 1989CW122 and the Grey Mountain Water Right) and ¶18 (diligence
finding). The decreed uses in that case are the same as stated in Case No. 1980CW355. Id. at ¶4.C.
A decree continuing the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right was entered in Case No.
2001CW197, District Court, Water Division 1. The decreed uses in that case are the same as stated
in Case No. 1980CW355 and Case No. 1989CW122. 01CW197 Decree at ¶7.F.
The Grey Mountain Water Right was changed in Case No. 2003CW405, District Court,
Water Division 1, to add Glade Reservoir as an alternate place of storage and to add three alternate
points of diversion; no changes to the decreed uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right were
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 43 of 108
approved in that case. 03CW405 Decree at ¶¶4, 7.A. The decreed uses in that case are the same as
stated in Case No. 1980CW355, Case No. 1989CW122, and Case No. 2001CW197. 03CW405
Decree at ¶6.b.e. There have been no other changes of the Grey Mountain Water Right. The Grey
Mountain Water Right has not been decreed for reuse or successive use.
The most recent decree continuing the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right was entered
in Case No. 2011CW242, District Court, Water Division 1, and identifies the decreed uses of the
water right as irrigation, municipal, domestic, replacement, recreation, industrial, and production of
electrical power and energy. 11CW242 Decree at ¶7.1.7. In that case as in previous diligence cases
(Case No. 89CW122 and Case No. 2001CW197), the District only invoked the Court’s jurisdiction
to seek findings of reasonable diligence and to continue the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right
for another diligence period. See C.R.S. §37-92-301(4)(a)(I); Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey, 933
P.2d 27, 36-37 (Colo. 1997). The Court had no jurisdiction in Case No. 2011CW242to change the
uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right, including no jurisdiction to add new uses to the Grey
Mountain Water Right. See C.R.S. 37-92-302; Matter of Application for Water Rights v. Columbine
Assoc., 993 P.2d 483, 489 (Colo. 2000).
The only potentially currently decreed uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right that could
relate to the Augmentation Program are replacement and recreation. However, as discussed above,
any replacement or recreation use of the Grey Mountain Water Right is not a lawful use of that water
right because the Court had no jurisdiction to add such new uses. Such jurisdictional defects can be
raised at any time. E.g., id. at 488. To the extent that the use of the Grey Mountain Water Right’s
proposed use in the Augmentation Program is replacement or recreation use, such proposed use may
not be administered by the Colorado State and Division Engineers and is vulnerable to a legal
challenge, unless the water right is changed in proceedings before the District Court, Water
Division 1. C.R.S. §37-92-305(3)(a).
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a condition of the
permit that the Grey Mountain Water Right may not be included in the Augmentation Program
unless and until the District receives judicial approval for a change of use of the Grey Mountain
Water Right pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-305(3)(a), or temporary approval from the State Engineer for
a change of use of the Grey Mountain Water Right pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-308 or successor
statutes, such that the Grey Mountain Water Right can be used in the Augmentation Program.
Provided that such a proposed change of water right were shown to not adversely affect Fort Collins’
water rights, Fort Collins would likely not oppose such a change of the Grey Mountain Water Right.
If the Corps must rely on the Augmentation Program to make its LEDPA and other findings, then no
action under a permit shall be allowed unless and until the District receives such approvals.
The District could also include other water rights in the Augmentation Program that are
currently legally available for the appropriate uses. The District’s water rights decreed in Case No.
1992CW130, District Court, Water Division 1, may be such water rights. However, to the extent
that such water rights are not or will not be available when needed under the Augmentation Program,
any approval of NISP must require the District to acquire ownership of, or the right to use other
water rights and to dedicate them to the Augmentation Program. For instance, various senior water
rights have been previously changed for various new uses and decreed for storage in Glade
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 44 of 108
Reservoir, which may be a source of water rights for the Augmentation Program. Other water rights
are used to import water into the Poudre River Basin, which may be a source of water rights for the
Augmentation Program. Further, water diverted during “free river” conditions, when there is no
downstream call, could be attributed to a junior and undecreed “free river” water right (and not the
Grey Mountain Water Right) and may be available for use in the Augmentation Program.
The above concerns regarding the uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right would also be
addressed if the District were simply relinquishing water from storage to the stream or if the water
were being delivered in the Poudre River stream channel for re-diversion (directly or by exchange)
for a decreed beneficial use downstream, both assuming that the water so relinquished would reach
the desired location(s), as discussed further below.
Whichever other water rights are used, or however the Augmentation Program may be re-
formulated, any approval of NISP must require the District to identify and substantiate the legal and
physical availability of water under such water rights for use in the Augmentation Program to
guarantee that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
6.3.3 Proposed Re-Use and Successive Use of Water Attributable to the Grey Mountain
Water Right
Comment: Even if the Grey Mountain Water Right can be used for replacement or recreation use in
the Augmentation Program, its proposed reuse and successive use, as described in the SDEIS, is in
violation of the decrees confirming the water right. Water attributable to a tributary water right, like
the Grey Mountain Water Right, that has not been delivered into an unconnected stream system can
only be used once, unless it is decreed for reuse and successive use. WSSC v. Curtis, 733 P.2d 680
(Colo. 1987). See also Denver v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 506 P.2d 144, 146-47, 179 Colo. 47,
52 (1972) (defining reuse and successive use). If not decreed for reuse or successive use and not
delivered into an unconnected stream system, the return flows from the first use of the water can
only be re-diverted under a separate water right. Santa Fe Trail, 990 P.2d at 54.
The Grey Mountain Water Right is not decreed for reuse or successive use and water
attributable to the water right will only be used within the South Platte River basin, which includes
the Poudre River basin. Therefore, once water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water Right is
used the first time, such as delivering it to the Poudre River for replacement or recreation use in the
Augmentation Program, the District has no right to reuse and re-divert it under the Grey Mountain
Water Right. The District can instead only re-divert the water under a separate water right.
However, no such other water right is identified in the SDEIS.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a permit condition that
water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water Right may not be reused or successively used under
the Augmentation Program, or otherwise, unless and until the District receives judicial approval for a
change of use of the Grey Mountain Water Right pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-305(3)(a), or temporary
approval from the State Engineer for a change of use of the Grey Mountain Water Right pursuant to
C.R.S. §37-92-308 or successor statutes, such that water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water
Right can be reused and successively used. Provided that such a proposed change of water right
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 45 of 108
were shown to not adversely affect Fort Collins’ water rights, Fort Collins would likely not oppose
such a change of the Grey Mountain Water Right.
To the extent that the District intends to re-divert water used in the Augmentation Program,
the District could include other water rights in the Augmentation Program that are legally available
for reuse and successive use. The District’s water rights decreed in Case No. 1992CW130, District
Court, Water Division 1, may be such water rights. However, to the extent that such water rights are
not or will not be available when needed under the Augmentation Program, any approval of NISP
must require the District to acquire ownership of, or the right to use other water rights and to
dedicate them to the Augmentation Program. For instance, various senior water rights have been
previously changed for reuse. Other water rights are used to import water into the Poudre River
Basin, which may be a source of reusable water. Further, water diverted during “free river”
conditions when there is no downstream call could be attributed to a junior “free river” water right
(and not the Grey Mountain Water Right) and may be available for reuse and successive use.
Whichever other water rights are used or however the Augmentation Program may be re-
formulated, the Corps must require the District to identify and substantiate the legal and physical
availability of water under such water rights for reuse and successive use in the Augmentation
Program to guarantee that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
6.3.4 No Analysis of Substitutions and Exchanges on Augmentation Program Flows
Comment: The SDEIS statements that CRS §37-87-103 entitles the District to use the natural
stream for the delivery of water without others using such water are incorrect. Other water users
may divert such water provided that they deliver a substitute supply above the point of re-diversion.
E.g., C.R.S. §37-92-305(5); Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1153-55
(Colo. 2001). As described in the SDEIS, the District currently lacks a legal mechanism to ensure
that water proposed to be delivered from Glade Reservoir to the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate is
protected from intervening diversions, substitutions, and exchanges. Section 3.2.5 of Appendix F of
the SDEIS confirms the District’s current inability to protect such flows. The SDEIS contains no
analysis of how the District will ensure that such deliveries of water will actually remain in the
Poudre River to avoid and minimize the reduction of flows.
Proposal/Recommendation: To comply with NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must require an
analysis be performed to demonstrate that deliveries of water under the Augmentation Program will
actually remain in the Poudre River to avoid and minimize the reduction of flows. The Corps must
require additional measuring stations to establish that deliveries of water under the Augmentation
Program are not diverted and substituted. To the extent that the Augmentation Program constitutes
mitigation, under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the Corps’ mitigation must “have been
demonstrated to be effective in circumstances similar to those under consideration.” 40 C.F.R. §
230.75(d). See Kentucky Riverkeeper v. Rowlette, 714 F.3d 402, 412 (6th Cir. 2013) (The Corps’
“mere listing of mitigation measures and processes, without any analysis, cannot support a
cumulative impacts determination.”). Any approval of NISP must require a high level of certainty
that the water delivered to the stream under the Augmentation Program will actually reach its
intended destination so as to guarantee that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 46 of 108
In violation of NEPA and the CWA, the SDEIS fails to demonstrate that the Augmentation Program
would be viable and effective to meet its goals. See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352.
6.3.5 No Analysis of the Ability of the District to Deliver Flows in the Augmentation
Program Past All Intervening Headgates
Comment: The SDEIS indicates that water in the Augmentation Program would be delivered to the
Poudre River “via a pipeline to the river upstream of the Larimer County Canal headgate.” This
would mean that the Colorado State and Division Engineers would need to shepherd such water past
the following diversion structures to reach the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate: (1) the diversion
structures for the Larimer County Canal headgate; (2) the diversion structures for Watson Lake;
(3) the diversion structures for the Jackson Ditch (a.k.a Dry Creek Ditch); (4) the shared the
diversion structures for the New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County No. 2 Ditch, Little Cache la Poudre
Ditch, and Taylor and Gill Ditch; (5) the diversion structures for the Arthur Ditch; (6) the diversion
structures for the Larimer and Weld Canal; and (7) the diversion structures for the Lake Canal. The
majority of these diversion structures lack necessary measurement structures to ensure that water can
be shepherded past them, especially during periods of low flow or when the ditch is diverting the
entire flow of the river.
While the NISP Proposed Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Appendix F, Section 4.4.3) provides
for multi-objective retrofits for three of the above diversion structures (the Watson Lake, Terry Lake,
and Larimer and Weld diversions) that may allow for streamflow monitoring, other diversions listed
above will not have associated streamflow monitoring, and thus cannot be ensured to bypass flows
attributable to the Augmentation Program. The SDEIS contains no analysis of how the District will
ensure that such deliveries of water in the Poudre River will actually reach the desired downstream
location.
Proposal/Recommendation: An analysis should be performed to establish that deliveries of water
under the Augmentation Program will be delivered past all intervening headgates so as to guarantee
that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
6.3.6 Augmentation Program During Times of Drought
Comment: The SDEIS indicates that releases of water under the Augmentation Program may not
occur under extreme drought conditions when Glade Reservoir storage contents are less than 30% of
capacity. According to Figure 3.15 of the SDEIS Operations Plan Report, Glade Reservoir would
drop below 30 percent of capacity (or 51,000 acre-feet of the proposed 170,000 acre-feet) in the late
1950s, the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s conditions– indicating that the Augmentation Program may
not occur three times during the study period of 1950 through 2005. However, a comparison of pre-
and post-augmentation flows (assessed through PPP and final flow data provided by the Corps)
indicates the augmentation flows occurred during these same years and were thus included in the
impacts analysis, which therefore improved environmental outcomes. It is likely that such drought
conditions will coincide with low flows in the Poudre River, including flows less than 10 cfs below
the Larimer and Weld Canal headgate. However, by its own proposed terms and conditions the
Augmentation Program would not operate when most needed. The failure of the Augmentation
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 47 of 108
Program to address the effects of diversions to Glade Reservoir when the effects are being most
intensely experienced undermines the purposes of the Augmentation Program.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must require that the Augmentation Program operate at all
times, including during extreme drought years when augmentation flows are needed the most, in
order to address impacts, as claimed.
6.3.7 No Analysis of Subsequent Exchanges Using Augmentation Program Flows
Comment: The SDEIS states that water released from Glade Reservoir for the Augmentation
Program will be returned to Glade Reservoir, possibly through the use of exchanges. However, the
actual method of exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir is not specified in the SDEIS.
The SDEIS fails to explain how such exchanges would occur under the subject water right
decrees. For example, the decree entered in Case No. 1992CW130, District Court, Water Division 1,
approved certain conditional appropriative rights of exchange, with findings of diligence for those
conditional exchanges having been entered in Case No. 2011CW241, District Court, Water
Division 1. The sources of water for those exchanges are (1) water diverted under the SPWCP water
rights confirmed in Case No. 1992CW130 and (2) water from other reusable sources, provided that
such use is allowed by another decree and is agreed to by the sources’ owners. As discussed above,
water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water Right is not currently legally available for use as a
source of water for these exchanges. The SDEIS contains no analysis of these aspects of these
unspecified exchanges.
Exchanging augmentation releases back to Glade Reservoir has the potential to reduce
Poudre River streamflows along the 12 mile reach through Fort Collins between the proposed
augmentation release point and the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate, and may result in impacts to the
Poudre River’s aquatic environment, which are discussed elsewhere in these comments.
Proposal/Recommendation: To comply with NEPA and the CWA, the SDEIS must clearly
describe the method and frequency of which these exchanges will be conducted, and should consider
and quantify the environmental impacts with associated streamflow depletions from the exchanges.
6.4 IMPACTS ON THE PVP
SDEIS Section 2.5.5.2.1, Deliveries to Participants / Reclamation Action Option
Statement: “Fort-Collins-Loveland Water District (3,000 AFY) would use its own capacity in the existing
Pleasant Valley Pipeline by direct connection from Glade Reservoir.”
Comment: Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred alternative) includes a direct connection between
Glade Reservoir and the PVP. Fort Collins and the Tri-Districts (the East Larimer County Water
District, the Fort-Collins-Loveland Water District, and the North Weld County Water District) share
use of the PVP to deliver water to Fort Collins’ and the Tri-Districts’ respective water treatment
facilities. As discussed in other sections of these comments, the water released from Glade
Reservoir will be of a lower quality than other water that has historically been delivered through the
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 48 of 108
PVP. As one example, water released from Glade Reservoir may have high levels of TOC.
Releases high in TOC from Glade Reservoir to the PVP will degrade the quality of raw water to Fort
Collins treatment plant and necessitate more intensive treatment, as discussed below.
Unless the quality of water released from Glade Reservoir and delivered to the PVP is
acceptable to Fort Collins, Fort Collins may exercise its rights to withhold approval of such use of
the PVP pursuant to Paragraph 3.a of the Allotment Contract with the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, acting by and Through the Pleasant Valley Pipeline Water Activity Enterprise
and the City of Fort Collins Water Utility Enterprise for Capacity in the Pleasant Valley Pipeline,
dated February 28, 2003.
Proposal/Recommendation: The measures and alternative analysis required in Section 5.2.5 of
these comments apply here as well. The Corps must also analyze how Alternative 2 would work
without this connection.
6.5 HOW DELIVERIES TO NISP PARTICIPANTS ARE TO BE MADE
SDEIS Section 2.5.5.2.1. Deliveries to Participants / Reclamation Action Option
Statement: “Eaton, Severance, and Windsor (5,900 AFY) would be by direct pipeline connection from Glade
Reservoir to the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.1, Avoid Munroe Canal Diversions (FW-01)
Statement: “The original Draft EIS considered using the Munroe Canal for two operations associated with
NISP. […] The exchange has been eliminated in the SDEIS analysis, and replaced with a new pipeline directly
from Glade Reservoir to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District) and a new
pipeline directly from Glade Reservoir to the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (for Eaton, Severance and
Windsor).”
Comment: The SDEIS mentions that the NISP participants of Eaton, Severance, and Windsor would
receive water via a direct connection between Glade Reservoir to Soldier Canyon Filter Plant.
However, the Corps must provide additional information regarding the pipeline(s), including, but not
limited to, its route(s), what land(s) would be disturbed by its construction and use, how the
proposed pipeline(s) would be constructed and operated, the socioeconomic impacts of such
pipeline(s), and whether environmentally sensitive or affected areas would be involved. To comply
with NEPA and the CWA, the SDEIS must evaluate the impacts of the pipeline(s). If the deliveries
are proposed to be made through the PVP, Fort Collins’ comments and proposals/recommendations
above apply.
6.6 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 6
• Decrees, District Court, Water Division 1: Case No. 1980CW335; Consol. Case Nos.
1985CW206, 1985CW207, 1985CW208, 1985CW209, 1985CW210, 1989CW122; Case No.
2001CW197; Case No. 1992CW130; Case No. 2003CW405; Case No. 2011CW242.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 49 of 108
SECTION 7: CHANNEL STRUCTURE, STORM WATER, FLOODPLAIN, AND
HYDRAULIC COMMENTS
Fort Collins is located in the Poudre River basin, and thus, the Poudre River is the primary
conduit for drainage, storm water, flood waters, and other flows. As discussed herein, NISP’s
alterations to, among other things, stream morphology and sediment transport, will adversely affect
Fort Collins’ use of the Poudre River for these services.
The City of Fort Collins’ Strategic Plan recognizes the importance of the Poudre River to
environmental health, community safety, recreation and economic health. Strategic Objective 4.1
call for Fort Collins to improve and protect wildlife habitat and the ecosystems of the Poudre River
and other urban streams. This plan also recognizes that the Poudre River has multiple and, at times,
competing demands from various users, while at the same time being a natural amenity and
ecosystem to be carefully nurtured and maintained. The plan thus directs that, given multiple
stresses on the ecology of the Poudre River, there will be a need for local and regional investments if
river health is to be maintained and/or improved. The plan also identifies that a healthy Poudre
River supports the economy of downtown Fort Collins.
The stream morphology and sediment transport analysis in the SDEIS contain some
important analyses that were originally omitted from the DEIS. However, these analyses and the
conclusions drawn from them are fundamentally flawed because the sediment transport modeling
underpinning the new analyses is incorrect, as discussed below. Thus, without further and
independent evaluation of hydraulic modeling by the Corps, the impacts of the proposed action
cannot be determined.
In addition to errors in the modeling, the SDEIS fails to properly analyze likely extent of
channel changes, sediment deposition, and other impacts to habitat quality that are not well
supported by the analyses and evidence provided in the SDEIS. These fundamental flaws in the
sediment transport analyses result in underestimation of NISP impacts to various river characteristics
including channel capacity to convey floods, aesthetics, and physical habitat for aquatic life.
7.1 NO ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND FLOODING RISKS IN FORT COLLINS
SDEIS Section 3.4.2.4, Morphologic and Sediment Transport Conditions Upstream of I-25
Statement: “Stream morphology in the upstream reaches from the canyon through Fort Collins to the vicinity
of I-25 is flood-dominated morphology. […] Deposition and vegetation encroachment will continue in discrete
areas – probably at a similar rate to the current unless some unpredicted intrinsic threshold is reached or some
other change occurs such as an invasion of reed canary grass or a substantial increase in sediment supply from
upstream sources.”
Comment: The SDEIS fails to address how much additional sediment is expected to accumulate in
the Fort Collins reach of the Poudre River following construction of NISP. This information is
needed to assess the cost of damages to Fort Collins on an annual basis to determine proper
compensatory mitigation. Based on historic sediment removal projects in Fort Collins, the cost to
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 50 of 108
remove sediment from the river can vary from $20 to $80 per ton depending on location, hauling
distance, equipment used, and type of material.
The SDEIS geomorphic analysis fails to properly assess the potential for decreased flood
conveyance capacity and increased flood depths associated with channel aggradation, narrowing, and
vegetation encroachment within Fort Collins. This is a point that must be addressed with regard to
public safety and potential costs to Fort Collins. Fort Collins has an interest in maintaining a healthy
and functional river system which retains an open channel capable of transporting storm water and
flood flows. The process of sediment deposition without the process of sediment flushing through
scouring and erosion will lead to vegetation encroachment and subsequent channel constriction.
These changes will significantly change the Poudre River’s function as a conveyor of flood water
and result in flow obstruction, increased flood stages and possibly greater flood damage in the future.
The SDEIS’s characterization that the Poudre River transitions from a sediment “supply
limited” to sediment “transport limited” system at its crossing of I-25 is a generalization that fails to
address the impacts of NISP on specific reaches of the Poudre River throughout Fort Collins. More
detailed analysis and mitigation actions for specific reaches within Fort Collins should be developed
prior to approval of NISP. Reduction of runoff peak flows will likely increase sedimentation within
Fort Collins, thereby exacerbating flooding risk.
