HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/12/2015 - NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT AND POUDRE RIVEDATE:
STAFF:
May 12, 2015
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Jennifer Shanahan, Environmental Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Northern Integrated Supply Project and Poudre River Health Framework.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and discuss the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) and Poudre River
Health Assessment Framework (Framework).
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is Council comfortable with staff’s planned approach to developing a response to the NISP Supplemental
Draft Impact Statement (SDEIS)?
2. Does Council have any questions about the Poudre River Health Assessment Framework and its intended
use as a decision-support and analysis tool?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern) is the project sponsor for a water storage and
supply project known as the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). NISP is a project designed by Northern
and fifteen municipalities and water districts, including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, a water provider
serving a portion of Fort Collins. The project is intended to increase water supplies for the collaborating entities.
Several different alternatives to provide enhanced water supplies have been proposed by Northern and its
partners. The preferred alternative identified by the partners involves the construction of a new reservoir to the
northwest of Fort Collins (Glade Reservoir), the construction of Galeton Reservoir northeast of Greeley, and
various water exchanges and diversions from the Poudre River in and around the City. The preferred alternative
(as well as three additional alternatives) is currently under analysis by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps), and a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is scheduled to be released in June.
The SDEIS is a detailed, federally-required review of the proposed project and its alternatives, and will include
extensive analysis of environmental impacts associated with the alternatives. Staff will review the SDEIS when it
is published and develop comments for Council’s consideration.
Partly in anticipation of the NISP SDEIS, the Natural Areas Department and the Utilities Service Area are
collaborating on an assessment tool for supporting and sustaining the health of the Poudre River. The River
Health Assessment Framework (Framework) articulates the City's vision for a healthy and resilient river by setting
recommended ranges and an A-F grading system for the key physical, chemical and biological indicators of the
river. The Framework will be used to create a State of the River Report in 2016 and to evaluate the river health
impacts of internal and external projects. The Framework will support efforts to: assess current conditions; to
monitor future conditions of the river; to manage adaptively; and, to communicate river health through a common
and consistent tool. The Framework considers an inclusive set of City objectives related to the river such as a
reliable water supply, floodplain management, clean water, and recreation. Within this context indicators were
chosen that represent the physical, chemical, and biological elements of the river ecosystem. Recommended
ranges for each indicator represent a healthy and resilient river. Rather than aspiring to return the river to native
conditions, the recommended ranges, if attained, would ensure the river meets critical water quality and
ecological thresholds without being further compromised. Staff also plans to use the Framework to help inform
and shape the City’s response to the NISP SDEIS.
May 12, 2015 Page 2
The Northern Integrated Supply Project
As noted above, NISP is a proposed water supply and storage project. In 2008, the Corps published a NISP Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). City Council submitted comments on the DEIS and those comments
can be found at:
<http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/pdf/nisp.pdf>
Based on the comments of Fort Collins and many other entities and individuals, the Corps decided to require a
follow-up Supplemental DEIS. In addition, the Corps required that a Common Technical Platform be established
so that all Poudre River projects requiring a federal impacts analysis would use the same flow and resource
analysis models and baseline conditions information which have been developed by the Corps and its third-party
consultants. Personnel from Fort Collins Utilities, Greeley, and Northern also have been involved in hydrological
model development as the Corps has required that a common set of models be used to evaluate Fort Collins’
proposed enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, Greeley’s proposed enlargement of Seaman Reservoir, and
Northern’ s proposed NISP. In addition to the hydrological information, baseline data has been prepared for
various other aspects of the SDEIS, for example, aquatic resources and vegetation. Ultimately, these reports will
provide the basis for the Corps’ analysis of the potential impacts of NISP.
How Does NISP Work?
The SDEIS will analyze several different possible action alternatives that are designed to meet the needs of the
project proponents. It also will include a no-action alternative. This AIS focuses on the alternative that is
preferred by project proponents (known as the “preferred alternative”).