Proposal/Recommendation: Under NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must take a hard look at the
additional sediment accumulation and associated impacts in the Fort Collins reach of the Poudre
River that may be caused by the proposed action. It must also determine and document the
mitigation measures that would adequately address those impacts. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.11. As
stated above, unless these measures are properly identified and addressed, the Corps “has not met its
legal obligation and any proposed mitigation measures dependent upon an incomplete environmental
impact analysis necessarily fail . . . .” Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition, 479 F.Supp.2d at 627.
7.2 LACK OF SUPPORT FOR CONCLUSIONS OF MINOR IMPACTS
SDEIS Section 4.4.3.1.1, Poudre River Flows and Flooding
Statement: “Widespread 20% to 35% predicted reductions in flows around the 1% to 5% flow range may
have an impact on channel forming discharges and channel morphology.”
SDEIS Section 4.4.3.1.1, Poudre River Sediment Transport
Statement: “Under Alternative 2, it is possible that the reduced incidence of flows around the current 1- and
2-year flood level would increase the likelihood that colonizing vegetation can become established before it is
scoured out by subsequent high flows. Channel contraction can then be driven by vegetation in the absence of
abundant sediment.”
SDEIS Section 4.4.7.1, Impact Summary Poudre River, Table 4-53, Page 4-173
Statement: “Effects of Alternative 2 on geomorphology and sediment transport may result in a detectable
change that is considered to be minor in the reaches upstream of I-25. Downstream of I-25 Alternative 2
effects may result in a clear detectable change that is considered to be moderate.”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 51 of 108
Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Cache La Poudre River Mainstem, Final Project
Effects Report, Section 1.5.1, Trajectory Upstream of I-25, Page 1-8
Statement: “Despite the relative stability of the existing condition, there is still a propensity to aggradation,
constrained in the current condition by the limited availability of incoming sediment compared to the ability of
the channel to transport it. Deposition and vegetation encroachment will continue in discrete areas – probably
at a similar rate to the current…”
Comment: The SDEIS generally underestimates the likelihood of sediment deposition, vegetation
encroachment, channel shrinking, and lost flood conveyance through Fort Collins. On this issue, the
SDEIS contains numerous examples of conclusions that run contrary to presented data and analyses
with respect to the current trajectory and likely response of the river channel in Fort Collins. There
also are numerous examples of the SDEIS contradicting itself. Under NEPA and the CWA, the
Corps’ explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for its decision . . . runs counter to the
evidence before” it. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983).
As one example, the Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Cache La Poudre River
Mainstem, Final Project Effects Report, dated August 15, 2014 (“Effects Report”), at pages 1-7,
states that “[u]pstream of I-25 the river channel is larger and steeper but there is also a strong
aggradational tendency associated with reduced flows.” Yet the report ultimately concludes that the
river through Fort Collins will remain “supply limited” and unresponsive relative to downstream
reaches because there is not enough sediment supply to cause any more than “minor” aggradation.
In contrast, the Poudre River downstream of I-25 is deemed “transport limited” and more at risk,
owing to its relatively high sediment supply (e.g., Table 4-53, p. 4-172 of main SDEIS document).
As another example, the SDEIS identifies widespread 20% to 35% reductions in flows, as
quoted above, early in Section 4 of the SDEIS. SDEIS, Section 4.4.3.1.1 at 4-157. However, by the
end of Section 4 in the SDEIS, this impact is marginalized on the basis of a supply limited condition
upstream of I-25. A supply limited condition does exist upstream of I-25 that does not preclude
episodes of high sediment loading, such as after a wildfire or slope instability somewhere in the
watershed. Nevertheless, the reduction of high flows by NISP will clearly impact the ability of the
channel to flush excess sediment through Fort Collins when these events do occur. More
specifically, the SDEIS concluded that “[f]or the 26-year period of record, 23 flushing events under
Current Conditions lasting for 325 days in total would become 16 flushing events under Alternative
2 lasting for 222 days in total.” SDEIS, Section 4.4.3, page 4-158. This reduced flushing potential
under NISP will impact channel conditions, particularly after high sediment producing events,
resulting in changes in channel morphology. And yet the discussion in this section concludes with a
statement that the effects of Alternative 2 on geomorphology and sediment transport is “minor in the
reaches upstream of I-25.” (Table 4-53, page 4-173).
As one further example, the SDEIS identifies the possibility that reduced flows will increase
vegetation and channel contraction, as quote above, early in Section 4. SDEIS, Section 4.4.3.1.2 at
4-160. However, by the end of Section 4 this possible impact is largely overlooked given the
conclusion of “minor” impacts (Table 4-53, page 4-173). With the substantially reduced flow
conditions under NISP, vegetation encroachment will occur on sand and gravel bars that were
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 52 of 108
previously more frequently inundated. The supply limited condition upstream of I-25 may reduce
the potential of fluvial sediment deposits on exposed bars that would facilitate vegetation
encroachment, however, some sediments will still accumulate (including Aeolian sediment) and
vegetation encroachment will occur in the Fort Collins reach under NISP.
The above conclusions from the SDEIS are not supported by evidence or general principles
of stream morphology. First, aggradation or deposition of sand and fine sediment depends on the
supply of sediment relative to the capacity of the river to transport the supplied sediment, not just the
supply of sediment. If capacity to move sediment is sufficiently reduced, a “supply limited” channel
will shift to transport limitation and sediment accumulation will accelerate. Second, the vast
majority of the sand and coarse sediment load that is supplied to the Timnath and Windsor reaches of
the Poudre first flows through Fort Collins. Third, Alternative 2 would decrease the sediment
transport capacity of the river through Fort Collins to a level below that of the currently found in the
Timnath reach that extends four miles downstream of I-25. The tables below summarize modeling
results compiled from the Effects Report to compare current conditions in Timnath and Windsor
with Alternative 2 conditions in Fort Collins.
Excerpt from Table 3.2 Exceedance Probability Discharge, Alternative 2 vs Current Conditions
(Effects Report p 3-5):
Location Node CTP Scenario Exceedance Flow (cfs)
Fort Collins 17 Alt 2 1% flow 2023
Fort Collins 20 Alt 2 1% flow 2037
Fort Collins 23 Alt 2 1% flow 2089
Timnath 32 Current 1% flow 2200
Timnath 34 Current 1% flow 2297
Windsor 35 Current 1% flow 2358
Fort Collins 17 Alt 2 2% flow 1348
Fort Collins 20 Alt 2 2% flow 1316
Fort Collins 23 Alt 2 2% flow 1285
Timnath 32 Current 2% flow 1603
Timnath 34 Current 2% flow 1674
Windsor 35 Current 2% flow 1711
Excerpt from Table 3.11 Reach Averaged Sediment Transport Potential using SIAM – Alternative
2 vs Current Conditions (Effects Report p 3-32):
Difference between Current average transport of sand and gravel in Fort
Collins as compared to Current in Timnath 15%
Difference between Current average sand transport in Fort Collins as
compared to Current in Timnath 18%
Difference between Alt 2 average transport of sand and gravel in Fort
Collins as compared to Current in Timnath -10%
Difference between Alt 2 average sand transport in Fort Collins as
compared to Current in Timnath
-12%
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 53 of 108
Note: Data in the table above compares 6 out of 7 SIAM reaches in Fort Collins (omitted outlier reach FC 3) with
Timnath A reach which extends 4 miles below I-25.
These SIAM modeling results indicate that Alternative 2 would reduce sediment transport
capacity of the Poudre River in Fort Collins to levels below the transport capacity currently
witnessed in Timnath. The Poudre River in Timnath immediately below I-25 is described in the
Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Cache la Poudre River Mainstem Baseline Report,
dated May 2013 (“Baseline Report”), as being dominated by fine sediment deposition which
reinforces vegetation encroachment and loss of channel flood conveyance. (Note that the SIAM
analysis still uses the Meyer-Peter Mueller transport equation which underestimates differences in
sediment transport capacity for river bed particles near the threshold of motion). Ultimately, the
SDEIS presents no meaningful evidence to support the conjecture that the Poudre River in Fort
Collins will sustain only “minor” aggradation, and remain supply limited given reductions of
sediment transport capacity of approximately 30-35% in some reaches (Table 7.12 on p. 7-33 in the
Effects Report). Instead, the SIAM hydraulic modeling results indicate that the Poudre River in Fort
Collins is on the cusp of shifting to a flow and sediment regime similar to current conditions in
Timnath downstream of I-25.
The SDEIS only addresses the risk of lost flood conveyance downstream of I-25 (SDEIS
main report p. 4-159). This implies that effects in Fort Collins will be negligible despite increased
risk of sediment accumulation, channel shrinking, woody vegetation encroachment, and increased
potential of debris impacts to flood conveyance at bridges and other hydraulic structures. This
implicit conclusion is not supported with any empirical or modeling evidence in the SDEIS
documentation. Although Alternative 2 will likely result in increased vegetation encroachment and
reduce channel conveyance capacity in the absence of periodic channel maintenance flows, it would
not reduce the magnitude of the most extreme flow events delivered to the Fort Collins river segment
(e.g., 50-100+ year floods). This means that 100 year and larger flood stages could appreciably
increase and create a public safety and cost issue for Fort Collins. Additional analysis is needed to
address the risk of lost flood conveyance in Fort Collins.
Proposal/Recommendation: NEPA requires an “accurate scientific analysis.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1.
“For this reason, agencies are under an affirmative mandate to ‘insure the professional integrity,
including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements . . .
.” Envtl. Defense v. Corps of Engineers, 515 F. Supp. 2d 69, 78 (D.D.C. 2007). To address these
deficiencies, the Corps must conduct further analyses in a revised DEIS or supplement to the SDEIS.
Under NEPA and the CWA, the Corps “must articulate why it has made its decision with sufficient
clarity that others affected by the decision and the Courts can understand it.” Crutchfield v. United
States Army Corps of Engineers, 154 F. Supp. 2d 878, 899 (E.D. Va. 2001).
7.3 INCORRECT ANALYSIS OF STREAM MORPHOLOGY AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
Effects Report, Section 3.6.2, Spells Analysis at Representative Cross Sections for Flows that
Initiate Motion of Bed Material, Page 3-9
Statement: “The spells analysis suggests that the time between occurrences of bed material motion is not
generally increased under Alternative 2, so to the extent that colonization of vegetation is dependent on the
existence of a stable substrate, no significant change in the rate or extent of new colonization is expected.”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 54 of 108
Comment: SDEIS analyses of sediment mobilization use inappropriate methods to estimate the
flows at which river bed flushing and rejuvenation occur. The equation from Ackers and White
(1973; p.6-10 of Baseline Report), which was not intended for this application nor calibrated for the
prevailing grain sizes in the Poudre River in Fort Collins, is used to adjust shear stress output from
HEC-RAS modeling. This erroneous application of shear stress “partitioning” biases the results
such that it appears that there is little sediment flushing occurring under baseline conditions, and
ultimately masks the net reduction in sediment flushing that occurs under Alternative 2.
To investigate this bias, Fort Collins re-ran the HEC-RAS model used in the SDEIS analyses
and computed four standard estimates of shear stress using main channel shear, hydraulic depth and
friction slope, maximum depth and friction slope, and a well-known standard relationship for
estimating grain shear in gravel bed rivers. All these accepted methods result in significantly greater
sediment flushing and mobilization potential compared to values reported in the SDEIS. See
Bledsoe, B. P and D.W. Baker (2015). Technical Memorandum: Calculation of Flushing Flows in
the Cache La Poudre River.
This one source of bias in shear stress estimates produces errors averaging 52% with some
errors exceeding 80% at the SDEIS “representative” cross-sections that were selected in the Fort
Collins reach. Furthermore, the selection of single “representative” cross-sections to represent
several thousand feet of river channel in the SDEIS is not explained and justified. Based on analysis
of HEC-RAS model outputs, some of these sections appear to not be representative of reach wide
conditions due to their hydraulic characteristics proximity hydraulics structures (see for example the
“representative” cross-section at station 231,351 which is located immediately upstream of a bridge
in Fort Collins).
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must conduct additional studies using appropriate
methodologies to address the deficiencies described above, specifically with respect to using
standard estimates of shear stress using main channel shear, hydraulic depth and friction slope,
maximum depth and friction slope, and a well-known standard relationship for estimating grain
shear in gravel bed rivers, as opposed to using the equation from Ackers and White identified above.
7.4 INCORRECT DATA ON GRAIN SIZE
Effects Report, Section 3.6.2, Spells Analysis at Representative Cross Sections for Flows
that Initiate Motion of Bed Material,Ppage 3-9
Statement: “The spells analysis suggests that the time between occurrences of bed material motion is not
generally increased under Alternative 2, so to the extent that colonization of vegetation is dependent on the
existence of a stable substrate, no significant change in the rate or extent of new colonization is expected.”
Comment: The grain size data that were chosen to estimate NISP effects on river bed flushing and
mobility are biased toward the coarsest material relative to data obtained through more intensive
substrate monitoring conducted by Colorado State University (“CSU”). By utilizing the coarsest
available grain size data (collected using sampling methods that yield less accurate estimates than
the CSU samples), the SDEIS analyses are further biased (in conjunction with the first point in the
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 55 of 108
paragraph above) toward underestimation of differences in how often and effectively the river bed is
cleaned by current flows versus Alternative 2 flows.
The CSU grain size data were provided to the Corps and NISP consultants and are
acknowledged and reported in the Baseline Report (Figure 3.8, p. 3-13 of Baseline Report).
However, these data do not appear in subsequent grain size plots and analyses. As a result of the
combined influence of underestimated shear stresses and selection of very coarse grain sizes, as
described in the previous comment, the SDEIS generally contends that extreme flows are required
for river bed cleaning in Fort Collins. By contrast, standard methods indicate that sediment can be
flushed and the river bed rejuvenated with flows of 2,000 to 3,500 cfs at most locations. Bledsoe, B.
P and D.W. Baker (2015). Technical Memorandum: Calculation of Flushing Flows in the Cache La
Poudre River. This is important because Alterative 2 can divert 1,000 cfs. This amount of flow
diversion would be the difference between flushing and not flushing the river bed in many years.
These errors propagate through all the other analyses of physical-biological linkages (e.g., modeling
future trout habitat or the risk of algae proliferations).
The lack of bed mobility has broad implications to the Poudre River ecosystem as discussed
throughout the comments herein.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must conduct additional studies using appropriate
methodologies to address the deficiencies described above, specifically with respect to the use of
CSU grain size data and the determination of flushing flows.
7.5 AUGMENTATION PROGRAM’S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE ENVIRONMENT
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, Low Flow Augmentation Release (FW-04)
Statement: “To further improve the cold water fishery on the Poudre River from the canyon mouth through
Fort Collins, Northern Water would integrate a flow augmentation program that would release water from
Glade Reservoir to improve Poudre River streamflow from the canyon mouth through Fort Collins.”
Comment: The Augmentation Program is narrowly conceived. An extensive body of science is
clear that a range of flows from low to high is necessary for maintenance of the environment. At
present, the plan only proposes the maintenance (at most times) of 10 cfs.
There is no proposal for impacts to flushing flows, which might include periodic larger flow
releases, and/or releases after a major sediment producing event in the watershed such as wildfire or
landslide activity. High flows are essential to reduce adverse impacts that will occur from sediment
deposition, channel narrowing from vegetation encroachment, and reduced biological functioning of
the river through Fort Collins.
Although the proposed Augmentation Program is welcome, 10 cfs is not sufficient for its
purposes. According to widely accepted instream flow methods such as Colorado Water
Conservation Board’s R2CROSS approach, 10 cfs is substantially below flow levels required to
maintain the environment to a reasonable degree. Dr. Kevin Bestgen, a fisheries expert at CSU, has
several years of trout monitoring data collected from the Poudre River in Fort Collins that support at
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 56 of 108
least a 20 to 30 cfs base flow in fall/winter. (Fort Collins’ Ecological Response Model is informed
with this information, and its purpose is to identify probable ecological responses to a range of
potential future changing conditions related to streamflows and important secondary factors affecting
the river system. It defines clear quantitative targets for low and high flows that are a necessary part
of the conversation on mitigation.)
Flushing/bypass flows for mobilizing coarse substrates would reduce the extent of fine
sediment deposition and accumulated algae, as well as decrease the likelihood that physical habitat
will continue to degrade to a level that produces additional, detectable biological impacts. In the
absence of flushing flows, existing physical habitat will be negatively affected in the future as the
river channel and its substrate characteristics (e.g., extent of interstices clogged with fine sediment,
amount of algae) evolve with ongoing changes in water management.
The Augmentation Program ignores the fact that the above-described response will occur
irrespective of base flows because such low flows are incapable of rejuvenating the river bed to
maintain habitats required by trout and aquatic insects.
As currently formulated, the Augmentation Program would not avoid or minimize the
diversions under the Project which occur during periods of high flows thereby reducing flushing
flows. The Augmentation Program would instead maintain certain flows during periods of low
flows. It appears that the Augmentation Program was conceived to mitigate and compensate for
certain effects of NISP at low flow, and not to avoid and minimize its critical effects on flushing
flows.
Proposal/Recommendation: NEPA requires that the Corps conduct further analyses to address the
deficiencies described above, specifically with respect to the ability of the Augmentation Program to
maintain the environment with only the maintenance of 10 cfs (at mot times) and no flushing flows.
Further, under NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must require measures to minimize the impacts to
flushing flows. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20. See also 40 C.F.R. § 230.10. The Corps must require
clarification and substantiation of the assertion that the Augmentation Program is avoidance and
minimization, as opposed to mitigation.
7.6 NEED TO ADDRESS FLOODING AND STORM WATER ISSUES
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 4.3.1, Stream Channel and Habitat Improvement Plan (AG-01)
Statement: “Northern Water would provide funding for a stream channel and habitat improvement plan for
the Poudre River from the Poudre Valley Canal to its mouth at the South Platte River. The stream channel and
habitat improvement plan would address and mitigate Poudre River water related resources, including aquatic,
stream morphology, water quality, riparian and special status species. […] NISP commits to spending up to
$1.0 million to develop the stream channel habitat and improvement plan. This funding is in addition to other
commitment made in this Conceptual Mitigation Plan.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Appendix A, Table A-1
Statement: “Item No. AG-03 Implement and fund Poudre River Adaptive Management Program ($5 million
+ $50,000/yr for 20 years).”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 57 of 108
Comment: Channel contraction and vegetation encroachment from NISP will likely have significant
adverse effects on base flood elevations and the resulting extent of flood inundations during large
recurrence interval floods such as, the 100- and 500-year flood events. Fort Collins review of the
SDEIS indicates a high probability that the capacity of the Poudre River channel to convey
floodwater will be materially reduced under the NISP proposed action; therefore, new river
modeling, planning and prevention measures will need to be put in place to ensure the safety of the
citizens of Fort Collins. Unless addressed at this time, subsequent costs of designing, constructing
and maintaining additional flood protection facilities or modifying existing structures would be
borne by the citizens of Fort Collins. The mitigation plan states that NISP commits to spending up
to $1.0 million to develop the stream channel and habitat improvement plan. As noted above,
additional evaluation is needed before approval of the Project in order to better understand possible
impacts to the floodplain and determine mitigation alternatives as well as costs and funding for the
mitigation.
The District proposes to develop the stream channel habitat and improvement plan.
However, the adequacy of such a program is entirely speculative at this time. Because the Corps has
not adequately addressed the effects of sedimentation in Fort Collins, the extent of the need for
mitigation is uncertain. Further, details of that plan are unknown at this time and the $1.0 million
budget’s adequacy is arbitrary and capricious without further information. Further, there is no
certainty that the any of the recommendations from that plan will be funded and implemented.
With the actual mitigation activities being uncertain, the proposed mitigation activity of
funding the “Poudre River Adaptive Management Program” for an amount ranging from $5-6
million ignores the potential for more significant mitigation actions and caps the amount provided
and the time frame for the mitigation program.
Proposal/Recommendation: In the SDEIS, the Corps must ensure that environmental effects will
not be “overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or
the die otherwise cast.” Skinner, 903 F.2d at 1540. As discussed above, NEPA and the CWA
require that the Corps provide in the SDEIS additional information on the stream channel habitat and
improvement plan. If the Corps approves NISP, it should require as condition of the permit that the
District fund any recommendations from the plan and adequate mitigation.
7.7 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 7
• Bledsoe, B. P and D.W. Baker (2015). Technical Memorandum: Calculation of Flushing
Flows in the Cache La Poudre River.
• Buffington, J. M. and D. R. Montgomery (1999) Effects of sediment supply on surface
textures of gravel-bed rivers. Water Resources Research, 35(11), 3523-30 pp.
• City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan, 2015-2016.
• Espegren, G.D. (1998). Evaluation of the Standards and Methods Used for Quantifying
Instream Flows in Colorado. Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver, CO, November,
47 pp.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 58 of 108
• Milhous, R. T. (2000). Numerical modeling of flushing flows in gravel-bed rivers. In: P. C.
Klingeman, R. L. Beschta, P. D. Komar, and J. B. Bradley (Eds.), Gravel-bed Rivers in the
Environment, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, pp. 579–608.
• Milhous, R. T. (2007). An adaptive assessment of the flushing flow needs of the lower
Poudre River, Colorado: First evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Rocky Mountain
Hydrologic Research Center Conference, Wild Basin Lodge, Allenspark, CO, September 28.
• Milhous, R. T. (2009). An adaptive assessment of the flushing flow needs of the lower
Poudre River, Colorado: First evaluation. In: J. A. Ramirez (Ed.), Proc. Hydrology Days
2009, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 46–56.
• Nehring, R.B. (1979). Evaluation of Instream Flow Methods and Determination of Water
Quantity Needs for Streams in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort
Collins, CO, September, 144 pp.
• Shanahan J.O., D.W. Baker, B.P. Bledsoe, N.L. Poff, D.M. Merritt, K.R. Bestgen, G.T.
Auble, B.C. Kondratieff, J.G. Stokes, M. Lorie and J.S. Sanderson (2014) An Ecological
Response Model for the Cache la Poudre River through Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas Department, Fort Collins, CO. 93 pp + appendices.
• Waters, T. F. (1995) Sediment in streams - Sources, biological effects, and control. Vol
Monograph 7 American Fisheries Society
• Whiting, P. J. (2002) Streamflow necessary for environmental maintenance. Annual Review
of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 30(1), 181-206 pp.
• Wilcock, P. R., J. Pitlick and Y. Cui (2009) Sediment transport primer: Estimating bed-
material transport in gravel-bed rivers. RMRS-GTR-226, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 78 pp.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 59 of 108
SECTION 8: AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMENTS
Fort Collins has various concerns related to air quality and climate change impacts and issues
in the SDEIS. Climate change is of significant importance to Fort Collins, as noted in Fort Collins
Climate Action Plan. See http://www.fcgov.com/climateprotection. As discussed in detail below,
the SDEIS does not include all sources of air pollution or greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) and does not
evaluate whether all federal, state, and local air quality regulations and rules will be met as a result
of implementation of the Project. The Corps’ assessment of the air quality and climate change
impacts is not a mere formality. The SDEIS must provide a “full and fair discussion” of those
indirect impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. This “comprehensive ‘hard look’ mandated by Congress and
required by statute must be timely, and it must be taken objectively and in good faith, not as a
exercise in form over substance, and not as a subterfuge designed to rationalize a decision already
made.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, the conformity regulations
promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act create separate procedural and substantive requirements
that the Corps must meet. See 40 C.F.R. Part 93 (conformity regulations). However, the SDEIS
defers such analysis to an uncertain point in the future.
In violation of NEPA and the Clean Air Act, the SDEIS does not fully analyze these impacts.
Because of the Corps’ inadequate assessment, the air quality and climate change impacts are
understated. Additionally, Fort Collins and other stakeholders cannot fully or meaningfully analyze
these impacts and their effects. Revised and additional analyses are required.
8.1 COMMENTS REGARDING INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
8.1.1 No Analysis of Impacts from Increased Traffic
SDEIS Section 3.14.4.1, North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council,
Page 3-177
Statement: “A project must come from a conforming transportation plan and improvement program (40 CFR
93.115) before a conformity determination can be made for it. The design and concept for the proposed project
must be adequately defined and must remain consistent with the project’s definition in the conforming RTP and
TIP. If the project changes in concept or design during the planning process, or if it was not originally included
in the RTP and TIP, the regional conformity analysis would need to be revisited before the project can
proceed.”
Comment: The air quality analysis for the realignment of U.S. 287 did not account for the estimated
439,300 annual visitor day increase for recreational use at Glade Reservoir and its long-term impact
on vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) in the ozone nonattainment area. It is important that this traffic
volume increase be communicated to the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization,
the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Upper Front Range
Transportation Planning Region because it will alter the results of the air quality evaluation and the
regional ozone conformity analysis.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 60 of 108
NFRMPO’s conformity analysis depends on a detailed traffic analysis conducted for the
entire area covered by the MPO. This includes assigning employment and traffic generators to each
of the traffic analysis zones (“TAZs”) covered by the model, including the TAZ in which the
proposed Glade Reservoir is located. There is no indication in NFRMPO’s RTP and conformity
analyses for 2035 or 2040 that any of the recreational traffic for the proposed Glade Reservoir has
been included. See e.g., NFRMPO, Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (2008);
North Front Range Land Use Allocation Model (June 17, 2015).
The modeling of emissons associated with the recreational VMT should also make
adjustments to the vehicle mix to reflect the trucks hauling boats and campers which will increase
future air emissions and further impact ozone level predictions. If the assumption is that this
represents a shift of visitor days from Horsetooth Reservoir or other reservoir/lakes, then the annual
economic benefit from recreation at Glade Reservoir of $13.2 million in SDEIS Section 5.20.2.3.1
needs to be modified. Further, the analysis should also account for increased VMT associated with
longer trip lengths to Glade. Per 40 C.F.R. § 93.156(b), the ozone conformity determination must be
prepared and made available to the public for review and comment before it is finalized.
Proposal/Recommendation: The VMT estimates need to be revised to include increased traffic to
Glade Reservoir and this information should be transmitted to all appropriate agencies listed above.
Fort Collins and other stakeholders must be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on this
information. 40 C.F.R. § 93.156(b). A regional ozone conformity determination needs to be
conducted only after all air quality impacts from this project have been quantified and included in
the conformity determination, and this information must be provided to Fort Collins pursuant to the
Clean Air Act.
SDEIS Section 4.13.3.1.1, Glade Reservoir, Page 4-331
Statement: “Changes in traffic volumes from reservoir construction would be similar to the effects of
constructing the Cactus Hill Reservoir described in the No Action Alternative.”
Comment: The description of construction traffic for the Cactus Hill Reservoir in Section 4.13.2.1
for the No Action Alternative states that construction traffic and heavy vehicles necessary for site
development would likely remain on-site for the duration of construction and would not contribute to
daily traffic. The construction phase of Glade Reservoir is estimated to be 5 years, and during this
time, movement of heavy vehicles for removal of construction and demolition waste would be
expected. These activities were not included in the 2013 Air Quality Analysis Memo (GEI 2013) as
part of the modeling effort although these emissions will likely contribute to increases in ozone in
the nonattainment area.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must revise or supplement the SDEIS to include additional
analyses of the priority pollutants for movement of construction and demolition waste to address the
deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-337
Statement: “The realignment of U.S. 287 was included in the STIP for regional ozone conformity
determinations by NFRMPO as discussed in Section 3.14.4.1.”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 61 of 108
Comment: The estimated 439,300 annual visitor day increase for recreation at Glade Reservoir and
its long-term impact on VMT in the region have not been considered in the conformity analyses for
any conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) by NFRMPO. As a result, the emissions associated with these vehicle trips must be included
in the general conformity analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: The RTP and TIP must include increased vehicle traffic and the
regional ozone conformity determination by NFRMPO should be revisited due to the absence of this
data. Further, the general conformity analysis to be developed by the Corps must include the
emissions from these vehicle trips if they have not been modeled in the NFRMPO conformity
analysis approved by FHWA.
SDEIS Section 4.14.3.1.1, Glade Reservoir, Page 4-339
Statement: “The reduced vehicle emissions from a shorter U.S. 287 may be somewhat tempered by steeper
grades associated with a portion of the proposed realignment.”
Comment: The increased traffic associated with recreational use at Glade Reservoir will include
trucks, hauling boats, and campers, that when considered in VMT modeling, will increase, not
decrease, vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions would significantly increase resulting from the large
VMT increase for recreation; the resulting air quality impacts will include long-term direct and
indirect effects; and impact is expected to be at least moderate because the effects would result in
clearly detectable change with measurable effects.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must account for all of the vehicle emissions associated
with new recreational trips in its general conformity analysis. The modeling to support this general
conformity analysis must include appropriate emissions factors to reflect the vehicle mix associated
with boat hauling, campers and other recreational vehicles. Aside from the general conformity
analysis, the Corps must disclose the traffic and emissions impacts of this recreational traffic in a
revised SDEIS to comply with NEPA.
8.1.2 Analysis Missing Numerous Air Pollution Sources
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-336
Statement: “Air quality can potentially be affected by short-term direct effects associated with construction of
the alternatives (e.g., emissions from construction equipment, workers’ vehicles, delivery vehicles, and fugitive
dust) or by long-term indirect effects such as changes to transportation (e.g., the realignment of U.S. 287) or
from project operations (e.g., emissions associated with pumping).”
Comment: The SDEIS air quality analysis, including the supporting analysis (2013 GEI), omitted
numerous long-term sources of emissions of criteria pollutants and particulates and did not consider
any human health or environmental impacts from air toxics. The following significant sources of air
emissions were missing from the air quality analysis, such that the analysis underestimates emissions
and air quality impacts:
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 62 of 108
• Criteria pollutant and particulate emissions associated with large VMT increases for
recreation at Glade Reservoir.
• Criteria pollutant emissions associated with the new recreational activities at Glade the Corps
seeks to claim credit for in its recreational and economic analyses, including boats, jet skis,
generators and other sources of non-road mobile source emissions. The emissions of these
off-road sources can often be quite high, because they have not been subject to as stringent
emissions regulations as on-road vehicles.
• Criteria pollutant emissions associated with pumping during long-term Project operations
(e.g., NOx ozone precursors).
• Air toxics sources:
o VMT increase for recreation to Glade Reservoir and potential for long-term human
health impacts.
o Construction emissions direct health impacts on local residents.
o Construction emissions indirect impacts such as deposition of air toxics onto soils and
surface waters where they are taken up by plants and ingested by animals and eventually
magnified up through the food chain.
• Emissions from vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions from proposed mitigation plan
activities such as:
o Channel and habitat improvements (Appendix F, Section 4.3.2, Page 68).
o Revegetation efforts to support establishment of native wetland and riparian species on
exposed sediment (Appendix F, Section 4.3.4, Page 79).
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS, as
well as its draft and final general conformity analyses, additional quantitative analyses of air quality
sources to address the deficiencies described above. The conformity analysis must account for the
criteria pollutant emissions identified in the first three bullets above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-336
Statement: “The assessment of predicted effects on air quality is presented in detail in the 2013 Air Quality
Analysis Memo (GEI 2013).”
Comment: The Air Quality Analysis Memo (GEI 2013) presents an incomplete analysis of air
quality impacts from NISP for the following reasons:
• The evaluation does not look at the total of all direct and indirect emissions to determine
exceedance of the general conformity de minimis thresholds in 40 CFR § 93.153.
o Only short-term emissions from construction activities were considered for compliance
with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”).
• The evaluation of air quality impacts from U.S. 287 realignment does not consider the
significant long-term change in VMT expected due to travel to access the new recreation at
Glade Reservoir.
• It does not include emissions associated with recreational sources at Glade Reservoir and
emissions associated with the electricity necessary for pumping in all alternatives.
• A comprehensive air quality analysis would quantify and evaluate the impacts of additional
pollutants beyond the six criteria air pollutants addressed in the SDEIS. The Clean Air Act
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 63 of 108
also regulates hazardous and other air pollutants that can impact human health and the
environment.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS, and
the general conformity analyses, additional evaluations of these air quality impacts to address the
deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Page 4-342
Statement: “During the general conformity process, the CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division (APCD)
would review NISP to determine if NISP conformed to the SIP for NOx. During its conformity analysis, the
APCD would determine if the Project’s estimated emissions are included in the state’s emission inventory.”
Comment: The analysis of air quality impacts (GEI 2013) did not consider long-term emissions of
NOx, SO2, CO, and particulates associated with the annual electricity requirement of 61,302,050
kWh for pumping for Alternative 2 with no reclamation and 48,135,987 kWh annually for pumping
for Alternative 2 with reclamation in determining NAAQS compliance.
Estimated NOx emissions for pumping would be 74 tons/year for pumping for Alternative 2
with no reclamation and 58 tons/year for pumping for Alternative 2 with the Reclamation Option.
These estimates were calculated using the 2014 regional marginal emissions factors and need to be
included during the ozone conformity analysis to determine compliance with NAAQS.
Proposal/Recommendation: Additional analyses of priority pollutants from these vehicle
emissions should be completed to address the deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Page 4-342
Statement: “Unavoidable long-term non-construction related impacts on air quality may occur periodically
associated with the exposed shorelines of reservoirs that may cause fugitive dust emissions.”
Comment: The SDEIS and supporting air quality analysis (GEIS 2013) only estimate fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities and do not attempt to estimate fugitive dust emissions from
exposed shorelines at Glade Reservoir. NISP hydrologic modeling on Glade Reservoir water levels
and is available to estimate frequency and extent of reservoir draw down from which an estimate of
fugitive dust emissions can and must be developed. These data are needed to determine the
significance of impacts from fugitive dust.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS, and
its general conformity analysis, additional analyses of priority pollutants from these missions to
address the deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 5.14.2, District’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), Page 5-237
Statement: “Most direct effects on air quality would occur with the construction of Glade and Galeton
Reservoirs and associated facilities and the realignment of U.S. 287.”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 64 of 108
Comment: Long-term direct impacts from NOx from increased VMT and a shift in vehicle mix
resulting from recreation at Glade Reservoir, as well as the emissions from boats, jet skis and other
recreational equipment, were not evaluated. Also missing was a quantitative analysis of long-term
direct effects of fugitive dust resulting from low water levels in Glade Reservoir during drought
periods, and an analysis of direct impacts from air toxics. These are considered direct effects
according to Section 4.1.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, of the SDEIS because they occur at the
same time and place as the activity and impact a large number of recreational users.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
8.1.3 Inadequate Air Quality Analysis May Lead to Violation of NAAQS For Ozone
SDEIS Section 4.14, Air Quality, Page 4-336
Statement: “The marginal nonattainment designation does not impose any new planning requirements on
Colorado at this time; however, the nonattainment area must meet the standard before 2015 or new
requirements may be imposed.”
Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) lowered the 8-hour ozone standard from
0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppm in 2008. In 2010, EPA reconsidered the 2008 standard and proposed a
further tightening of this standard to a range between 0.060-0.070 ppm with several subsequent
delays in implementation to date. Regardless of where within the range EPA sets the new ozone
standard, meeting it will require unprecedented efforts for Colorado according to the Ozone State
Implementation Planning 2010 Progress Report to the Governor. This report also states that ozone
State Implementation Plan (SIP) planning is presently the Regional Air Quality Council’s highest
priority. Stringent requirements from stationary sources, transportation, and other source categories
are expected and should be considered likely requirements for implementation of NISP.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS a
regional ozone conformity analysis taking into account the lowering of ozone standards since the
original NAAQS analysis. A lower ozone standard will increase the chances of NAAQS
noncompliance.
SDEIS Section 4.14.3.1.1, Glade Reservoir, Page 4-339
Statement: “NFRMPO determined that a regional ozone conformity analysis was not needed because the new
route would be shorter than the existing alignment.”
Comment: The impact of increased VMT and changes in the vehicle mix from Glade Reservoir
recreational users were not included in any regional ozone conformity determination by the North
Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. Therefore, the realignment of U.S. 287 was not
adequately defined. 40 C.F.R. § 93.115 requires the regional conformity analysis to be revisited
before the Project can proceed.
Proposal/Recommendation: The regional ozone conformity analysis needs to be revised to
include all air pollutant sources.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 65 of 108
SDEIS Section 5.14.5, Climate Change, Page 5-238
Statement: “Given the predictions of increased levels of ground-level ozone in already-polluted areas due to
climate change, short-term construction emissions from any of the alternatives could contribute to short-term
ozone exceedances when combined with other emissions in the area. This would be a moderate cumulative
effect because the effect would be short-term associated with construction and short-term meteorological
events.”
Comment: This analysis did not factor in the long-term increases in VOCs and NOx associated with
increased VMT for recreation at Glade Reservoir, emissions from recreational equipment, and for
operational pumping of water. These emissions would occur throughout the life of the Project and
thus would be long-term. Frequent exceedances of ozone standards are anticipated when long-term
NISP emissions are combined with other regional emissions, higher ozone levels from increased
temperatures due to climate change, and expected lowered ozone standards. The cumulative impacts
likely qualify as major impacts defined as effects that would be readily apparent with substantial
consequences (e.g., frequent ozone exceedances in the nonattainment area).
Further, the conformity rules prohibit even short-term violations or exacerbation of the
conformity rules. The Corps will need to demonstrate conformity consistent with the criteria of the
general conformity rule. The SDEIS defers this analysis to some unknown point in the future.
Proposal/Recommendation: The regional ozone conformity analysis needs to be revised to include
all air pollutant sources.
8.1.4 Determination of Air Quality Impacts and Their Significance Did Not Consider
Requirements of All Air Quality Regulations
SDEIS Section 4.14.7, Impact Summary, Page 4-344
Statement: “During construction, all alternatives would have estimated average annual emissions of NOx
greater than the conformity de minimis level of 100 tons/year for the ozone nonattainment area.”
Comment: An evaluation of air quality impacts should be based on meeting all regulatory
requirements of the Clean Air Act, not just meeting NAAQS. The Corps must consider the following
factors to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local air quality regulations:
1) If the effects would cause an air quality standard to be violated;
2) Activities or emissions that would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of O3 in the nonattainment area;
3) Activities that expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
4) Fugitive dust emissions from demolition activities that could impair visibility in a
Federal Class I area located within 100 km of the proposed activities such as Rocky
Mountain National Park (Clean Air Act, Section 169A); and
5) Activities or emissions that would be inconsistent with Colorado’s Revised Regional
Haze Plan (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”)
2011).
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 66 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above. Specifically, the above criteria
should be added to the SDEIS for determining air quality impacts and their significance.
SDEIS Section 5.14.2, District’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), Page 5-237
Statement: “The increases in emissions are considered a minor cumulative effect because they would be
short-term and the alternative would need to undergo a general conformity analysis that would consider other
regional contributions to ensure that the region remains in compliance with NAAQs.”
Comment: The air quality analysis failed to consider all long-term sources of NOx emissions (e.g.,
travel for recreation at Glade Reservoir, recreation at the Reservoir, and operational water pumping).
The direct and indirect effects of the short-term and long-term NOx were therefore not quantified. A
comprehensive analysis would likely result in at least moderate effects (e.g., clearly detectable
change with measurable effect as defined in Section 4.1.1.3, Intensity and Magnitude of Effect of the
SDEIS). Between an insufficient analysis of all emission sources and with the recent tightening of
ozone standards, the Corps should require a regional ozone conformity analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
8.2 COMMENTS REGARDING INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS RELATED TO GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
8.2.1 Analysis Missing Numerous Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-337
Statement: “The estimated long-term greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) emissions that could result under each
alternative were based on the projected energy requirements for pumping for the alternatives (BBC 2014).”
Comment: The methods used for estimating greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions are inadequate for
determining NISP GHG increases or impacts for the following reasons:
• All GHGs are referred to as CO2 emissions. This indicates that additional GHGs with higher
global warming potentials such as CH4, and hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) were omitted, and
as a result, total GHG emissions are underestimated.
• Significant sources of GHGs from the large VMT increase to and from Glade Reservoir for
recreation were omitted.
• The Alternative 2 evaluation must include increases in GHG emissions from boats, jet skis,
and other equipment used in the reservoir.
• Increases in emissions associated with waste disposal from recreational users were not
included in the analysis.
• There is a requirement for additional wastewater treatment associated with several proposed
alternatives that would result in increased emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4
, and N2O) for new
and existing wastewater treatment facilities. These have also been omitted from the analysis.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 67 of 108
The long-term effects from all the GHG sources that were omitted from this analysis should have
been included in the analysis because they can be determined using existing national and
international GHG methods and protocols and because they would significantly change the
conclusion of the analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above. Specifically, the SDEIS must
include a more detailed inventory of all GHG sources and a description of methods and calculations
is needed to determine GHG impacts.
SDEIS Section 5.14.2.1, Long-Term Emissions of Carbon, Page 5-237
Statement: “The cumulative effects of the carbon dioxide emissions on climate change are
unknown.”
Comment: The physical link between increasing temperatures and increasing concentrations of
GHGs has been documented by a large body of research.
3
The U.S. National Climate Assessment,
4
a report compiled by a team of over 300 experts who collected, evaluated and integrated
observations and research on climate change in the U.S., is available to estimate impacts to human
health and the environment. Hence, there is no basis for claiming that the cumulative impacts of
GHG emissions are unknown. Although a detailed, quantitative evaluation of the cumulative
impacts of increased GHG emissions from NISP on the various resources considered in the SDEIS
may be premature, the Corps needs to acknowledge the potential for impacts such as increased
global temperatures resulting from NISP’s GHG emissions.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 5.14.6, Impact Summary, Page 5-239
Statement: “The estimated electrical energy used by the alternatives would be about 0.1% of the energy used
in Colorado in 2012 (Section 4.22). This contribution to climate change would be a minor cumulative effect
because the effect would be relatively small compared with the regional total annual emissions of GHGs.”