The preferred alternative relies on two reservoirs. Glade Reservoir would be located north of Ted’s Place along
the current route of U.S. Highway 287. It would store up to 170,000 acre feet of water (for comparison’s sake,
Horsetooth holds 157,000 acre feet). Galeton Reservoir would be located north and east of Greeley and operated
as a component known as the South Platte Water Conservation Project. It would store up to 40,000 acre feet of
water.
Water from the Poudre River would be diverted into the Poudre Valley Canal just upstream of the mouth of the
canyon and then pumped into Glade Reservoir. The water right utilized for the diversion is “junior” and would
generally be used only when the river is experiencing high flows, primarily May, June, and July. When water is
being diverted into Glade Reservoir at the maximum rate, it could deplete downstream flows through Fort Collins
by up to approximately 1,000 cubic feet a second. For comparison’s sake, the average June flow at the mouth of
the canyon is about 1,800 cubic feet per second.
In addition to the diversion near the mouth of the canyon, water would be “exchanged” with two canals that divert
water from the Poudre River near Fort Collins. Water currently diverted into these canals and then delivered to
farms in Weld County would be instead pumped into Glade Reservoir. In exchange for taking that water out of
those canals, water from the downstream Galeton Reservoir (which would be supplied by water diverted from the
South Platte River) would be delivered to the same Weld County farms instead.
Water stored in Glade Reservoir could be delivered to project partners in a number of different ways. In general,
Glade Reservoir releases will be made in place of Horsetooth Reservoir releases that would have gone to
downstream users (e.g., agricultural users). The water that stays in Horsetooth Reservoir as a result will be used
by project participants. If there is not enough Horsetooth Reservoir releases to perform this “trade,” there may
need to be a physical delivery from Glade Reservoir into Horsetooth Reservoir via a pipeline connection and
possibly additional pipelines to points farther south.
Overall, the project is designed to deliver a firm yield of about 40,000 acre feet of water annually to its partners.
What Were the Core Elements of the City’s Response in 2008?
When the DEIS was published in 2008, a team of staff and consultants prepared an extensive response. The
response was critical of the DEIS and described numerous shortcomings and errors in the analysis. (See
May 12, 2015 Page 3
<http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/pdf/nisp.pdf>) Based on the critique, City Council passed resolution 2008-082
(attached) that opposed the project:
…as it is described and proposed in the DEIS and also opposes any variant of NISP that does
not address the City’s fundamental concerns about the quality of its water supply and the effects
on the Cache la Poudre River through the City, which are critical to the City’s quality of life,
health, economic development, and environment.
The City’s response to the DEIS covered fourteen themes. In particular, the response noted that NISP could
have significant impacts to source water quality (in particular the water quality of Horsetooth Reservoir, a source
of drinking water to Fort Collins) as well as to the Poudre River through town. Degradation of the water quality of
the Poudre River was noted as fundamental concern because NISP could significantly affect the extent to which
the City must treat its wastewater, which implicates the infrastructure the City needs as well as state and federal
permit conditions the City is required to meet.
In addition to water quality concerns, the City expressed concerns about impacts to habitat including fish,
vegetation, and wetlands. Further, the City’s response noted the potential for NISP to increase sedimentation,
alter the physical form of the river channel and floodplain in Fort Collins, and increase the likelihood of flooding.
What does staff plan to do in response to the SDEIS?
Similar to 2008, a team of consultants and staff have been organized to review and respond to the SDEIS when it
is published this summer. The team includes staff from Water Resources, Stormwater, Natural Areas, Parks
Planning, Planning, and the City Attorney’s Office. Consultants will provide expertise in various technical
disciplines such as aquatic habitat, fish, hydrology, and geomorphology. Lori Potter continues to be the City’s
outside counsel on this matter.
The team’s planned approach to the review of the SDEIS is similar to the approach in 2008 and the same themes
will be examined for the strength or weakness of the analysis. In addition, staff plans to review only the preferred
alternative because this is the most likely alternative to be selected by the Corps. The scope of the City’s review
will be limited to the reach of the river from the mouth of the canyon to where the river crosses I-25 and to those
impacts that directly affect Fort Collins’ interests. The extent of the City’s review will be driven, in part, by
schedule. Although it is not known how much time the Corps will provide for public review, it is likely to be as little
as 45 to 60 days. The SDEIS and the technical reports will likely be thousands of pages of material. Given the
volume of material and the likelihood of a short timeline, staff anticipates that there may only be time for one or, at
most, two Council discussions regarding the City’s proposed comments to the Corps.
The City’s comments, and the likely comments of many other agencies, organizations, and individuals, will be
considered by the Corps as it determines whether the preferred alternative can and should be permitted. Staff
plans to utilize the Poudre River Health Framework to help inform and guide its response to NISP (see below).
Ultimately the Corps will publish a Final Environmental Impact Statement that will provide an opportunity for the
Corps to incorporate or respond to comments. After this publication, the Corps will then issue a Record of
Decision which describes its decision(s) and outlines the permit conditions that the applicant will be required to
meet.
If NISP is permitted to move forward there will be a mitigation plan that is designed to address the impacts of the
project. There are two avenues for mitigation plan development. First, the Corps will impose its own set of
mitigation requirements. Those requirements are likely to be influenced by a State of Colorado mitigation plan
that will be developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The state’s mitigation planning process will begin after the
public comment period for the SDEIS has closed. There will be opportunities for public comments on the state
and federal mitigation plans and it will be extremely important for the City to be engaged in those processes.
May 12, 2015 Page 4
POUDRE RIVER HEALTH FRAMEWORK
Background
The City has many initiatives underway to support the vitality of the Poudre River. Efforts include: pollution
prevention and stormwater management; regulatory compliance and water quality monitoring; conservation and
restoration of urban streams, the river, and its floodplain; augmentation of in-stream flows; ecological studies;
and, source water protection. While the purpose of these projects is to benefit aspects of river health, the City
lacks a common and quantitative framework to guide its vision for the river ecosystem.
Numerous City and community-adopted planning documents reflect broad support and vision for a healthy and
resilient Poudre River. While there is an ever-increasing body of research available to help quantify the physical,
chemical, and biological relationships for the Poudre River, the terms “healthy” and “resilient” are subject to
various interpretations and would benefit from clarification.
The goal of this project is to:
Develop a framework that quantitatively describes the City’s aspirations for a healthy and resilient Poudre
River. The framework will help assess, guide and inform the City’s efforts to support and sustain the
health of the river.
Geographic Scope
This project considers the Poudre River as it affects the City, from its headwaters to Windsor. However, more
detail will be included for the reach extending from the City’s water supply intake in the lower Poudre Canyon to I-
25. The Framework will take into account factors beyond the City’s control such as the effects that the upstream
contributing watershed has on the river as it enters into the City’s boundaries.
Approach
River health indicators have been developed using an integrated, whole system approach that considers a
spectrum of community values as well as specific City-wide objectives.
This approach is supported through four components:
1. An interdisciplinary City team.
2. Alignment of the team around the common purpose of the watershed services and related City objectives
to assure pursuit of river health within an inclusive context.
3. Development of river health indicators and associated metrics.
4. Development of recommended ranges for each indicator (as a summary of the metrics) that, if met, would
indicate a healthy, functioning, resilient river.
The river health indicators are based on a methodology that has been refined and customized to internal business
needs and the context of the Poudre River. The Framework identifies ten indicators essential to river health and
representative of the whole river system. For each indicator a few specific metrics have been developed. The
metrics are intended to be measurable, but the level at which they can be measured varies based on past and
likely future data availability. Lacking data, some metrics will be assessed at the rapid level or by expert
judgment.