Comment: The estimation of GHG emissions in the SDEIS only quantifies one source of GHG
emissions–from CO2 emissions from electrical energy use for pumping water. This is an incomplete
estimate of total GHG emissions for the Project alternatives and leaves out:
• The CO2, N2
O, CH4, and HFC emission contributions from increased ground transportation
for recreational use at Glade Reservoir;
• Emissions of other GHGs (N2O) from electricity use for pumping;
3 2007. IPCC WGI Fourth Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers,
http://www.offnews.info/downloads/SPM2feb07.pdf.
4 Mellilo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United
States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/JoZ31WJ2.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 68 of 108
• The CO2, N2
O, and CH4 emissions from disposal of short-term construction and demolition
wastes
• The CO2, N2
O, and CH4 emissions from long-term solid waste disposal from recreational
users at Glade Reservoir; and
• The increases in CO2, N2
O, and CH4 emissions associated with increased wastewater
treatment for several alternatives.
There are numerous national and international protocols (e.g., ICLEI Community Protocol, World
Resources Institute (WRI) GHG Protocol, etc.) for estimating GHG emissions from multiple
emission sources. Furthermore, it is not valid to compare electrical energy use for pumping for
NISP to that of the electricity use of the entire state of Colorado during 2012 and then extrapolate
impact on climate change based on this comparison. There are local and regional differences in the
GHG emissions from electricity depending on if the source is clean (e.g., renewable energy). There
is a state-level GHG emissions estimate (not provided in the SDEIS), but there is no known
“regional total annual emissions of GHGs.” This determination of a minor cumulative effect is not
based on valid or transparent data.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS an
analysis of the total GHG emissions that includes all major GHG sources and uses valid
comparisons. Additionally, the Corps must provide an adequate factual basis for its determination of
minor cumulative effect. The Corps cannot rely on “conclusory assertions that an activity will have
only an insignificant impact on the environment.” Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir. 2004).
8.2.2 Claimed Minor Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SDEIS Section 4.14.7, Impact Summary, Table 4-96. Impacts to air quality, Column Predicted
Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Project Operation at Full Utilization, Page 4-343
Statement: “Alternative 2 Reclamation Action Option: Construction over an estimated 9.1 years would have
a short-term minor impact on air quality.”
Comment: Annual carbon dioxide emissions for Project operation at full utilization of 37,259 metric
tons for Alternative 2 with Reclamation Action Option do not constitute a minor impact on air
quality from a climate change perspective. Moderate effects are defined in Section 4.1.1.3 Intensity
and Magnitude of Effect in the SDEIS as effects that would result in clearly detectable change with
measurable effects. This amount represents 70% of the 2014 GHG emissions from Fort Collins’
entire municipal operations (2014 Comparative Municipal GHG Report) and 80% of the 2013 GHG
emissions from Colorado State University (one of the 3 top GHG sources within Fort Collins city
limits (see reporting via EPA map located at: http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/). For comparison,
under the EPA’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Rules, this level of emissions constitutes a major
source. The Corps’ characterization of these emissions as “minor” when the EPA characterizes
lower levels to be “major” is arbitrary and capricious.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 69 of 108
8.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
SDEIS Section 5.14.6, Impact Summary, Table 5-54, Page 240
Statement: “When combined with RFFAs and climate change, construction would have a short-term minor
impact on air quality. Exposed reservoir shorelines could periodically contribute to local fugitive dust.
Operations would contribute to the increase in the regional emissions of carbon dioxide. The cumulative
effects on air quality would be minor because the incremental increase in carbon dioxide emissions would be
relatively minor compared with the regional total annual emissions of GHGs.”
Comment: This summary is missing a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative impacts of
criteria air pollutants, air toxics, particulates, and all the relevant greenhouse gases over the lifetime
of the Project. It fails to consider the residence time of any of these pollutants in the atmosphere and
the full range of impacts on human health and the environment. This section and table is missing
numerous emission sources detailed in other comments by Fort Collins. The incomplete assessment
is not adequate to make a determination of air quality. A more comprehensive set of air quality
criteria should also be evaluated to determine the significance of impacts. Additionally, it is not
valid to compare a partial Project GHG emissions inventory to a “regional total annual emissions of
GHGs” that does not exist nor is referenced in the document.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
8.4 FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION CONTROL PLAN AND ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.3.4, Air Quality (AQ-01), Page 50
Statement: “To minimize and control fugitive dust, Northern Water would develop and implement fugitive
particulate emission control plan that identifies specific steps that would be taken to minimize fugitive dust
generation.”
Comment: Additional mitigation measures must be implemented to control criteria and other air
pollutants include:
• The fugitive particulate emission control plan should incorporate the following to the
maximum extent feasible:
o All haul roads would be covered in gravel with minimal silt content.
o High winds restrictions to involve no earthmoving activities performed when local winds
speeds exceed 30 miles per hour.
o Implement engineering controls to prevent off-property transport.
o Reduce vehicle speeds by establishing a maximum speed limit or install traffic calming
devices to reduce speeds to a rate that prevents off-property transport of dust entrained
by vehicles.
o Unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly and at the lowest height
possible.
o Dust control measures should be incorporated to the maximum extent feasible during
blasting operations. The following measures should be used during blasting activities:
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 70 of 108
o Conduct blasting on calm days to the extent feasible. Wind direction with respect to
nearby residences and sensitive environmental receptors should be considered.
o Design blast stemmings to minimize dust and to control fly rock.
o Install wind fence for control of windblown dust.
• If one or more of the suggested air quality significance criteria are met (proposed by the Fort
Collins in the Comment to SDEIS Section 4.14.7 Impact Summary, Page 4-344), the
following mitigation measures for mobile sources should be implemented:
o Any off-road construction equipment (e.g., loaders, excavators, etc.) must be equipped
with engines that meet the model year (MY) 2015 emission standards for off-road
compression-ignition (diesel) engines. Older model year engines may also be used if they
are retrofit with control devices to reduce emissions to the applicable emission standards.
o Any on-road construction equipment (e.g., pick-up trucks at the construction sites) must
be equipped with engines that meet the MY 2000 or on-road emission standards.
o Any trucks used to transport materials to or from the construction sites must be equipped
with engines that meet the MY 2010 or later emission standards for on-road heavy-duty
engines and vehicles. Older model engines may also be used if they are retrofit with
control devices to reduce emissions to the applicable emission standards.
Implementation of these various engine control measures would substantially reduce NOx and PM10
emissions; however, the extent of the reduction would vary based on the size (horsepower), age, and
type of equipment. Controlling emissions from equipment operating on the construction site,
including both off-road construction equipment and on-road pick-up trucks could reduce NOx and
PM10 emissions by over 80%. Controlling emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks could
also reduce NOx emissions by approximately 20% or more.
8.5 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 8
• CDPHE, 2014. Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2014 Update Including Projections to
2020 & 2030.
• City of Fort Collins, 2014 Comparative Municipal GHG Report.
• Fort Collins Climate Action Plan, dated 2008.
• Fort Collins Climate Action Plan: Framework, dated 2015.
• Fort Collins Climate Action, dated 2014.
• ICLEI, 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, V 1.1.
• IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers,
International Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 2-18.
• Mellilo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/JoZ31WJ2.
• Resolution 2015-030.
• WRI, Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories
(GPC), An Accounting and Reporting Standard for Cities.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 71 of 108
SECTION 9: RECREATION AND AESTHETICS COMMENTS
The Poudre River is a major recreational attraction in Fort Collins, attracting approximately
over 500,000 visitor days a year. (SDEIS at page 3-195). These visitors’ fish, hike, bicycle, boat,
picnic, and view wildlife. The fishing is so good in the downtown reach of the river that creel counts
for Segment B are consistently higher than any other reach on the Poudre River, including the
canyon reach (personal communication, Kurt Davies, former Colorado Parks and Wildlife Poudre
River fisheries biologist). Over many decades, Fort Collins has spent tens of millions of dollars
beautifying, acquiring land, building recreation amenities, and restoration natural habitat. (City of
Fort Collins Natural Areas Master Plan and Cache la Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan
Update). Fort Collins owns three parks on the River and over 1,800 acres of natural areas. In 2014,
City Council adopted a Downtown Poudre River Master Plan that describes a vision for continuing
to improve the most heavily visited reach of the River from Shields Street to Mulberry. This Master
Plan describes a proposed whitewater park just below the College Avenue Bridge. The park
includes storm water and habitat improvements and is estimated to cost approximately $8.5 million
of which $7 million have been secured to date.
9.1 IMPACTS TO BOATING
SDEIS Section 4.16.3.3, Segment B
Statement: “Segment B is popular for boating (canoeing and kayaking) and is the location of a proposed
whitewater park. Target flows for quality boating opportunities are at or above 150 cfs. Compared with
Current Conditions, Alternative 2 would result in an average reduction of 3 to 7 boating days per month (a
total of 19 fewer days over the May-August period), resulting in a moderate to major adverse effect on boating
opportunities in Segment B. Augmented winter flows in Alternative 2 would result in minor beneficial effects on
recreational fishing opportunities in Segment B…”
SDEIS Section 4.16.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Statement: “Flow changes in Alternatives 2 and 3 would adversely affect boating and fishing opportunities
along the Poudre River through Fort Collins (Segment B).”
SDEIS Section 4.16.1
Statement: “The 150 cfs threshold was based on comments on the DEIS from a local boating group on the
minimum flows that would be needed to allow reasonable passage by canoe through Fort Collins; a 100 cfs
threshold was previously used in the DEIS.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 2.2.1, Summary of Effects
Statement: “Reduced streamflow during the summer would result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on
river-based boating in Segment B…”
Comments: The SDEIS notes in Section 4 that there will be moderate to major adverse effect on
boating opportunities in Segment B associated with Alternative 2. However, in Appendix F, that
effect is inconsistently characterized as “minor to moderate.” The inconsistency reveals a lack of
meaningful analysis required by NEPA.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 72 of 108
Fort Collins does not agree with the characterization of boating impacts to Segment B as only
minor or moderate. With boating days reduced by one-third on average, clearly this is a major
effect, as described by the SDEIS’s own terms. (See page 4-351 “Major effects would result in
readily apparent effects with substantial consequences”).
Paragraph 4.16.3.3 is unclear as to how many days at 150 cfs will be reduced. The SDEIS
states that “Alternative 2 would result in an average reduction of 3 to 7 boating days per month.” If
this sentence is referring to all months it could be read to mean the loss of 36 to 84 days a year.
The SDEIS describes 150 cfs in Segment B as the minimum flows necessary for
“reasonable” passage by canoe. Canoeing at 150 cfs is possible but that is the low end of the
threshold (personal communications with local boaters). Between 75 and 100 cfs, the Poudre River
through Fort Collins is just passable by inner tubes. The SDEIS should more definitively describe
what “reasonable” means with respect to boating in Segment B.
The SDEIS notes minor beneficial effects to fishing due to winter time augmented flows in
Segment B, although in a subsequent paragraph (see SDEIS Sections 4.16.3.3 and 4.16.6
respectively) it inconsistently notes that Alternative 2 would adversely affect fishing. However, as
noted elsewhere in these comments, the SDEIS has failed to adequately analyze impacts to aquatic
biological resources. Therefore, it is not yet possible to accurately characterize the impacts to
fishing.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS an
adequate analysis of the impacts on boating opportunities in Fort Collins, as described above.
Further, the Corps must provide factual bases for its conclusions.
9.2 IMPACTS TO RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCES
SDEIS Section 4.16.3.3, Poudre River
Statement: “Under Alternative 2, changes in streamflows are not expected to result in discernable visual
impacts on recreational experiences along the Poudre River, or the availability of land-based recreational
activities such as trail use, wildlife viewing, and photography. Likewise, wildlife-related recreation along the
mainstem…would be unaffected”
Comment: As noted elsewhere in these comments, Fort Collins has extensive concerns with the
analyses of impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation. Moreover, Fort Collins asserts that the
impacts will be greater than those described by the SDEIS, as described above. Over time, it follows
that the degradation to the environmental resources of the river are likely to result in degradation to
the user experience beyond a negligible or minor impact.
The SDEIS appears to conclude that there will be little to no impact to recreation activities
(other than boating) along the Poudre in Fort Collins (SDEIS Table 4-100, page 4-360). However,
based on a study commissioned by Fort Collins in 2008 (“Estimating Benefits of Maintaining Peak
Instream Flows”, Dr. John Loomis) a reduction in peak flow of 50% would reduce visitation to the
river by approximately 33%.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 73 of 108
The SDEIS describes a very large range of financial value associated with visits to the
Poudre River Trail and visits to Natural Areas along the river. Figures for visits to Natural Areas
range from approximately $2 million to approximately $14 million annually (SDEIS 3-196). Thus,
the median value is $8 million. At approximately 500,000 visitors a year, that works out to $16 per
visitor. Although it is not known precisely how many visitors are present in Natural Areas during
May, June and July a safe assumption is that at least one-quarter of total annual visitors
(approximately 125,000) are present during these months. Thus, a reduction of 33% of these visitors
(approximately 42,000) at $16 a visit would represent an approximately $670,000 annual loss.
While these figures may contain a significant margin of error, they conservatively suggest that there
would be tangible economic losses related to flow depletions.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses of the impacts on recreational experiences. Additionally, the Corps must explain
its determination in the face of the contradictory evidence offered by Fort Collins. The Corps fails to
comply with NEPA if it “offers an explanation which runs counter to the evidence . . . .” Sierra Club
v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 295 F.3d 1209, 1216 (11th Cir. 2002).
9.3 AESTHETIC IMPACTS
SDEIS Section: 4.18.3.3 Poudre River, Pages 4-373 to 374
Statement: “Alternative 2 is predicted to have weekly average river stage declines of 0.5 foot or greater
during the May through September period for 19% of the period of record. The increased frequency of
predicted reductions in stage greater than 0.5 feet (almost twice as frequent as the other segments) in a
segment of the river that is highly used, would likely be noticeable to many viewers familiar with the river in
this segment ....”
Comment: The SDEIS needs to provide a better assessment of the impacts of NISP on the visual
resources of the Poudre River (specifically within Fort Collins), including the river channel, and
wetland and riparian vegetation, based on the acknowledged reduced flow levels. However, the
Corps must describe specifically how the aesthetics could change, such as the reduction of diversity
and density of vegetative cover, reduction of wildlife, exposure of rip-rap and man-made structures
and other factors due to the reduction of river flows. Photo simulations and surveys should be
conducted to evaluate the public’s perception of lower river flows and the effects this could have on
the visitor’s experience and future urban and recreational development along the river corridor.
Proposal/Recommendation: Under NEPA, the Corps must require additional mitigation measures
to address the deficiencies described above.
9.4 MITIGATION OF VISUAL IMPACTS
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives, Page 16
Statement: “This section provides an overview of effects for the key environmental resources affected by
NISP, and a summary of mitigation approaches that were identified by Northern Water.”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 74 of 108
Comment: In violation of NEPA, the Corps has “failed entirely to consider an important aspect of
the problem.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. The Corps cannot ignore visual impacts of the proposed
action. Thus, the Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS additional analyses of
visual impacts and provide adequate mitigation measures to address the deficiencies described
above.
Proposal/Recommendation: Additional study in these proceedings should be completed to address
the deficiencies described above.
9.5 AUGMENTATION PROGRAM AND MITIGATION
SDEIS Section 4.16.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Statement: “The District’s proposed mitigation will be reviewed by the Corps to determine whether
unavoidable adverse impacts would remain with the implementation of the District’s proposed mitigation.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 2.1.2, Mitigation Approach
Statement: “Glade Reservoir provides an opportunity for low-flow aquatic resources mitigation. […]
Modification of diversion structures to allow fish migration and enhance channel characteristics
would…benefit aquatic resources….”
Comment: Fort Collins supports efforts to enhance winter base flows, which may provide a minor
benefit to the fishery in Segment B. Based on the Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model, 20 to
30 cfs is an optimal base-flow regime for the sport fishery. (As noted elsewhere in these comments,
it is not clear that Northern will be able to deliver the proposed augmentation flows due to water
rights issues.)
Fort Collins supports efforts to modify intervening diversion structures to improve habitat
characteristics. As noted elsewhere in these comments, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan proposes
improvements to three structures to bypass flows. There are, however, a number of other structures
that lack the infrastructure to bypass flows (See Operational Comments regarding SDEIS Section
7.3.5).
As noted elsewhere in these comments, Fort Collins believes that flushing flows of 2,500 to
3,500 cfs increase the likelihood that “multiple factors supporting reproduction of both trout and
aquatic insects are…maintained over decadal and longer time scales.” (See Fort Collins comments
in Section 7 of these comments and the Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model). SDEIS
Appendix F, however, does not include any flushing flows.
In general, Fort Collins does not believe and the SDEIS does not establish that the current
mitigation plan will adequately address the negative Poudre River recreation impacts; particularly
those impacts to recreation caused by reduced peak flows. Furthermore, flat water recreation or
other forms of recreation located at Glade Reservoir do not compensate for the loss of water-based
recreation in Fort Collins because such flat water recreation is of a different nature than recreation on
a dynamic, healthy river.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 75 of 108
It is also unclear how the Corps derived the flatwater visitation values for the Glade
Reservoir and whether these add to visitor numbers that would have already existed elsewhere or
simply shift visitation between lakes. If the latter, it is inappropriate to claim any net recreational or
economic benefits.
Proposal/Recommendation: The SDEIS must include avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures that address flushing flows. The Corps must also require compensatory mitigation for the
major loss of boating days on Segment B.
9.6 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 9
• Cache la Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan Update, June 2011
• City of Fort Collins Ecosystem Response Model.
• City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Master Plan, October 7, 2014.
• City Plan, Fort Collins, February 15, 2011.
• Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program, July 18, 2000.
• Fort Collins Natural Areas Map, October 2014
• Poudre River Downtown Master Plan, October 2014.
• Estimating the Economic Benefits of Maintaining Peak Instream Flows in the Poudre River
Through Fort Collins, Dr. John Loomis, April 2008
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 76 of 108
SECTION 10: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES COMMENTS
Fort Collins has invested substantially in the Poudre River corridor through town, and
thereby in its biological resources, which includes aquatics and fisheries, wetlands and riparian areas
(including their ground water aspects), and wildlife. Fort Collins (including through its Natural
Areas and Parks Departments and Stormwater Utility) own and manage nearly 75% of the floodplain
in town as undeveloped lands. The trout populations within Fort Collins are as high as some of the
most productive areas for the river. See Fish Survey, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Cache La Poudre
Fish Survey and Management Information. These investments provide extensive recreation and
educational opportunities, conservation of natural habitats and species, flood attenuation, pollutant
filtration and serve as catchments for urban stormwater catchments (City of Fort Collins, 2011). A
degradation of these resources, a likely outcome of NISP, would substantially and negatively affect
these valued investments and assets. The SDEIS’s analyses of wetlands and riparian areas raise
various concerns as discussed in detail in the following subsections.
10.1 THE POUDRE RIVER IS NOT ON AN INEVITABLE DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY AS
CLAIMED IN THE SDEIS, AND THE ECOLOGICAL RESPONSE MODEL AND RIVER
HEALTH ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK CAN BE USED AS TOOLS
Comment: Fort Collins has conducted various studies on the Poudre River designed to increase the
understanding of current and potential future conditions. As the owner of water, wastewater, and
stormwater utilities, Fort Collins is constantly conducting studies related to the functions of these
enterprises. As a landowner, municipality, and steward of the land and water for current and future
residents, Fort Collins has also sought to better understand the Poudre River beyond the scope of
these vital utilities through conducting studies on other aspects of the river. Several of those studies
are identified in and provided with these comments. In particular, studies have been designed to
further understand site specific issues (such as land use in the floodplain), drivers (such as
inundation of the riparian zone) and thresholds (such as sediment mobility flow thresholds) that
influence the condition of ecological components and also to understand the system as an integrated
sum of its parts.
The future of the Poudre River is of interest to Fort Collins not only for the intrinsic value of
a healthy ecosystem, but also for the role a healthy ecosystem plays in the provision of other
watershed services such as high quality drinking water, wildlife habitat, the basis of the aquatic
ecosystem, recreation opportunities, and protection of public safety and infrastructure, all of which
contribute to a healthy Fort Collins economy and livelihood. The condition of these watershed
services has a direct financial impact on the City, as well as deeper impacts that are less easily
quantified, though no less valuable.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 77 of 108
The SDEIS inaccurately describes the Poudre River as having an ecosystem that has already
passed a biological threshold and that is on a boundlessly declining trajectory. The SDEIS
concludes that important ecological processes such as sediment mobility and support of riparian
functions are not currently occurring and therefore additional reductions are “predicted to reinforce
or accelerate the well-established trajectory” (SDEIS Section 4.9.9 Table 4-69) (emphasis added).