Links to other Poudre River research, monitoring and standards
To the extent possible and where applicable, this Framework incorporates existing monitoring programs, data,
and other ecological studies specific to the Poudre River. It also incorporates standards established by the State
of Colorado. Key projects that have informed this Framework include: source watershed monitoring (water
quality), the Lower Poudre Monitoring Alliance (water quality, aquatic insects, fish), the Ecological Response
Model (ecosystem relationships), Natural Areas breeding bird survey, hydrologic and hydraulic models and the
May 12, 2015 Page 5
Colorado Parks and Wildlife monitoring data (fish), land use and landform data (data based in Geographic
Information System).
Water quality and aquatic life use standards established through the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment are also incorporated into this framework.
Utilizing an A-F grading system
This framework uses a grading scale (A, B, C, D, F) to describe the health or impairment of various functions.
Functional assessments - which are commonly used in Clean Water Act actions - are designed to evaluate and
describe the functional condition or health of aquatic habitats, such as streams and wetlands. The goal of a
functional assessment is to generate health ratings for each indicator which then collectively describe the health
of the whole ecosystem.
Recommended ranges for each indicator, if achieved, would result in a functioning and self-sustaining river. The
Framework’s recommendations are grounded in the broader context of historic land use and ecological change,
as well as the economic, administrative and legal frameworks influencing the contemporary Poudre River.
Next Steps: the State of the River Assessment and Report Card
In addition to providing a quantitative description of river health, this Framework accomplishes two things; an
organization of a wide variety of information into a single communicable form and, a Poudre River-specific
methodology available to use for a full assessment of the river’s condition. In 2016, staff is planning to conduct
the first complete river assessment using the Framework and plans to communicate the results through a State of
the River Report Card. The concept for this report card is that it will be periodically produced (on a 3-5 year
basis) and will provide more granular detail on local (shorter) river reaches.
A Long-Term Perspective
The recommended ranges for each indicator describe what is required to support key ecological functions. An
extensive set of factors, or stresses, limit the condition of each river health indicator. The City has various
degrees of influence on these factors. For example, reconnecting the river to its floodplain in an area owned
primarily by the City is an improvement that can be acted on. On the other hand, climate is beyond the City’s
control. Many of the stresses on river condition fall somewhere in the middle. The City may be able to affect
change through some form of influence, collaborative partnerships, and long-term internal and external
commitments. Further efforts to achieve river health also will need to be integrated with economic and social
goals.
Timeline and Public Outreach
This project was initiated in February and is on a tight timeline to complete prior to the publication of the NISP
SDEIS. Presentations and dialog with three advisory boards (Land Conservation and Stewardship Board,
Natural Resources Advisory Board, and the Water Board) occurred in April. On May 21, the project will be
presented for public feedback at an open house. Additional outreach will be conducted with key stakeholders,
such as the Poudre Runs Through It group, which includes representation from many of the municipal and
agricultural water providers. The goal is to have the Framework completed by the end of June.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sustainability Assessment Tool for River Health (PDF)
2. Sustainability Assessment Summary River Health (PDF)
3. Public Engagement Summary (PDF)
4. Powerpoint Presentation (PPT)
*The Fort Collins SAT was developed by modifying the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis Tool developed by Eugene, Oregon, July 2009. 1
City of Fort Collins SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT)
(November 2014)
Creating a sustainable community
Plan Fort Collins is an expression of the community’s resolve to act sustainably: to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental,
human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we
depend.
How to use the tool
The Sustainability Assessment Tool (SAT) is designed to inform a deeper understanding of how policy and program choices affect the social
equity, environmental health and economic health of the community. The City of Fort Collins has developed a Sustainability Assessment
Framework that describes the purpose, objectives, and guidelines to assist City Program/Project Managers to determine:
• The process for cross-department collaboration in using the SAT
• Timing for applying a SAT
• When to apply a SAT
• How to document the results of the SAT and present at City Council Work Sessions and Regular Council Meetings
Further detailed guidance is available at: http://citynet.fcgov.com/sustainability/sustainabilityassessments.php
The SAT does not dictate a particular course of action; rather, the analysis provides policy makers and staff with a greater awareness of some
of the trade-offs, benefits and consequences associated with a proposal, leading to more mindful decision-making.