Based on this proposition, the SDEIS concludes that any negative impacts from the proposed actions
of NISP are minor or imperceptible, and not significant when considered against this supposed
inevitable trajectory towards an impoverished system. However, neither NEPA nor the CWA allow
agencies to disregard the impacts of proposed actions by assuming that environmental resources will
be lost regardless.
Fort Collins disagrees with the notion espoused in the SDEIS that the Poudre River is on a
trajectory of inevitable decline. Although many changes have occurred to the Poudre River over the
past 150 years since the early days of water development, Fort Collins’ perspective, supported by
numerous observations and data, is that today’s ecosystem still retains many functional elements that
are key building blocks of a resilient and healthy system that continues to provide valued services.
Moreover, as discussed in this Section 10, Fort Collins believes that a series of flawed analyses in
the SDEIS underestimate the impacts of NISP, mischaracterize the trajectory, and omit an evaluation
of the aggregate impacts of the Project. As a consequence, the SDEIS incorrectly concludes that
there will be minor or negligible impacts to the biological and watershed services and resources
associated with the river.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 78 of 108
The following reports and supporting analyses are submitted as evidence further
substantiating the concern that the SDEIS mischaracterizes the trajectory.
The Ecosystem Response Model (“ERM”) is a probability-based integrative ecosystem
model developed to show likely changes and trends across various flow scenarios. The original
report was produced in 2014 and provides the full project description
http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/eco-response.php. With the release of the SDEIS and CTP
hydrology, the ERM was rerun. New results are provided in the ERM Supplemental Report (City of
Fort Collins, 2015). In preparing this work Fort Collins does not intend the ERM or its results to
supplant the various in-depth studies undertaken as part of the SDEIS. Nevertheless, results of the
ERM provide a meaningful holistic evaluation of the Poudre River ecosystem, an ecosystem which,
contrary to conclusions made from various individualized studies in the SDEIS, maintains many key
ecologic functions.
The River Health Assessment Framework (“Framework”) was developed as a tool to
clearly define the Fort Collins’ vision of a healthy and resilient river through recommended ranges
for system metrics (http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/riverhealth.php). As with the ERM, the
Framework is not intended to supplant the various in-depth studies undertaken as part of the SDEIS.
The Framework also sets forth a methodology for assessing and communicating about river
conditions and functions. The Framework uses a scholastic A through F grading scale to grade
different metrics, which represent various components of the river system. Grades of B and above
signify a resilient component of the system. Grades of C identify at risk components, while grades
of D and below represent impaired or vulnerable components. The closer any single metric gets to
the C- to D+ threshold, the more at-risk it becomes.
Though each component receives a separate grade, these components work synergistically to
support a more robust, functional ecosystem with greater resilience to future disturbances, stochastic
events, and short-term or localized human-caused impacts. In other words, each metric contributes
to an overall system that has good function, or conversely may be at greater risk. Therefore, a grade
of a B or an A for one metric supports other metrics. Conversely, a grade of D or F would indicate
impairment or imminent vulnerability which may have broad implications for whole system
Even though current conditions have not been fully assessed using this tool, much is known
for various metrics through existing datasets and extensive working knowledge of the river.
Preliminary evaluations indicate that current conditions generally range from grades of B to C, with
a few metrics falling below a C. Given the expected response of the Poudre River to a decline in
flows, and if flows are reduced by NISP as indicated in the SDEIS and discussed herein, a number of
the metrics are expected to trend downward from their current condition. (Please see the Framework
report for the best understanding of current conditions by river segment).
A few important themes emerge from the ERM and the Framework. The Poudre River will
show a response to declines in peak flows in particular. Current flows still meet key sediment
mobility thresholds which positively influence all aquatic life dependent on clean riverbeds. The
preferred alternative decreases the return interval for these flows and will negatively affect overall
channel structure, critical aquatic habitat and maintenance of channel capacity. The extent of all
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 79 of 108
riparian habitat types and ecological processes is directly correlated to peak flows. A measureable
narrowing will occur across the riparian landscape.
Proposal/Recommendation: The SDEIS should not consider the Poudre River as being on an
inevitable downward trajectory, as discussed in this Section 10. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43
(explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for its decision . . . runs counter to the evidence
before” the agency.). While Fort Collins believes that NISP poses significant challenges to the
future condition of the Poudre River, with these concerns based, in part, on the ERM and the
Framework, these tools also describe various opportunities for maintaining and improving the
functions and processes that underpin the Poudre River’s biological and healthy conditions. Thus,
the ERM and the Framework can serve as effective guideposts and decision support tools as NISP
and other consumptive projects are proposed and evaluated in the Poudre River basin.
10.2 COMMENTS REGARDING COTTONWOOD ESTABLISHMENT
10.2.1 Inappropriate Assumption that Cottonwood Forests Are in Decline
SDEIS Summary S.6.4.2, Page S-32
Statement: “flows that are no longer effective in establishing new stands of plains cottonwood”
SDIES Summary S.7.6, Page S-45
Statement: “The plains cottonwood woodlands along the Poudre River are on a trajectory of decline.
Nonnative woody vegetation (e.g., green ash, Russian olive, and Siberian elm) are predicted to increase as a
result of the current trajectory.”
Comment: The summary for the analysis (Table 4-69) frequently relies on an assertion that the
downward trajectory of cottonwood woodlands along the Poudre River will continue with or without
Alternative 2. This argument has not been substantiated and directly contrasts evidence from Fort
Collins’ restoration successes and research projects (Shanahan, 2014, City of Fort Collins, 2015a,
City of Fort Collins, 2015b). Moreover, the impacts identified in the SDEIS need to be quantified
and not just described qualitatively. A direct response of narrowing (and reduction in the probability
for cottonwood recruitment leading to age class distributions skewed toward older forests) is
expected when peak flows are chronically reduced as well as a parallel reduction in the probability
for cottonwood establishment (Nilsson and Svedmark, 2002). A data-based impacts analysis is
possible through spatial comparison of flow events likely to support various ecological processes and
habitat types.
Furthermore, it is in the City’s interests to work towards restoring the system that supports
the keystone native woody species. Forests dominated by native species, as compared to non-native
species, are more adapted and therefore more resilient to natural disturbances on this type of system.
A particularly unique situation may occur on the Poudre if we accept the premise that green ash will
dominate the riparian forests (as described herein). With the arrival of the emerald ash borer to
Colorado, the forests along the Poudre River are likely see a significant loss or degradation due to
die off the ash (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/eab_threat_urbanforests.pdf).
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 80 of 108
Rather than assume that the future decline of cottonwoods is inevitable, the impetus for Fort
Collins’ research and management has been to better understand the most effective actions for
supporting self-sustaining cottonwood populations. Restoration efforts focused on topographical
changes have proven highly productive for cottonwood establishment, as discussed in this
Section 10. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for
its decision . . . runs counter to the evidence before” the agency.). In particular, Fort Collins Natural
Areas Department staff has found that when excessive shading and steep banks are restored,
moderate flood events readily leads to extensive cottonwood recruitment. Hence, these types of
efforts and observations made by Fort Collins contradict the SDEIS assertion of a baseline
downward trajectory of cottonwood woodlands, indicating an incomplete disclosure of the baseline
conditions in the SDEIS.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include a quantitative (and spatial)
analysis of the effects of all NISP alternatives on cottonwoods, and should consider the role of
floodplain topography as well as flows.
10.2.2 Inappropriate Analysis Based on Future Conditions
Wetlands and Riparian Resources Effects Report for the Mainstem of the Cache la Poudre
River (“Resources Report”), Section 4.1.1, Trajectory for inundation of Riparian and Wetland
Resources, Page 16
Statement: “Part of the historical and future trajectory for the riparian and wetland resources of the
Mainstem includes a continuation of the trend of less frequent inundation of wetland and riparian resources
along the Mainstem.”
SDEIS Section 4.9.1.1, Resource Trajectory, Page 4-212
Statement: “the trajectory of the wetland and riparian resources along the mainstem has been affected by
historical and contemporary physical and hydrologic changes that have established a trajectory that is
expected to continue under Current Conditions hydrology […] wetland and riparian plant communities along
the mainstem will likely gradually shift to plant communities with species adapted to a drier environment and
less tolerant of or dependent on flooding or shallow ground water levels…”
Comment: The characterization of the trajectory of the riparian resource and phrase “trend of less
frequent inundation” seems to indicate there will be ongoing hydrologic changes. Whereas other
portions of the SDEIS perform analyses based on the current hydrologic conditions, the analysis of
the riparian resource seems to be based on assumed future conditions, which are presumed to be
worse than current conditions. This is not appropriate and downplays the effects of NISP.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to base riparian analyses on current
hydrologic conditions and not presumed future conditions.
10.2.3 Inappropriate Conclusion That Current Flows Are the Primary Limitation
SDEIS Section 4.9.1.1, Resource Trajectory, Page 4-212
Statement: “The combination of flood flows that are no longer effective in establishing new stands of plains
cottonwood, extensive stands of smooth brome and reed canarygrass that compete with cottonwood seedlings
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 81 of 108
and nonnative woody vegetation that is establishing at rates equal to or greater than plains cottonwood,
establish a trajectory for a future Poudre River riparian corridor that will likely be very different from the past
and current riparian corridor.”
Comment: As noted in comments below on the Resources Report, the primary cause for
compositional changes to the riparian forest lies in physical constrictions of the river, banks, and
floodplain. Nowhere in the SDEIS or supporting documents do data or ecologically-based logic
demonstrate that current flows are a limitation. In contrast, as noted elsewhere in these comments,
moderate flow events (such as the 5 year flow) can and do support cottonwood recruitment. See
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. Further, intense, high flows cause mortality (through scour and burial)
of brome and reed canarygrass on some years.
Furthermore, while this transition may be occurring on the landscape, it is arbitrary and
incorrect to detach changes in flows due to NISP from this trajectory. The body of research on
riparian ecology consistently relates flow regimes with trends in cottonwood populations. Flooding
plays an essential role in the recruitment of cottonwood and a reduction in flooding invariably
negatively affects cottonwood recruitment. Such will be the impacts from NISP and those impacts
must be identified.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to reflect the observations of Fort
Collins Natural Areas Department staff, as described above.
10.2.4 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding the Crossing of a Biological Threshold
SDEIS Section 4.9.8, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Page 4-250
Statement: “The 2012 Wetlands and Riparian Resources Baseline Report concluded that the mainstem had
crossed a biologic threshold that limits the recruitment of plains cottonwood and is in the process of altering
the composition of the riparian woodlands.”
Comment: The data presented in the Resources Report does not support this conclusion, as
discussed further below. In fact, the word “threshold” does not appear in that report.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to remove references to the threshold.
10.2.5 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Green Ash
Resources Report, Section 5.3.1, Vegetation Trends, Nonnative Species, Page 26
Statement: “Table 4. Ranking of Nonnative Species at each Poudre River Riparian Vegetation Study Site.”
Comment: In the above-referenced table, green ash is recorded as a “4,” being infrequently
observed the lowest category for all six study sites. This data directly challenges the oft repeated
conclusion throughout discussions in the SDEIS on the trajectory of this resource that green ash is
likely going to replace cottonwoods and become the dominant species. By contrast, Table 5 (page
28) of the Resources Report reports young green ash (<2 dbh) receiving a ranking of #1 for Watson
Lake and Martinez Park. The SDEIS Section 4.9.1, page, 4-212 suggests the upper two sites will
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 82 of 108
continue to be dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood. These findings and inconsistent conclusions
should be rectified.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to correct references to green ash.
10.2.6 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment
Resources Report, Section 5.3.3 Size Class Distribution of Woody Vegetation, Page 29
Statement: “Only three species, box elder, narrowleaf cottonwood, and plains cottonwood, were recorded in
the two largest size classes that included individuals greater than 18 inches dbh. … At Martinez Park,
although green ash occurred with the highest frequency, most of the individuals occurred in the smallest size
class. … The Archery site had the fewest number of individuals compared to the other five sites. … Green ash
was rarely recorded at the Archery site….”
Comment: This discussion from the SDEIS is linked to the data in Table 6 (page 30) which shows,
as the discussion suggests, only cottonwoods, boxelder and crack willow occur in the largest size
classes. The data clearly shows that only cottonwoods demonstrate an inverse J-curve distribution of
size classes. This type of distribution indicates ongoing recruitment and survival for cottonwoods.
The issue with cottonwoods is that in these sites they are not demonstrating large recruitment events,
but they are demonstrating continued modest recruitment.
The lack of older/larger green ash may indicate a transition is just beginning whereby green
ash will become more dominant but it also may indicate green ash is not surviving past
smaller/younger age classes. It is important to carry this underlying uncertainty through to summary
statements.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to properly analyze and acknowledge
ongoing recruitment and survival for cottonwoods.
10.2.7 Inaccuracies Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment and Moderate Flow Events
Resources Report, Section 5.8.1, Establishment of Plains Cottonwood, Page 50
Statement: “Cottonwood seedling recruitment is episodic and relatively rare even along free-flowing streams
(Mahoney and Rood 1998)…. If river stages decline too rapidly, drought stress produces substantial seedling
mortality (Scott et al. 1993). Along meandering rivers, successful establishment is characteristically associated
with medium to large floods. Researchers have also determined that it is moderate and large flood events that
directly enable cottonwood recruitment, whereas smaller flood events are often insufficient for cottonwood
replenishment.”
Comment: The use of the term “moderate flood event” is inconsistent and ill-defined throughout the
report. It is used in Section 4.2.2 of the 2014 Technical Report (Riparian Effect) as follows: “the
moderate flows of 580 to 1900 cfs do not currently inundate riparian and wetland areas with enough
frequency to support or renew riparian areas and at most sites NISP will not substantially reduce the
frequency of inundation by these moderate flows.” The term “moderate flows” must be defined.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 83 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to properly consider cottonwood
recruitment and moderate flow events, as described above.
10.2.8 Disregard of Non-Major Recruitment Events
Resources Report, Section 5.8.2, Establishment of Plains Cottonwood Along the Poudre
Statement: “An examination of cottonwood age classes in the Fort Collins reach of the Poudre River found
the last major recruitment year was 1983 (Shanahan 2011a). The lack of natural lateral migration of the
Poudre River has manifested a riparian forest that is no longer connected to the high flows and flooding with
which the forest historically evolved (City of Fort Collins 2011).”
Comment: The SDEIS focuses on the last major recruitment event on the Poudre River in 1983.
Fort Collins’ experience suggests that armoring, and associated constraints on the channel and banks,
as well as an altered species composition, that most limit successful regeneration. The widespread
recruitment observed at restoration sites following the 2014 spring flows (which peaked at ~6,000
cfs in late May) demonstrates the accuracy of this concept. This contradicts conclusions in the
SDEIS, which state that the current flow regime is the major limiting factor.
The above image from McMurry Natural Area provides evidence of the potential for current
flows to establish cottonwoods when the right physical conditions are present. 2015 seedlings are
smaller (in the foreground) and 2014 saplings are seen on slightly higher ground (in the middle of
the picture). See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for
its decision . . . runs counter to the evidence before” the agency.).
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to address the role of moderate flood
flows as well as topographical limitations to cottonwood recruitment.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 84 of 108
10.3 COMMENTS REGARDING AQUATICS AND FISHERIES
10.3.1 Lack of Temperature Analysis
SDEIS Section 4.3.2.2, River Temperature
Statement: “Thus, all NISP alternatives would be expected to increase stream temperatures at times in some
reaches of the Poudre River. Additional detail on the conceptual understanding of the system and qualitative
anticipated effects of NISP alternatives on stream temperature are provided in Hydros (2014a).”
Comment: The SDEIS includes only a qualitative review of water temperature data with a
subjective discussion of potential changes with NISP. The lack of a quantitative analysis of change
in water temperature does not allow an evaluation of impacts to the aquatic species. The conclusions
of “minor or moderate” impacts to aquatic resources and fisheries are not supported without
quantification of the amount of change.
The Hydros 2014 Stream Temperature Report (“Hydros Report”) is qualitative only with no
quantification of change in temperature with the proposed alternatives, which GEI cites for water
temperature impacts to fish and macro invertebrates. However, Hydros conducted dynamic water
temperature modeling for the Windy Gap Firming Project EIS and CWA Section 401 certification.
Miller Ecological also conducted dynamic water temperature modeling for the Moffat Collection
System EIS and CWA Section 401 certification. No adequate basis is provided for the lack of such
an analysis for NISP.
The change in Daily Maximum (“DM”) and Mean Weekly Average Temperate (“MWAT”)
are derived from an hourly water temperature model. The CDPHE has protocols to determine the
antidegradation analysis for the project from the modeled data. The anti-degradation calculation first
calculates a Baseline Allowable Increment (“BAI”), which is 15% of the value between the baseline
water temperature (current conditions) and the temperature threshold (either DM or MWAT). For
example, if the baseline water temperature is 1.0 C away from the threshold then any change in
water temperature greater than 0.15 C is considered a significant degradation. The analysis is
complex to complete both the modeling and the antidegradation analysis.
The Baseline Allowable Increment (“BAI”) for water temperature like other water quality
constituents is 15%. The 15% translates to 0.15 C change for every 1.0 C lower than either the DM
or MWAT threshold. The incremental change decreases the closer the water temperature gets to the
threshold. If NISP results in an increase in water temperature, then the BAI may be smaller for Fort
Collins when the Corps completes the analysis for the Halligan Project.
The lack of quantification of water temperature does not provide the City with full disclosure
to aquatic resources in the Poudre River corridor. The change in water temperature is perceived to
be small. However, even a small change in water temperature can result in a significant impact. The
impact could be to the aquatic resources or to water treatment facilities in meeting discharge
requirement.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 85 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The full analysis of water temperature should be completed
prior to release of the final EIS. Adequate review of the modeling approach and data sets should be
allowed for participants in the Common Technical Platform. For example, Fort Collins should be
provided with interim products to review the applicability and adequacy of the analyses. Mitigation
for any approved alternative should include a firm commitment to offset any water temperature
increase. The mitigation could be release of some amount of cold or cool water to offset the water
temperature increase. The current mitigation is conceptual and does not include a firm proposal.
10.3.2 Approach to Impacts on Aquatic Biological Resources
SDEIS Section 4.12, Aquatic Biological Resources
Statement: “This section summarizes the predicted potential aquatic biological resources effects of the NISP
alternatives. Fish, benthic invertebrate, periphyton, and aquatic plant communities and their habitat represent
the components of the aquatic environment of interest for the project. […]”
Comment: The conclusions for impacts of the NISP alternatives on aquatic habitat are based on an
overly simplistic approach to calculation of changes to aquatic habitat. The change in fish habitat is
based on synthetic graphs of 20%, median and 80% habitat constructed from a 25 year daily habitat
time series. The annual graphs are then summarized into minimum, maximum and average habitat
values. The percent change between the single average value derived from a 25 year daily
simulation is used to determine the level of impact. This oversimplification of a detailed analysis
does not allow the evaluation of inter- and intra-annual changes in habitat, which affect the fish
species. (Annear et al. 2004). Further, there is no means to directly compare a habitat value with a
specific discharge.
The discussion on page 4-314 of the SDEIS discusses changes in habitat with changes in
flow. However, there is no means to verify any of the statements since computational data for
habitat-flow time series is not presented in the supporting aquatic resource technical documents. For
example, the recent EIS for the Windy Gap firming project included the basic habitat time series data
by water year type as part of the technical supporting documentation (see following example figure,
Windy Gap Firming Project FEIS). The display of habitat by water year type or actual year allow
the reader to make a direct comparison of habitat change between alternatives.
The aquatic habitat analysis up through the development of habitat versus flow
determinations follows the standard approach used in instream flow studies. (Bovee et al. 1998,
USGS 2001). The divergence from the standard approach is in the calculation of habitat over time.
The use of a synthesized habitat values based on recurrence and then a single average value derived
from the synthesized data masks the relationship of habitat over time. This approach does not allow
a full analysis of impacts to the aquatic resources within Fort Collins, especially in the downtown
corridor, which is highly valued
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 86 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses and conclusions should be revised in these proceedings
to address the deficiencies described above.
10.4 COMMENTS REGARDING ANALYSES OF WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS
10.4.1 Lack of Defined and Objective Standards
SDEIS Section 4.9.2, Methods, Page 4-213
Statement: “Moderate effects would result in a clearly detectable change, with measureable effects.
Moderate is used when beneficial or adverse effects would be noticeable, and the existing wetlands, riparian
resources, or other waters would likely be lost. Moderate effects typically are long-term. Major effects would
result in readily apparent effects with substantial consequences. Major is used when permanent impacts on
large areas (10 acres) of wetlands, riparian areas, or other waters would occur.”