Brief description of proposal
Please provide a brief description of your proposal – 100 words or less
The Natural Areas and Utilities Departments have convened a team to develop a River Health Framework that quantitatively describes the City’s aspirations for a
healthy and resilient Poudre River. The Framework will help guide and inform the City’s efforts to support and sustain the health of the river.
Staff lead(s):
Please note staff name, position/division and phone number
Jen Shanahan, Environmental Planner, 221-6281
2
Social Equity
Described: Placing priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights, including those pertaining to civil,
political, social, economic, and cultural concerns. Providing adequate access to employment, food, housing, clothing, recreational opportunities, a
safe and healthy environment and social services. Eliminating systemic barriers to equitable treatment and inclusion, and accommodating the
differences among people. Emphasizing justice, impartiality, and equal opportunity for all.
Goal/Outcome: It is our priority to support an equitable and adequate social system that ensures access to employment, food, housing, clothing,
education, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Additionally, we support equal access to services and
seek to avoid negative impact for all people regardless of age, economic status, ability, immigration or citizenship status, race/ethnicity, gender,
relationship status, religion, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunities for all people are sought. A community in which basic human rights are
addressed, basic human needs are met, and all people have access to tools and resources to develop their capacity. This tool will help identify how
the proposal affects community members and if there is a difference in how the decisions affect one or more social groups. Areas of consideration in
creating a vibrant socially equitable Fort Collins are: basic needs, inclusion, community safety, culture, neighborhoods, and advancing social equity.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis.
Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan?
Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of
expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
Proposal Description
1. Meeting Basic Human Needs
• How does the proposal impact access to food, shelter,
employment, health care, educational and recreational
opportunities, a safe and healthy living environment or
social services?
• Does this proposal affect the physical or mental health of
individuals, or the status of public health in our community?
• How does this proposal contribute to helping people achieve
and maintain an adequate standard of living, including housing,
or food affordability, employment opportunities, healthy families,
or other resiliency factors?
Analysis/Discussion
The River Health Framework provides a decision support tool for monitoring,
maintaining and supporting river health. Healthy river systems contribute to
the social and economic well-being of communities by providing clean water
and recreation. River health also promotes beneficial flood management,
which increases the community’s resiliency and mitigates negative safety and
economic consequences to community members.
2. Addressing Inequities and being Inclusive
• Are there any inequities to specific population subsets in this
proposal? If so, how will they be addressed?
• Does this proposal meet the standards of the Americans with
Disabilities Act?
• How does this proposal support the participation, growth
N/A
N/A
The proposal supports the development of youth by helping to ensure
a healthy river in the heart of Fort Collins’ urban core.
N/A
3
and healthy development of our youth? Does it include
Developmental Assets?
• If the proposal affects a vulnerable section of our community (i.e.
youth, persons with disabilities, etc.)
3. Ensuring Community Safety
• How does this proposal address the specific safety and
personal security needs of groups within the community,
including women, people with disabilities, seniors, minorities,
religious groups, children, immigrants, workers and others?
Clean water for recreation and consumption supports a healthy community.
Proper management of the floodplain reduces flood hazards and benefits the
river ecosystem.
4. Culture
• Is this proposal culturally appropriate and how does it affirm
or deny the cultures of diverse communities?
• How does this proposal create opportunities for artistic and
cultural expression?
A healthy river ecosystem provides opportunities for artistic and cultural
expression. The river is a gathering spot for a wide diversity of Fort Collins’
citizens.
5. Addressing the Needs of Neighborhoods
• How does this proposal impact specific Fort Collins
neighborhoods?
• How are community members, stakeholders and interested
parties provided with opportunities for meaningful participation
in the decision making process of this proposal?