SDEIS Section 4.12, Aquatic Biological Resources Methods
Statement: “The overall impact was categorized as negligible, minor, moderate, or major according to
professional judgment by taking into account the individual impacts to the components of the aquatic
environment based on the magnitude of the changes, the risk of crossing an ecological threshold, the changes
in habitat availability for other species and life stages in that segment, and the predicted changes to other
relevant aspects such as water quality, temperature, channel geomorphology, sedimentation, and riparian
vegetation.”
Comment: The reliance on professional judgment without distinct metrics defined to determine the
relative change between alternatives precludes replication of the determination of the level of effect.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 87 of 108
The subjective determination of impact makes it difficult to determine if mitigation is adequate to
minimize the impact from an alternative. The above are examples of the vague, qualitative language
and standards used throughout the SDEIS. The SDEIS does not identify solid, scientific basis or
objective standards for the proffered definitions.
For instance, regarding the statement from SDEIS Section 4.9.2 above, the permanent loss of
wetlands is considered only a “moderate” effect despite its permanent nature. Also, the
determination of “major” effect as one greater than 10 acres of permanent loss appears arbitrary
without some reference to a reason for this delineation. In this arid region, riparian habitats and
wetlands represent a small portion of the arid landscape and yet provide critical support for a
majority of wildlife and increase overall richness in the region (Merritt et al. 2010, Naiman et al.
1993, Webb and Leake, 2006). Given the importance of these habitats, a reference or explanation
for these definitions is required.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses should clearly set forth all definitions and standards and
the bases therefore. To the extent that this has not been completed in the SDEIS, the subject analyses
should be revised accordingly.
10.4.2 Inconsistent Identification of Acres of Effected Wetlands
SDEIS Section 4.9.9, Impact Summary, Page 4-250
Statement: “Table 4-68 Summary of unmitigated effects on wetlands and waters. 9 acres permanent
impacts under Alternative 2.”
2014 Riparian Effects Technical Report, Section 4.3.3, Page 41
Statement: “The mapped potentially sensitive vegetation classes for Segments A through F are presented for
varying distances from riverbanks in Table 14. For the entire length of the Mainstem there are about 220 acres
of the potentially sensitive vegetation classes. Segment B is about 6 miles long and has about 10 acres of
potentially sensitive vegetation within 100 feet of the river.”
Comment: The SDEIS and its supporting reports appear to inconsistently quantify the number of
effected wetlands, specifically for Alternative 2 in Segment B and with the result of reducing the
number below the potentially-arbitrary threshold of 10 acres. This value is presented as 10 acres (a
major effect) in the Resources Report and as 9 acres (a moderate effect for Segment B) in the SDEIS
and summaries.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses should explain this discrepancy and the reasons
therefore. The analyses should also apply all thresholds and standards in a consistent and objective
manner. To the extent that this has not been completed in the SDEIS, the subject analyses should be
revised accordingly.
10.4.3 Inconsistencies in the Riparian and Wetland Analyses
SDEIS Section 4.23, Summary, Page 4-415
Statement: “Table 4-109 Wetlands from Poudre River flow changes (indirect effects).”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 88 of 108
Comment: Background on this analysis is provided in the Resources Report. On page 25 of that
report, it states “the repeated stress of numerous years with prolonged groundwater declines could
lead to loss of wetlands; however, most herbaceous wetlands would recover in subsequent years
when the hydrologic support returns.” If wetland hydrology is lost for a prolonged period of time,
but returns occasionally (and infrequently such as during wet years or precipitation driven flood
flows), this should be considered a permanent impact.
The summary table provided at the end of Section 4 of the SDEIS is the most succinct and
comprehensive presentation of impacts of the alternatives in the SDEIS. However, this table omits
the riparian areas despite having identified minor to moderate impacts throughout Table 4-69.
Without explanation, this is arbitrary and appears to suggest that the impacts from Alternative 2 are
fewer and less severe that the underlying analyses indicate.
Table 4-69 also summarizes conclusions on river stage, alluvial groundwater, inundation, and
other flood related functions analyses which are all linked to groundwater and soil saturation in the
riparian zone. They should, at a minimum show common trends and scale of responses. However,
Table 4-69 presents inconsistent and sometimes opposing results. For example, the results for
Alternative 2 for “River Stage” are a moderate effect on Segment B whereas for “Alluvial
Groundwater” a negligible effect is anticipated. Similarly, regarding “Inundation” there will be
negligible impacts whereas for “Other Flood-Related Functions” (directly related to inundation)
moderate effects are predicted. It is confusing for these pairs of analyses to show results that span
from imperceptible to long term loss of resources.
Additionally, the last line on Table 4-109 describes “Other Flood-Related Functions.” A
determination of moderate effect is made for Alternative 2. However, the only reference to this
conclusion comes from a single sentence on p. 4-218 (Indirect Effects Common to all Alternatives):
“Reductions in inundation would potentially have some level of effect on these functions or the
frequency at which these functions are provided.” The conclusion thus lacks a basis. It is important
as these processes support critical resilience factors such as pollutant filtration and floodwater
attenuation. It should be supported by something more than a single sentence that is apparently
without basis.
These contrasts and vacillations over the impacts to wetlands and riparian areas do not enable
Fort Collins, other stakeholders, and ultimately, the Corps, to have a clear picture of the impacts to
these resources.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses should consistently treat all alternatives. To the extent
that this has not been completed in the SDEIS, the subject analyses should be revised accordingly.
This confusion over the timing of impact of Alternative 2 persists throughout the Riparian and
Wetland Conclusions, as discussed elsewhere in these comments.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 89 of 108
10.4.4 Failure to Adequately Consider Long-Term Changes Resulting from NISP
Resources Report, Section 3.4, Wetland Functions, Page 12
Statement: “Of the nine fundamental variables, only water source, water distribution, water outflow,
chemical environment, and geomorphology are expected to potentially change in the short term for riverine
wetlands as a result of the NISP alternatives.”
Comment: It is not clear why the above-referenced analysis only considers short-term changes.
NISP would cause a permanent change in the flow regime of the Poudre River that will affect
wetland conditions and related functions.
Proposal/Recommendation: Long-term changes to hydrology and vegetation variables, and the
related changes in functions, should be fully analyzed. The authors of the SDEIS are expected to
understand the fundamentals of the project and analyze the impacts accordingly.
10.5 COMMENTS REGARDING GROUND WATER ANALYSES AND ISSUES
10.5.1 Inaccurate Assumptions about Ground and Surface Water Interactions
SDEIS Section 3.5.3, Poudre River, Page 3-85
Statement: “The river loses water to alluvial groundwater where the river crosses very permeable former
channels and regains water when the river crosses former channels farther downstream. (ERO 2012b).”
SDEIS Section 3.5.3.4, Poudre River Study Sites, Page 3-89
Statement: “Water level observations at the six transects show a range of relationships between the alluvial
ground water and river stage. […] In these areas, if alluvium receives recharge from a rising river stage, the
alluvium discharge this water back to the river within a very short period.”
SDEIS Section 4.5.1, Methods, Page 4-177
Statement: “Using the largest predicted stage reduction at each study site for each of the action alternatives,
and river stage-ground water relationships developed for each monitoring well, graphs were constructed with
predicted reduction in depth to ground water as a function of distance from the river for the action alternatives
(ERO 2013b).”
Comment: The description of river losses on the Poudre River in the SDEIS oversimplifies such
patterns and establishes inaccurate assumptions for the subsequent impact analysis of Fort Collins’
wetlands and riparian resources, which are already at risk of decline.
Proposal/Recommendation: To the extent the analysis disregards key aspects of the alluvial
exchange processes, it should be revised, e.g., to consider:
• The alluvium throughout the river corridor is quite permeable, and alluvial recharge is more
widespread and complex than flow through “former channels” implies.
• River gain-loss patterns are influenced by streambed heterogeneity, variations in streambank
material, channel geometry, saturation, evapotranspiration, and local groundwater and
surface water elevation. As a result, the volume of water recharging the alluvium and its
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 90 of 108
residence time will vary depending on differences in hydraulic head between the river and
surrounding aquifer (per Darcy’s Law). These head differences are in turn influenced by
numerous local factors such as ditch diversions, supplemental recharge, etc. which vary on
subreach and site-specific scales.
• Even brief transient recharge is important for ecosystem processes, such as nutrient
processing, and should not be discounted.
10.5.2 Shortcomings in the Data Used for the Ground Water Analysis
SDEIS Section 4.5.1 Methods, Pages 4-176 to 4-177
Statement: “As part of additional studies performed for the SDEIS, a hydrologic investigation of the
mainstem of the Poudre River was conducted from 2009 through 2011. […] The 2012 Ground Water Report
(ERO 2012b) provides details for the six transects that were established along the Poudre River, data
collection methods, and discussion and interpretation of the results. […] Using the largest predicted stage
reduction at each study site for each of the action alternatives, and river stage-ground water relationships
developed for each monitoring well, graphs were constructed with predicted reduction in depth to ground water
as a function of distance from the river for the action alternatives (ERO 2013b).”
Comment: Data used to establish the river stage-ground water relationships appear not to be
representative, complete, or consistently interpreted as described below.
As identified in Fort Collins’ comments to the Draft Baseline Ground Water Technical
Report in August 24, 2011, which are part of the administrative record in these proceedings, ground
water wells at Lee Martinez Park may not be representative of the segment because they are located
in areas that are supported by supplemental ground water recharge due to their proximity to a
flooded gravel pit having a water surface that is maintained at an elevation about 10 feet higher than
the river due to the inflow of “salvaged water.” The SDEIS and the 2013 Ground Water Effects
Analysis support the City’s concerns from 2011. While it is true that upgradient groundwater
recharge may occur in numerous other places along the river, the magnitude of these influences on
the water table varies. For example, variation in groundwater levels is evident within the Martinez
transect itself, where piezometers located at similar distances from the river but on opposite sides
respond quite differently. During the EIS study, for example, the differences in reported ground
water elevations for L3 and L4 – which are relatively equidistant and across the river from each
other – was an average of 0.87 fott and ranged from 0.27 foott (9/16/09) up to 6.21 foot (5/11/09).
These local variations in the aquifer make it questionable to apply relationships established based on
distance from the river in one location to another location, even in the same segment.
The SDEIS is inconsistent by first stating that groundwater monitoring at the study sites
should be considered “as a whole,” but then eliminating data from two of the six transects because
the observed measurements did not fit the anticipated patterns for distance from the river
relationships. According to the Wetlands and Riparian Effects Technical Report, page 8, “Because a
clear relationship of change in ground water levels and river stage with distance was not apparent at
Eastman park and 59
th
Avenue, an average of the four other sites was calculated to estimate the
percent change of ground water based on stage changes at various distances.” The rationale for
applying transect data from one location to another is not sufficiently justified, and if one-third of the
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 91 of 108
study results do not fit within the hydrogeologic conceptual model and analysis method, it suggests
the model and method need to be refined.
The datasets used to establish the river stage-ground water level relationships are incomplete
because continuously recorded data from loggers were not available for all wells or river stage
locations. Widely-spaced, manual readings (and weekly average readings) do not capture the full
range of relationship between river and groundwater. This is an important consideration because
Lee Martinez Park did not have a river logger, so the river stage-ground water relationship was based
on sporadic manual readings that cannot accurately reflect the relationship. To demonstrate the type
of data that can be missed see the figure below (Modified Figure 13 from the ground water technical
report) which compares manual readings (red triangles) to continuous logger readings. The circled
period of record demonstrates how the entire groundwater peak was missed by the manual readings
in spring 2010.
It is also unclear how accurate river stage-groundwater relationships could have been
established for “each monitoring well,” when half (14) of the 28 wells and two of the six surface
water stations were not equipped with continuous data loggers. Additionally, for two of the reaches,
piezometer data were not used and instead averages from the other four sites were applied, and by
definition using an average will not show maximum effects.
Proposal/Recommendation: Rather than discount or replace site-specific data with averages from
other segments, river subreaches could be characterized based on hydromorphic classifications (e.g.,
based on similar geometry, boundaries, upgradient influences) and relationships could be developed
and applied based on their classifications. Site-specific data could be used, at a minimum for
comparison, with each pieziometer having its own water table fluctuation relationship, despite the
fact it may not be linear.
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
3/28/09 7/6/09 10/14/09 1/22/10 5/2/10 8/10/10 11/18/10 2/26/11 6/6/11 9/14/11
Water Surface Elevation
Time
Figure 13. 59th Street - Well 59-3
Example of how gap in manual
measurements (circled) misses
range of conditions.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 92 of 108
SDEIS Section 4.9.4, Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives, Page 4-219
Statement: “The effects of decline in river stage on alluvial ground water levels greater than about 100 ft
from the river are predicted to be generally less than the 0.5 ft impact threshold.”
SDEIS Section 4.5.7, Impact Summary, Page 4-187
Statement: “As discussed above, reductions in alluvial ground water levels were used to predict resource
effects and are addressed in those sections of the SDEIS. The predicted reductions to ground water levels in the
alluvium would be similar for all action alternatives. Within 50 ft of the river, ground water level differences
between the alternatives would be a maximum of about 0.5 ft. The difference in predicted reductions in ground
water levels between alternatives would decrease as a function of distance from the river (4-59).”
Comment: The basis for the statement in Section 4.9.4 is unclear. According to Figure 4-59,
changes in depth to ground water greater than one foot were predicted at each of the graphed sites
beyond the 100 foot distance from the river. Therefore, the 100 foot distance from the river appears
to be unfounded, and groundwater impacts occur at further distances.
Furthermore, based on the data collection and analysis methods that were used, it is unknown
if impacts greater than 0.5 foot and/or beyond 50 foot from the river may occur. The impact analysis
using the distance from the river function does not address times and locations where the river
influence extends further out due to factors such as river configuration and more permeable alluvial
deposits.
Proposal/Recommendation: Impacts at greater than 100 feet from the river in some segments
should be more fully evaluated.
10.5.3 Misinterpretation of Data
SDEIS Section 4.5.3.2, Poudre River Segments, Page 4-182
Statement: “...The effect of these buried channels can be seen on Figure 4-59 where predicted ground water
level reductions are out of character with distance from the river and neighboring monitoring wells.”
Comment: The observed influence of the river at greater distance from the river is not “out of
character” but rather reflects the character of many places along the river. The alluvium is very
heterogeneous with permeable pockets of material, not just channels, known to occur throughout the
deposits. It is not surprising for river influence to occur at greater distances from the river than the
analysis expected, and it is not out of character. These observations demonstrate the limitations of
assessing impacts to wetlands and riparian areas based on the distance from the river approach.
Proposal/Recommendation: This interpretation should be re-evaluated.
SDEIS 4.5.3.2.1 Poudre River Segments, Segment C, Page 4-183
Statement: “Similar to Segment B, the reductions in ground water levels decrease in a relatively short
distance from the river.”
Comment: The reduction in groundwater levels in this segment is not similar to Segment B, so
this statement appears to under report the effects. At 200 feett from the river in Segment C, there
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 93 of 108
is still a 1-ft decline in ground water for the three alternatives, which is twice the impact
observed in Segment B at the same distance (where only 0.5 ft decline is observed, probably due
in part to the upgradient recharge as previously discussed).
Proposal/Recommendation: This interpretation should be re-evaluated.
SDEIS Section 4.9.4, Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives, Page 4-219
Statement: “Table 4-70 in Section 4.9.9 summarizes the predicted depths to the alluvial ground water level
for the action alternatives. None of the declines in groundwater levels within the cottonwood woodlands are
predicted to be greater than 2.5 ft below the deepest annual water table depth during the growing season.
Effects on the cottonwoods associated with declines in river stage of 2 feet or greater are predicted to be limited
to periodic short-lived stresses because the estimated declines in alluvial ground water levels are predicted to
occur infrequently (i.e. not predicted to be sustained) and are generally predicted to occur in May at the
beginning of the growing season when soil moisture conditions are typically favorable for supporting
cottonwoods without dependence on shallow ground water levels.”
Comment: Impacts of ground water declines in riparian areas appear to be underestimated for
multiple reasons. There appears to be insufficient basis to claim that the maximum declines will be
limited to periodic short-lived stress. The frequency, duration, and impact of declines will be
influenced by the change in the volume of water storage and availability in the riparian zone (e.g.,
which could be done using a daily water budget approach). There is no discussion of the effects of
change in the volume of riparian water storage over time, e.g., to address impacts when there is
already a groundwater deficit due to drought years or extended incremental declines in recharge.
Reliance on May precipitation and soil moisture to offset impacts is inherently uncertain and should
not be justification for discounting negative effects. Further, May precipitation already affects the
system and is not a new measure to offset NISP diversions. The ecological significance of some key
exchange processes between rivers and ground water are not evaluated. For example, saturated soils
during alluvial recharge play an important role in nitrogen processing (and can provide a nitrogen
pulse at a critical time in the growing season) when e.g., anaerobic conditions trigger microbial
denitrification.
Proposal/Recommendation: This interpretation should be re-evaluated.
10.6 COMMENTS REGARDING ANALYSES OF POUDRE RIVER WETLANDS
10.6.1 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes in River Stage of 0.5 Feet or Less
SDEIS Section 4.5.1 Methods, Pages 4-176 to 4-177
Statement: “This approach was taken because most of the reductions in river stage are predicted to be 0.5 ft
or less (Appendix A of the 2014 Wetland and Riparian Effects Report) and therefore would have had only minor
reductions on associated alluvial groundwater levels. A maximum effect scenario was of interest because
alluvial ground water levels can influence cottonwood woodlands and reductions in ground water levels below
the annual water table low (Section 4.3.1 of the 2014 Wetland and Riparian Effects Report.)”
Resources Report, Section 4.2.2, River Stage, Page 21
Statement: “Changes of 0.5 foot or greater in river stage during the growing season was selected as the
threshold for potential impacts because herbaceous wetlands would likely start being affected by groundwater
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 94 of 108
declines of greater than 0.5 foot. Declines in ground water elevations during the growing season of less than
0.5 foot are well within the range of normal fluctuations that are already occurring as observed in monitoring
wells at the riparian vegetation study sites (ERO 2012a).”
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.1, Impact Thresholds, Poudre River Stage, Page 4-214
Statement: “….were reviewed for changes in river stage of 0.5 foot or greater during the growing season... A
threshold of 0.5-foot decline in river stage was used to determine potential effects on herbaceous and shrub
wetlands. Herbaceous wetlands are potentially the most sensitive communities to declines in alluvial ground
water levels. The Corps’ technical standard for wetland hydrology is that the wetland site is inundated
(flooded or ponded) or the water table is 12 inches or less below the soil surface for 14 or more consecutive
days during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (50% or higher probability) (Corps
2005). Assuming an average midpoint of 0.5 foot for ground water levels for wetlands, a decline of less than
0.5 foot in ground water levels would still meet the threshold for wetland hydrology.”
Comment: Using the 0.5 foot decline combined with a mid-point of 0.5 foot ground water level
below ground surface is an inappropriate threshold for assessing wetland impacts for a maximum
effects analysis, and the basis for this approach is neither justified nor logical. A wetland with an
initial water table near the 1 ft depth would be impacted by declines of less than 0.5 ft. If, for
example, a wetland has a water table depth of 11.9,” then a decline of less than 0.2 foot could cause
a shift from wetland to non-wetland hydrology. Therefore, a maximum effects analysis should
evaluate impacts from a lower starting elevation in herbaceous wetland areas (especially based on
the assumption that in a dry year the water table will likely be starting out at a worst case scenario).
Section 4.2.2 is the first location in the SDEIS that this threshold is identified. However, no
basis for this threshold is provided; and such a threshold is not a convention in wetland science. The
response of vegetation and soil microbiota to changes in ground water levels and fluctuations is
different in different textured soils, on sites with stable versus variable water tables, and on plants
with different root morphologies and physiological responses. The DEIS ignores the context and
range of possible responses for the Poudre River. The statement that the 0.5 foot of fluctuation and
decline falls within normal ranges of fluctuations is not relevant since the alternatives do not affect
these short-term fluctuations, but rather, they compound them and cause a long-term decline of
average ground water depths amidst ongoing smaller fluctuations. This will cause significant and
long-term changes in wetland hydrology, which will cause changes in vegetation composition and
structure, soil microbial processes, and habitat quality.
The assumption that river stage declines exceeding 0.5 foot for greater than 10% of the
period of record may adversely impact wetlands is flawed as discussed above. It would be more
realistic and less arbitrary to base the approximate average depth of groundwater for wetlands on the
type of wetland plant community present along the corridor. For example, Typha (cattail) and
Scirpus (bulrush) would have groundwater at approximately ground level (fully saturated soil
column and possibly standing water), a community dominated by Carex nebrascensis would have
groundwater at approximately six inches to one foot, and a Salix exigua dominated system may have
ground water at depths of greater than one foot (Henszey et. al., 2004). Thus, certain communities
are more vulnerable to changes in depth to ground water and seasonal fluctuations in ground water.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 95 of 108
Any wetland community with the average groundwater table deeper than six inches may no
longer be able to support wetland plant communities and wetland functions with a reduction in
groundwater less than 0.5 foot. For example, cattail marshes would likely see a shift in species
composition whereas drier wetlands like those dominated by Carex nebrascensis may be completely
lost (Henszey et. al., 2004).
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to not include the assumption of
uniform response to altered wetland hydrology as discussed above. If no alternate approach is
applied, please provide examples of other federal permits or peer reviewed research that has used
this approach to help the reader understand the basis for the conclusions reached.
10.6.2 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes of a Duration of 10% or Less
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.1, Impact Thresholds, Poudre River Stage, Page 4-214
Statement: “At 10% or less the effect would be negligible because 10% represents an average of 2 weeks
during each year of the growing season and the Corps’ technical standard for wetland hydrology is that the
wetland is inundated…for 14 or more consecutive days…..”
Comment: If the site currently has wetland hydrology for two weeks per year (thereby just
marginally meeting the USCOE standard for jurisdicaitonal wetland), then a shift of less than 10% of
the period (such as one week per year) will cause the site to be inundated lessbe than the two week
criteria in the USCOE definition. Altering hydrology, by definition will indeed cause changes in the
inundation duration. This is a cause and effect linkage that cannot be contested. The changes will
effect wetlands acorss the entire gradient, but more so for those wetlands just inside the two week of
inundation criteria.Such an averaging approach misses a considerable area of wetlands that will be
affected and results in an underestimation of impacts. Hydrology is what distinguishes wetlands and
riparian areas from adjacent uplands. The effects of altered flows well established in the literature
(e.g., Merritt et al. 2010). Reduced peak flow, and reductions in inundation duration will cause
narrowing and decreased extent of riparian areas and areal loss of wetlands.
Further, Fort Collins has run the CTP hydrology through its ERM vegetation model and has
made the following findings. (Please see Appendix B5 Riparian Vegetation of the Poudre River
Ecosystem Response Model for methods.) The results of this modeling are shown in the following
graphic. The graphic illustrates the expected reduction in the width of hydrophytic vegetation in two
reaches of the river from about the Larimer and Weld diversion to the Lake Canal in Martinez Park.
Clearly the preferred alternative would have substantial long-term impacts to this band of vegetation.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 96 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to not include the subject assumption
as discussed above.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 97 of 108
10.6.3 Inappropriate Assumption Regarding a Shift in Wetland Vegetation
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.1, Impact Thresholds, Poudre River Stage, Page 4-215
Statement: “Stage declines of this magnitude during the growing season are predicted to results in a shift in
species at wetlands dominated by obligate wetland species (i.e. cattail and threesquare bulrush) to those that
tolerate greater fluctuations in river stage such as reed canarygrass. Since most wetlands along the banks of
the mainstem are dominated by reed canarygrass and sandbar willow, two species that can tolerate greater
range of groundwater levels effects are predicted to be minor and likely not perceptible along Segment B.”
Comment: The overall basis of the wetlands analyses lies in whether any given wetland is going to
shift from a wetland supporting hydrology that meets the definition of a wetland given the Corps’
standards. The argument in the SDEIS shifts here, as cited above, to explain any potential impact to
focus on species. However, this shift in the argument does not change the fact that wetlands will be
lost under NISP. Further, shifts in hydrology that favor generalist and stress tolerant species like reed
canary grass is undesirable as this is a non native species that is persistent and competes for
resources and space with desirable native riparian species.
The statements made about shifts in species are based upon speculation rather than data and
information. There have been no analyses, no species distribution modeling, or other objective
assessment to support the statements. There has been no consideration of context. For instance,
species distributions might shift toward the channel. No evidence is provided to support the
statement that most wetlands are reed canarygrass and sandbar willow.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should not include the above statements unless they are
supported by an analysis, modeling, or other objective assessment. To the extent that this is not
completed, such statements should not be included in the analysis.
10.6.4 Failure to Consider Permanent Shift in Poudre River Flows
Resources Report, Section 4.2.2, Stage Effects on Herbaceous and Shrub Wetlands, Page 24
Statement: “Many types of wetlands in the West experience periods of drought and water stress each growing
season but are resilient when supportive hydrologic conditions return. The repeated stress of numerous
consecutive years with prolonged ground water declines could lead to the loss of wetlands; however, most
herbaceous wetlands would recover in subsequent years when the hydrologic support returns.”
Comment: The preferred alternative causes an absolute shift (decline) in groundwater levels. Even
if wetlands in the western United States experience periods of drought and could recover, there is a
quantifiable change that would occur under the preferred alternative. This explanation seems to be
excusing the impacts rather than identifying them. A longer period of drought to a wetland can lead
to a reduction in wetland condition (loss of functions, shifts in species composition) and/or a change
or loss of the wetland plant species (often resulting in noxious weed invasion) Occasional return of
the hydrology does not enable the plants to spontaneously return and favors non-native, weedy,
ruderal plant species over native, perennial species.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be based on the correct assumption that the
changes to the Poudre River flow regime from NISP are permanent, and use this information to
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 98 of 108
accurately portray of wetland impacts. The analyses and interpretations should be revised
accordingly.
10.6.5 Inappropriate Reliance on CDOW Mapping
Resources Report, Section 5, Existing Conditions Methods, Page 17
Statement: “About 53 percent of the CDOW mapping within the area defined as the riparian corridor was
field reviewed from publicly accessible sites or by remote sensing, and inaccuracies were changed to the
appropriate category. Of the areas reviewed, about 49 percent of the CDOW-mapped areas were changed to
another category.”
Comment: The analysis and conclusions depends on the CDOW riparian mapping dataset. The fact
that field verification of this data set reports only 51% accuracy is of significant concern and
undermines its use in the SDEIS and supporting reports. This is not a scientifically defensible level
of confidence. Furthermore, the minimum mapping unit for this methodology is 0.5 acre which
would indicate small patches of wetlands, as expected in northern Colorado, may be missed or
mischaracterized.
In 2011/2012 the Environment Protection Agency and Fort Collins provided comments on
the initial draft of this technical report. Both sets of comments expressed concern on the high level
of inaccuracy and uncertainty found during field review. The other option suggested was to rely
instead on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (“NWI”) mapping data set.
The Corps responded that the CDOW mapping “will be used to describe the general extent,
distribution, and composition of riparian vegetation along the mainstem of the Poudre River.”
However, the CDOW mapping seems to be the source of data for quantifying potentially impacted
wetlands along the Poudre River. The NWI dataset recently completed along the Poudre River is the
best data available for wetlands. Additionally, Fort Collins Natural Areas has ongoing updated
habitat mapping for restoration planning
10.6.6 Failure to Identify the Data Source for the Acres of Wetlands Impacted
Resources Report, Section 3, Methods, Page 4
Statement: “Mapping of the vegetation was conducted on two levels: detailed mapping at the six riparian
vegetation study sites …and broader vegetation mapping along the Mainstem from Colorado Parks and
Wildlife…to describe general habitat types along the Mainstem”
Comment: The purpose of the above-identified analysis is to provide a prediction of the acreage of
wetlands impacted. It is unclear which data source was used to extrapolate the final conclusions of
the acres of wetlands impacted. Indirectly, it seems the Colorado Department of Wildlife
(“CDOW”) mapping project was the source. However, this is not expressly stated anywhere in the
SDEIS or the technical reports. Furthermore, as noted above, Fort Collins requested the GIS files for
wetlands and riparian areas impacted for all alternatives from the Corps. The dataset provided by the
Corps includes no wetland polygons along the Poudre River adding to the confusion.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 99 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should clearly and expressly identify the data source and
analysis used to identify the acres of wetlands impacted by NISP. The analysis should be revised to
use the NWI dataset.
10.7 COMMENTS REGARDING EFFECTS TO RIPARIAN HABITATS AND ECOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
10.7.1 Inappropriate Application of the Definition of Wetlands to Cottonwood Woodlands
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.3, Inundation, Page 4-216
Statement: “For the purposes of the effects analysis, cottonwood woodland sites predicted to be inundated in
at least 13 years (half of the years of the period of record) under Current Conditions were assumed to receive
some amount of hydrological support from inundation based on the Corps’ technical standard for wetland
hydrology that the site is inundated (flooded or ponded) or the water table is 12 inches or less below the soil
surface for 14 or more consecutive days during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10
(>50% probability) (Corps 2005).”
Comment: The application of Corps definition of wetland hydrology to analysis of impacts to
riparian habitats (non-wetlands) is incorrect and an inappropriate. No explanation is provided in the
SDEIS for the use of wetlands hydrology in this context.
Proposal/Recommendation: The impact assessment methodology and analyses should be revised
to more accurately reflect the hydrology of riparian woodlands.
10.7.2 Inappropriate Exclusion of Certain Riparian Forests
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.2, Alluvial Groundwater, Page 4-220
Statement: “Inundation has the potential to provide supportive hydrology for wetland and riparian
vegetation; however, inundation of many of the locations within the Poudre River study sites under Current
Conditions occurs infrequently. […] For all action alternatives, the riparian and wetland locations inundated
in more than half of the years under Current Conditions hydrology, and thus potentially more dependent on
frequent inundation, are not predicted to have a substantial decrease in the number of years in which
inundation occurs.”
Comment: Periodic inundation is precisely what makes a riparian forest unique from an upland
forest and other types of wetted habitats. (Naiman and Dacamps, 1997). To suggest that sites that
receive inundation less than 50% of the years will not experience an effect underestimates the extent
of important, functioning riparian areas.
For those sites that are inundated “frequently,” which would more accurately be referred to as
wetlands, a significant reduction in peak flows caused by Alternative 2 would also be expected to
cause a shift (narrowing) of riparian vegetation on the landscape. Table 4-71 indicates 8 data points
were used to assess a 2,500 acre study area. This is an insufficient sample size for extrapolating such
a conclusion. The SDEIS does not address this result.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 100 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include all riparian forests, as
described above.
10.7.3 Incorrect Conclusions of Impacts to Riparian Forests
SDEIS Section 4.9.5.3.3, Preferred Alternative, Inundation, Page 4-229
Statement: “Segment B. The plains cottonwood woodland locations within the Martinez Park study site,
representative of Segment B, have minimum inundation flows of about 2,000 to 3,200 cfs (Table 4-71). Under
Current Conditions, these locations would be inundated in about 4 to 11 years of the period of record. The
number of years in which inundation would occur is predicted to be reduced by 1 to 5 years at these locations.
None of these locations would be inundated in more than half of the years of the period of record under Current
Conditions. Under Alternative 2, the estimated reduction in inundation is predicted to have a negligible effect
on cottonwood woodlands in Segment B because under Current Conditions, the cottonwood woodlands are not
inundated with enough frequency to provide consistent hydrologic support.”
Comment: For those sites that are inundated “frequently,” a significant reduction in peak flows a
caused by Alternative 2 would also be expected to cause a shift (narrowing) on the landscape and all
the complex functions and vegetation types supported by the peak flows. (City of Fort Collins,
2015a, City of Fort Collins, 2015b, Shanahan et al., 2014). In contrast to this expected result, all
narratives related to this inundation analysis for Segment B conclude the effects will be negligible.
An example in central Fort Collins: The quote above for the impacts of Alternative 2 references
Table 4-71. This table shows three points (LMT2.1-3) will have reduced frequencies of inundation
from 42% of the years to 23% of the years. This will have an impact on the probabilities for many
of the aforementioned processes to occur. Please see the 5 year flow -analysis (please refer to
Section 10.4.9) and the plant guilds analysis (Merritt, 2015) as evidence substantiating the
importance of “infrequent” flows and the likely narrowing of all processes and habitat types reliant
on moderate flows.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include all riparian forests, as
described above.
10.7.4 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding Impacts of Recent Flooding on Riparian Forests
SDEIS Section 4.9.4, Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives, Page 4-217
Statement: “Flooding on the Poudre River mainstem in 2010, 2011, and 2013 provided the opportunity to
review how flood flows and inundation affect wetland and riparian resources. Post-flood reviews of the
mainstem determined that most of the vegetation and riverbanks of the reaches reviewed appeared to be
unaffected by the floods. […] There were no observable effects on vegetation from the inundation outside of
the active channel or stream banks other than the flattening of herbaceous vegetation and the accumulation and
piling of woody debris. […]
“Flows of this magnitude did not create substantial areas of either newly deposited sediments or eroded areas
beyond the active channel and riverbanks that could provide potential suitable substrate for colonization by
riparian vegetation. The floods in early June of 2010 and 2011 occurred during the normal time for peak flows
that can facilitate the establishment of new cottonwood stands. Very few areas of post-flood cottonwood
seedlings were observed and the few areas of cottonwood seedlings that were observed occurred within and
adjacent to the active channel where the cottonwood seedlings are vulnerable to inundation, channel erosion,
and aggradation.”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 101 of 108
Comment: Natural Areas staff has made observations that contradict those presented here. For
example, Sterling, Homestead, and McMurry Natural Areas have all experienced substantial
deposition of fine-grained materials in much of the riparian habitat as a result of high flow events
between 2010 and 2014. Furthermore, not all floodplain functions associated with inundation are
readily observable and the observations from a sample of sites and years should not overrule well
established and accepted riparian scientific principles. Even the SDEIS outlines the processes
known to occur with inundation, yet the narrative uses field review exclusively for ignoring these
readily acknowledged ecological processes (See SDEIS Section 4.9.4).
In areas undergoing restoration where shading and thatch is not a limitation, extensive and
significant establishment of new cohorts of native woody vegetation is occurring regularly and in
direct response to flood flows. These areas include Sterling, McMurry, and Homestead Natural
Areas. The following three photos show natural establishment and recruitment of native vegetation
(specifically cottonwood and coyote willow) following recent high flow years at the McMurry
Natural Area along the Poudre River. Following the wetter springs of the past few years (2010
through 2014), Fort Collins Natural Areas Department staff has observed an increase in several
uncommon and desirable plants. For example, clammyweed (Polanisia dodecandra) was
established at Springer Natural Area, more goldensmoke (Corydalis curvisiliqua subsp. occidentalis)
and an increase in violas, which support rare butterflies have also been observed in response to the
wet years. At the same time dieback of smooth brome close the river’s edge and generally an overall
robust growth for all riparian vegetation was observed each of the wet years that have occurred
between 2010 and 2015.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 102 of 108
Another high prolonged flow year occurred in the spring of 2014. The previous two photos show
observations by Fort Collins Natural Areas Department staff from the air in June, 2014. The first
photo above shows the Sterling Natural Area and the second photo shows the McMurry Natural
Area. Each identify depositional zones (pockets of fine material seen throughout the riparian areas),
with the red circles identifying areas of significant fine sediment movement and deposition.
Inundation even for brief periods drives numerous functions that distinguish riparian habitat
from upland terrestrial habitats. Some of the ecological and hydrological functions and processes
can be difficult to observe and the observations from a sample of sites and years should not overrule
well established riparian processes. Even the SDEIS outlines the processes known to occur with
inundation yet the narrative uses field review exclusively ignoring the readily acknowledged
ecological processes (See SDEIS Section 4.9.4).
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include the observations described
above and to include a more in-depth analysis of impacts to the other floodplain processes associated
with inundation.
10.7.5 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding the Response of Cottonwoods to the Diversion of
Peak Flows
Resources Report, Section 4.3.1 Changes in Ground Water Levels for Cottonwood Woodlands,
Page 35-38
Statement: “Scott et al. (1999) noted that over a three-year period in medium-grained alluvial sands,
sustained declines in the water table of greater than 3.1 feet resulted in 88 percent mortality of plains
cottonwood. […]
“Effects to the cottonwoods associated with declines in river stage of 2 feet or greater are predicted to be
limited to periodic short-lived stresses because these estimated declines in alluvial ground water levels are
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 103 of 108
predicted to occur infrequently (i.e., not predicted to be sustained) and are generally predicted to occur in May
at the beginning of the growing season. […] Most of the declines in ground water levels are predicted to occur
in May when soil moisture conditions are typically favorable for supporting cottonwoods without dependence
on shallow ground water levels. May in Fort Collins is typically the wettest month of the growing season with
an average of 2.74 inches of precipitation (18 percent of the annual average) […] The combinations of
relatively high precipitation and low temperatures at the beginning of the growing season provide soil moisture
levels that could support cottonwoods without shallow ground levels compared to the rest of the growing
season […] Some or all of the following effects may occur infrequently to cottonwoods […] when ground
water levels temporarily decline below the estimated deepest annual water table depth of 6.85 feet for the
cottonwood woodlands:
• Delayed leaf out (lengthened dormancy at beginning of growing season)
• Yellowing and loss (abscission) of leaves
• Reduced branch growth
• Branch die-back
“Effects from the 1-2 ft stage declines and subsequent ground water level declines are predicted to be
negligible.”
Comment: The SDEIS states that Scott et al. (1999) concludes that a sustained decline in ground
water levels of 3.1 feet results in 88% cottonwood mortality whereas the declines as a result of NISP
can be as much as 2.5 feet and equate to no mortality, only “short-lived stresses.” This conclusion is
not valid.
This conclusion is explained by saying that “most” of the declines would be in the wettest
month, May. However, there is no evidence to suggest that reducing the peak flow would have no
adverse effect on cottonwood woodlands. It is true that cottonwood trees are more vulnerable to
water stress when temperatures are higher, when the canopy if fully leaved-out, and when less of the
root system is in contact with the water table, all of which occur late in the growing season.
Depending on position in the riparian zone, trees positioned at higher and drier sites will be more
vulnerable to a 2.5 foot decline in peak streamflow than those nearer to the river and at a lower
elevation. The vegetation is distributed along a gradient; the gradient is driven by the hydroperiod,
inundation frequency, and depth to groundwater (as well as variability in these factors). Reducing
the peak flow by diverting large volumes of water in the spring will have an effect on riparian
vegetation. (Poff et al., 1997). Unequivocal statements about the cottonwood forests responding in
a unified and single way to flows result in incorrect and arbitrary conclusions.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to more accurately reflect the effects of
the removal of peak flows, as described above.
10.7.6 Failure to Analyze Ecological Services
Resources Report, Section 5.8.9, Other Ecological Functions Associated with Flooding
Statement: “[T]he degree to which the ecological services are provided vary with frequency, duration, and
extent of flooding and are not discussed in this technical report because they have not been the focus of scoping
or comments on the NISP DEIS and can vary greatly from site to site.”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 104 of 108
Comment: The evaluation of environmental impacts includes any changes to the natural
environment as a result of the Project. The reduction of peak flows in the Poudre River will
diminish the provision of valued ecological services. . The statement in the SDEIS that these
processes can vary greatly from site to site is precisely why it is important to analyze them. Just
because these ecological services were not a focus of scoping or the comments of others, they should
still be considered by the Corps. SDEIS Section 4.9.4 describes this topic well and illustrates how
ecological services are fundamentally important to river and riparian habitat dynamics.
Understanding and disclosing how these ecological services would be affected are important aspects
of the this NEPA analysis.
The areas inundated with a frequency at or greater than 20% of the time (the 5 year
floodplain) could be considered as a possible surrogate for understanding changes to these services.
The 5 year flow was used in both the RHAF and ERM Supplemental Report as an indicator of the
positive relationship between important functions of the riparian forest and river-floodplain
connectivity to moderate flows.
Fort Collins and its consultants calculated the 5 year flow at the USGS gage at the Lincoln
St. gage using methods described in USGS bulletin 17b for historic, current conditions and
Alternative 2 flow scenarios (see ERM Supplemental Report, Current Conditions and Alternative
2and USGS, 1982). Respectively this flow is 3,486, 3,018, and 2,366 cfs. According to these flow
values, this “moderate flow” appears within range of flows most affected by the preferred
alternative.
Historic
(3,486 cfs)
Run 1
Current
Conditions
(3,018 cfs)
Run 3a
Preferred
Alternative
(2,366 cfs)
Percent
change from
Run 1 to
Run 3a
Transition: (Canyon Mouth to
Shields) 49.2 41.9 30.0 28.5
Urban: (Shields to Boxelder
confluence) 86.4 70.5 56.5 19.8
Warm: (Boxelder to County Road
32E) 169.1 134.5 91.7 31.8
The first three columns in this table present the average width (in meters including both sides
of the river) of the 5-year floodplain for three RHAF river segments under various 5 year flow
scenarios. The percent change from Current Conditions to the Preferred Alternative can be
calculated as a way to present the expected change in ecologic services. This methodology and these
river segments, are explained the RHAF (City of Fort Collins, 2015a). Due to bank armoring and
channel constrictions the riparian forest is narrow for significant lengths in each of these river
segments. In contrast, the sections with more natural low-lying floodplain topography are more
likely to receive the benefits of inundation. For example, as portrayed in the photo below, the river
section downstream of Lemay Ave. currently inundates the forest under the 5 year flow. WithNISP
the 5 year flow will not extend into the forest at all.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 105 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to provide a spatial assessment of
inundation alterations and the effects to the riparian environment, as described above.
10.8 COMMENTS REGARDING WILDLIFE ANALYSES
10.8.1 Inadequate Analyses of Impacts to Wildlife
Comment: The SDEIS analysis for wildlife primarily addresses the direct impacts at or near the site
of the reservoirs. Indirect impacts for wildlife along the Poudre River rely on the Riparian and
Wetland analysis, which have weaknesses as discussed above in Section 10, and therefore are not a
reasonable perspective from which to analyze impacts to wildlife. The general conclusion that the
project would likely affect the overall abundance of wildlife but would not alter species composition
and distribution; and that species would likely adapt to the new habitat conditions isnot supported by
any additional information and inconsistent with fundamentals of wildlife biology.
Proposal/Recommendation: The wildlife analyses and conclusions should be revised, in
conjunction with revisions to the wetlands and riparian area analyses, to address the deficiencies
addressed herein.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 106 of 108
10.8.2 No Basis for Assertion of Adaption of Species
SDEIS Section 4.10.3.2, District’s Preferred Alternative, Poudre and South Platte Rivers, Page
4-272
Statement: “The predicted changes in vegetation would occur slowly over a long period of time and would
likely be negligible and imperceptible given the dynamics of riparian areas. Wildlife using these habitats
typically use a wide range of aquatic, wetlands, and riparian habitats and would likely adapt to the new habitat
conditions that currently occur within the riparian areas of the rivers.”
Common: The changes to the flow regime under the preferred alternative will begin abruptly once
the Project is constructed and the ripple effect through the system will not be “slow” given plants,
especially herbaceous plants, respond to real time conditions. There will be a slower response to
woody vegetation, however drought stress could cause decadence to some stands within years rather
than decades.
To say wildlife will adapt to the changes fundamentally mischaracterizes the expected
outcome. As vegetation changes it is likely to cause a concurrent change in wildlife species
composition and diversity. Species that “adapt to the situation” will likely be those species common
to urban settings and not the suite of riparian dependent species.
Proposal/Recommendation: The wildlife analyses and conclusions should be revised, in
conjunction with revisions to the wetlands and riparian area analyses, to address the deficiencies
addressed herein.
10.9 COMMENTS REGARDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND
MITIGATION
10.9.1 Complete Analysis Is Needed
SDEIS Appendix F
Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Comment: The adequacy of the cumulative effects and mitigation planning cannot be evaluated
without better analysis of the critical factors discussed in this Section 10. The impacts to the riparian
and wetland resources need to be quantified in order to address them. The SDEIS rationale that the
impacts will be imperceptible, negligible, or minor and that Alternative 2 will accelerate and/or
reinforce the well-established trajectory is not substantiated.
10.9.2 Current Proposal Omits Certain Needed Elements
SDEIS Appendix F
Statement: “Proposed Conceptual Mitigation Plan …”
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 107 of 108
Comment: The current proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation lacks certain required
elements, such as peaks flows and other measures to specifically address the issues identified in this
Section 10. The key missing elements of the current proposed approach are:
• The provision of peak flows to compensate for narrowing of all riparian flow related
functions and wetland loss.
• Provision of long term management plans for improving river floodplain access as well as
periodic manual scour (creation of bare sites) to support maintenance of future forests and
resilience of native woody species.
• The loss of critical ecological services associated with flooding in the riparian zone must be
addressed through mitigation.
Proposal/Recommendation: Peak flows are the cornerstone of riparian and wetland resources.
Peaks flows therefore should be a central component to any plan to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the
impacts. Any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation should also address the issues described
above.
10.10 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 10
The following references were used in the preparation of this Section 10.
• Annear, T., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke, and 12 other authors. 2004. Instream flows
for riverine resource stewardship, revised edition. Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, WY.
• Bovee, K.D., B.L. Lamb, J.M. Bartholow, C.B. Stalnaker, J. Taylor and J. Henriksen. 1998.
Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Geological
Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD-
1998-0004, viii+131pp.
• Bredehoeft JD, Papadopulos SS, Cooper HH. 1982. Groundwater: the Water Budget Myth.
In Scientific Basis of Water-Resource Management, Studies in Geophysics, Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
• Browne C. 2014. Surface water and groundwater exchange along the Cache la Poudre River:
considerations for conservation planning. Colorado State University.
• City of Fort Collins 2015a. River Health Assessment Framework. City of Fort Collins.
Available at: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/river-health-report-final.pdf
• City of Fort Collins, 2015b. ERM Supplemental Report: Analysis of NISP Hydrology
Scenarios, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department.
• Colorado State University, 2015, access on 8-17-2015 at
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/eab_threat_urbanforests.pdf
• Eamus D, Froend R, Loomes R, Hose G, Murray B. 2006. A functional methodology for
determining the groundwater regime needed to maintain the health of groundwater-
dependent vegetation. Australian Journal of Botany, 54:97-114.
• Fish Survey, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Cache La Poudre Fish Survey and Management
Information.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 108 of 108
http://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Fishery%20Survey%20Summaries/CachelaPoudreRiverCa
nyon.pdf
• Healy RW. 2010. Estimating Groundwater Recharge. Cambridge University Press.
• Merritt DM and DA Lytle. 2004. Hydrologic Regimes and Riparian Forests: A Structured
Population Model For Cottonwood. Ecology 85:2493–2503
• Merritt DM, Scott ML, Poff NL, Auble G, Lytle D. 2010. Theory, methods and tools for
determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetation-flow response
guilds. Freshwater Biology 55: 206-225.
• Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and
Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA.
• Naiman RJ, Decamps H, Pollock M. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining
regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:209-212.
• Nilsson C and M Svedmark. 2002. Environmental Management. Oct;30 (4):468-80.
• Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg
JC. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration.
BioScience 47: 769-784.
• Shanahan J.O., D.W. Baker, B.P. Bledsoe, N.L. Poff, D.M. Merritt, K.R. Bestgen, G.T.
Auble, B.C. Kondratieff, J.G. Stokes, M. Lorie and J.S. Sanderson (2014) An Ecological
Response Model for the Cache la Poudre River through Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas Department, Fort Collins, CO. 93 pp + appendices. Available at:
http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/erm_report.pdf
• Stromberg JC, VB Beauchamp, MD Dixon, SJ Lite, and C Paradzick, 2007. Importance of
low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in
arid south-western United States. Freshwater Biology, 52:651-679.
• USGS, 1982, Guidelines for determining flood-flow frequency: Bulletin 17B of the
Hydrology Subcommittee, Office of Water Data Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston,Va., 183 Accessed online on 7/4/15 at
http://water.usgs.gov/osw/bulletin17b/bulletin_17B.html
• USGS. 2001. PHABSIM for Windows, User’s Manual and Exercises. Midcontinent
Ecological Science Center, November 2001, Open File Report 01-340.
• Webb RH and SA Leake. 2006. Ground-water and surface-water interactions and long term
change in riverine riparian vegetation in the southwestern United States. Journal of
Hydrology, 320: 302-323.
• Windy Gap Firming Project FEIS. 2011. US Bureau of Reclamation.
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/wgfp_feis/feis_chapter_3.pdf
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
APPENDIX A:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ COMMENTS ON SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT
LIST OF SELECTED PREPARERS OF COMMENTS
1. CITY OF FORT COLLINS STAFF
Donnie Dustin, P.E. Donnie Dustin is the Water Resources Manager for the City of Fort
Collins Utilities. His education includes a B.S. in Geology from James Madison University in
Virginia and a M.S. in Civil Engineering (with emphasis in Water Resources Planning and
Management) from Colorado State University. He is a registered professional engineer in
Colorado and has been employed by the City of Fort Collins for approximately 17 years, 10 of
which has been with the Utilities Water Resources Division. His duties and expertise includes
developing policies related to water supply system operations and development, and demand
management. He has provided criteria and guidance related to hydrologic and water rights
allocation modeling. He oversees the management of the City’s raw water supplies including the
administration of relevant water rights decrees. He also serves on the governing boards of two
irrigation companies.
Keith Elmund, Ph.D. After serving as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, Keith came back
to CSU and finished his Ph.D. in environmental microbiology. He has been with the City of Fort
Collins Utilities for over thirty-five years and since 1984 has served as Environmental Services
Manager. In this role, he manages both the City’s certified drinking water quality and pollution
control labs. Beginning in 2006, he helped implement the Poudre River Monitoring Alliance that
was part of EPA’s award winning “performance track” environmental leadership program. This
ongoing program joins together the Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley, the Town of Windsor, the
Boxelder and South Fort Collins Sanitation Districts, and Carestream Health, with CSU, the
North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association and the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division in a collaborative effort to monitor and help protect water quality in over 42 miles of
the lower Poudre.
Cameron Gloss, AICP. Cameron Gloss is the Planning Manager for the City of Fort
Collins. Since entering the field in 1984, his public and private sector experience includes an
array of work including comprehensive community planning, subarea and neighborhood
planning, transportation master planning, land development review, sustainability modeling, and
the crafting of land use regulations. Prior to his most recent role with the City of Fort Collins,
Cameron spent five years working with the Fort Collins offices of both AECOM and Clarion
Associates where he acted as a Senior Planner, leading community planning projects over a
dozen states, primarily within the western region. Mr. Gloss holds a B.S. in Geography (urban
emphasis), Arizona State University, 1983. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified
Planners.
Adam Jokerst, P.E. Adam Jokerst is a Water Resources Engineer for the City of Fort
Collins Utilities. His education includes a B.S. in Biological and Agricultural Engineering from
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 2 of 6
the University of Arkansas and a M.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University. He
is a registered professional engineer in Colorado and has been employed by the City of Fort
Collins for approximately three years with the Utilities Water Resources Division. His main
function at the Utilities is to provide hydrologic, water rights, and system modeling used to
assess the Utilities’ current and future water and infrastructure needs. In addition, he acts as
project manager for the Halligan Water Supply Project. He is also knowledgeable in the areas of
water resources engineering, planning and management and provides his expertise to develop
policies, maintain and protect water rights, and provide water supply and use information.
Bonnie Pierce, Ph.D. Bonnie Pierce is an Environmental Data Analyst in the Fort Collins
Environmental Services Department. Dr. Pierce’s work for Fort Collins focuses on climate
change and air, water, and hazardous waste matters including those related to oil and gas
operations. Dr. Pierce is the City’s project manager for the Poudre River Area and North
College Ave. Innovation District Brownfields Assessment project. Her previous job assignments
include Program Principal and Senior Project Manager for the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Division for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Associate Director for
Natural Resources, State of the Parks program, National Parks Conservation Association. Dr.
Pierce received her Ph.D. in Soil Science from Colorado State University.
Jill Oropeza. Watershed Specialist for the City of Fort Collins Utilities and
Secretary/Reserved Seat Member of the Coalition for the Poudre Watershed. Jill has worked as
the Watershed Specialist for the Fort Collins Utilities Source Watershed Program since 2007.
The City’s Watershed Program monitors water quality of the Upper Poudre River and
Horsetooth Reservoir in collaboration with the City of Greeley and the Tri-Districts in effort to
identify and address issues that affect drinking water treatment operations and watershed health.
Jill holds a Master’s degree from CSU in Ecology and has over 12 years of experience working
on natural resource issues in the state of Colorado.
Eric R. Potyondy, Esq. Eric Potyondy is an Assistant City Attorney in the Fort Collins
City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Potyondy’s work for Fort Collins focuses on water-related issues,
including water rights, water quality, and related matters. Prior to working for Fort Collins, Mr.
Potyondy was in private practice in Colorado for nearly six years, with his practice focusing
almost exclusively on water rights and related matters. Mr. Potyondy has litigated numerous
cases in the Colorado District Courts for various Water Divisions and the Colorado Supreme
Court. Prior to private practice, Mr. Potyondy worked for two years as the water law clerk for
Hon. Chief Judge Roger A. Klein, District Court, Water Division 1, State of Colorado. Mr.
Potyondy received his Juris Doctor degree and his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University
of Colorado.
Kenneth C. Sampley, P.E. Ken Sampley manages the Water Utilities Engineering
Division of Fort Collins Utilities consisting of a multi-disciplinary team of 13 employees that
provide stormwater and floodplain management, flood warning and emergency preparedness,
stormwater master planning, stream rehabilitation and stormwater water quality, development
review for new stormwater, water and wastewater improvements, and water distribution and
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 3 of 6
wastewater collection system capacity. Ken is a licensed professional engineer in the State of
Colorado and has over 34 years of experience. He worked for 3 years in consulting engineering,
26 years for the City of Colorado Springs, and the last 5 years for the City of Fort Collins. Ken
graduated from Colorado State University with a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering, specializing
in hydrology and hydraulics. He obtained his M.P.A. degree from the University of Colorado.
Jennifer Shanahan. Jennifer Shanahan is an environmental planner for the City of Fort
Collins, Natural Areas Department. Jen leads and participates a variety of planning processes
related to management of the City’s 42 natural areas with a particular focus on a spectrum of
issues and projects surrounding the Poudre River. These include collaborative landscape-level
planning, application of river science to policy and management, report development on
integrative river models and monitoring projects, and communication of technical Poudre River
issues to the broader community. She holds a master’s degree from the Department of Forest
Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship at Colorado State University, with a research focus in
riparian restoration.
John Stokes. John Stokes is the Director of the City’s Natural Areas Department. The
Department manages over 40,000 acres of conserved land, including approximately 1,800 acres
along the Poudre River in Fort Collins. John is a member of the Colorado Water Institute
initiative the Poudre Runs Through It, a regional collaborative group working on issues related to
river health and water supply. In that capacity John has initiated an instream flow collaboration
with various regional partners as well as an annual Poudre River Forum that has generated
substantial participation from the community. John is a member of the South Platte Basin
Roundtable as one of two environmental representatives. In 2014 John was recognized by the
Colorado Water Trust with the David Getches Flowing Waters Award which recognized John’s
efforts to restore and improve Poudre flows.
2. OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS
Daniel Baker. Daniel Baker is a research scientist at Colorado State University (CSU). In
the summer of 2012 Dan completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins University,
working with the National Science Foundation-funded National Center for Earth Surface
Dynamics and the Intermountain Center for River Rehabilitation and Restoration based at Utah
State University. He completed his PhD in civil and environmental engineering in 2009 at CSU,
with a focus on river engineering and stream restoration. Dan’s research focuses on the
interaction between physical and biochemical processes in streams, the effects of flow extraction
on stream geomorphology and sediment dynamics, and the application of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) technology to evaluate reach-scale conditions from digital elevation
models. Other current projects focus on developing urban stream restoration guidance with the
USACE and monitoring post-fire sediments and aquatic insects on the Poudre River.
Brian Bledsoe. Brian Bledsoe is a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Colorado State University. Brian has more than 25 years of experience as an engineer and
environmental scientist in the private and public sectors, including more than 20 years of
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 4 of 6
experience in stream and wetland restoration. Brian’s research and teaching are focused on
watershed and river processes at the interface of hydrology and aquatic ecology. He has worked
in the private sector as a consulting engineer and surveyor, and for the state of North Carolina as
a stream and wetland restoration specialist and nonpoint source program coordinator. Brian has
served as a peer reviewer on recovery programs for the Platte and San Juan Rivers, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP), as well as on numerous large-scale restoration projects including the Everglades and
Louisiana coastal areas. Brian is a licensed professional engineer in Colorado and North
Carolina.
Claudia A. Browne. Claudia Browne, is a Water Resources Specialist and the Southern
Rocky Mountain Bioregion Leader at Biohabitats Inc. (since 2004), a national ecological
consulting firm specializing in restoration, conservation planning and regenerative design. Ms.
Browne has over 30 years of experience in environmental protection and water resource
management with expertise in habitat assessments, riparian and wetland restoration and
maintenance, groundwater monitoring well installations, surface water and groundwater data
collection and evaluation, wetland permitting soil sampling and data evaluation, point-flow
analysis, water budgets, conceptual hydrogeologic model development, and groundwater
modeling. Ms. Browne has been the Project Manager for the Fort Collins Wetland and Riparian
Restoration On-Call contract since 2008. As such, she has participated in a wide range of City’s
river projects including assisting with the Poudre River Management Plan update; assessing the
groundwater-surface water regime for multiple properties, and; restoration planning efforts
including prioritizing potential restoration projects, identifying focal species and habitat types,
and helping develop restoration concept plans. Ms Browne is also providing ecological master
planning assistance for the Poudre River Downtown Master Plan for the City. Her role has
included developing habitat goals and objectives for 10 miles of river through the City’s urban
core, mapping priority habitat areas, collaborating with wildlife biologists and stakeholders, and
identifying opportunities and constraints. Ms. Browne received her B.S in Natural Resources
from Cornell University and her M.S. in Ecology from Colorado State University
Jordan Furnans, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. Dr. Furnans is a Senior Water Resources Engineer
with INTERA Incorporated, and engineering and geosciences consulting firm in Austin, TX. Dr.
Furnans holds a PhD in civil engineering and an MSE in environmental and water resources
engineering, both from the University of Texas at Austin, and a BSE in civil and geological
engineering from Princeton University. Dr. Furnans has 16 years of professional experience that
encompasses both field hydrologic data collection and the analysis of data through the
development and application of numerical models. He specializes in the areas of water right
accounting; coupled field and model hydrodynamic investigations of estuaries, lakes, and rivers;
linking water quality and hydrodynamics in natural systems; water availability modeling;
watershed hydrology planning and management; hydrographic and sedimentation survey
methods; and freshwater inflow and instream flow requirements for ecosystem health. Some of
Dr. Furnans’ recent experience includes developing expert testimony for water rights litigation
efforts, accounting plan development and water rights analysis, performing model reviews,
developing an automated bathymetric data processing system for volumetric and sediment
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 5 of 6
surveying, aiding development of instream flow recommendations for rivers in Oklahoma, and
modeling circulation in lakes.
Andrew Herb. Mr. Herb, owner of AlpineEco (founded in 2007) has worked as an
ecologist in the Rocky Mountain Region for over 16 years. Although most of his work has been
in Colorado and Utah, he has worked in nearly all the Rocky Mountain, Great Plains, and Great
Basin States, as well as in Korea, Japan, Guam, and Puerto Rico. His work involves most aspects
of field ecology, with a focus on wetlands. He is currently the president of the Rocky Mountain
Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists, which is an international organization committed to
improving the management of wetlands through sound science and education. He is also the
founder and chairperson of SWS’s Wetland Restoration Section, which brings together
professionals from around the world to share information on wetland restoration. His
commitment to science and the environment, combined with his practical approach to problem-
solving results in creative, cost-effective, and ecosystem-friendly approaches to projects. Mr.
Herb is also the owner of AlpineEco Nursery (founded in 2012) which provides native wetland
and riparian plants for ecological restoration.
William Lewis, Jr., Ph.D. Dr. Lewis is professor and Director of the Center for
Limnology, University of Colorado Boulder, and serves as Associate Director of the CU Boulder
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. His interests in research and
teaching include ecological characteristics and processes of inland waters (lakes, streams, and
wetlands). Research for Dr. Lewis and his students focuses mainly on biogeochemical processes,
ecosystem modeling, effects of water pollution and hydrologic changes on aquatic ecosystems
and organisms, composition and abundance of aquatic organisms under natural and
anthropogenically altered conditions, and productivity of aquatic ecosystems. Dr. Lewis has
published over 200 journal articles related to these research interests. He is recipient of the
Renewable Natural Resources Foundation Sustained Achievement Award and of the Baldi
Award and the Naumann-Thienemann Medal of the International Society for Limnology. He has
served as a member of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology and on the Water
Science and Technology Board of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council.
John Putnam, Esq. John Putnam is an attorney and partner at the law firm of Kaplan
Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP, in Denver. Mr. Putnam’s practice emphasizes counseling and
litigation for public and private entities on complex issues of environmental law, especially for
large public and public/private projects. Mr. Putnam has extensive experience providing clients
nationwide with strategic advice on large and controversial development and transportation
projects, including airports, highways, real estate development, telecommunications facilities,
and other infrastructure. He counsels clients regarding a wide range of environmental,
transportation and development issues, including the National Environmental Policy Act,
wetlands, air quality, climate change, sustainability, air toxics, noise, tolling and innovative
finance, land use, endangered species, floodplains, municipal law, transportation regulations and
Native American jurisdiction. Mr. Putnam received his Juris Doctor degree from the University
of Chicago and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Williams College.
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 6 of 6
Jennifer Roberson. Jennifer is a professional research assistant with the Center for
Limnology at the University of Colorado Boulder, within the Cooperative Institute for Research
in Environmental Sciences. Her duties include data assembly, data analysis, and synthesis of
information for reports and publications of the Center for Limnology. She holds a Bachelor’s
Degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Colorado Boulder and has
extensive experience in fieldwork, laboratory analyses, data analysis, and document preparation
related to water quality, aquatic life, water quality regulations and related matters specifically for
Colorado.