• How does this proposal enhance neighborhoods and
stakeholders’ sense of commitment and stewardship to our
community?
Various Fort Collins neighborhoods are located on, or nearby, the Poudre River.
These neighborhoods experience the direct benefits of the river system; this
project indirectly helps sustain and improve those benefits.
Three City advisory boards were visited to gather public input on the process. A
public open house is planned as an opportunity to gather feedback from both
the general public and stakeholders.
The SAT team suggested modest additional stakeholder participation might
enhance the project overall.
6. Building Capacity to Advance Social Equity
• What plans have been made to communicate about and
share the activities and impacts of this proposal within the
City organization and/or the community?
• How does this proposal strengthen collaboration and
cooperation between the City organization and community
members?
There has been extensive internal communication and collaboration between
Utilities and Natural Areas Departments. Also the project has engaged other
organizations involved in monitoring and data collection, for example Colorado
State University and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Social Equity Summary
Key issues: The team identified direct benefits to the health and wellness of the community such as: clean water, recreation, flood damage
mitigation, and neighborhood access to a healthy environment.
4
Potential mitigation strategies:
The SAT team suggested modest additional stakeholder participation might enhance the project.
Overall, the effect of this proposal on social equity would be:
Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of
the following boxes and indicate the overall rating.
Rating represents group consensus
Rating represents group average X
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
1.6
Environmental Health
Described: Healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Decreased pollution and waste, lower carbon emissions that contribute to
climate change, lower fossil fuel use, decreased or no toxic product use. Prevent pollution, reduce use, promote reuse, and recycle natural
resources.
Goal/Outcome: Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment to ensure long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions necessary for
support of future generations of all species. Avoid or eliminate adverse environmental impacts of all activities, continually review all activities to identify
and implement strategies to prevent pollution; reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency; conserve water; reduce consumption and
waste of natural resources; reuse, recycle and purchase recycled content products; reduce reliance on non-renewable resources.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for
any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent
to a proposal - please include them in the analysis.
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action
plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level
of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Environmental Impact
• Does this proposal affect ecosystem functions or
processes related to land, water, air, or plant or
animal communities?
• Will this proposal generate data or knowledge related to the
use of resources?
Analysis/Discussion
The project is designed to provide a clear and transparent analysis of
the riverine ecosystem and to support effective, cost-efficient river
maintenance or improvement strategies.
The project will generate considerable knowledge and data related to
5
• Will this proposal promote or support education in
prevention of pollution, and effective practices for
reducing, reusing, and recycling of natural resources?
• Does this proposal require or promote the continuous
improvement of the environmental performance of the City
organization or community?
• Will this proposal affect the visual/landscape or aesthetic
elements of the community?
the river.
The project supports education efforts regarding water conservation,
clean water and pollution prevention.
The project clearly supports efforts to continually improve the City’s
environmental performance and influence.
The project has the potential to influence the long-term visual and/or
aesthetic qualities of the river corridor.
2. Climate Change
• Does this proposal directly generate or require the
generation of greenhouse gases (such as through
electricity consumption or transportation)?
• How does this proposal align with the carbon reduction goals for
2020 goal adopted by the City Council?
• Will this proposal, or ongoing operations result in an
increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions?
• How does this proposal affect the community’s efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise mitigate adverse climate
change activities?
The project does not generate greenhouse gas emissions (aside from
trips to meetings, etc.).
N/A
3. Protect, Preserve, Restore
• Does this proposal result in the development or modification
of land resources or ecosystem functions?
• Does this proposal align itself with policies and procedures
related to the preservation or restoration of natural habitat,
greenways, protected wetlands, migratory pathways, or the
urban growth boundary
• How does this proposal serve to protect, preserve, or restore
important ecological functions or processes?
The project is designed to influence long-term land-use and natural
resource decision making.
The project closely aligns with various adopted policies and procedures
related to the natural environment.
The project is designed to play an important role to inform and
influence decision making and resource allocation related to protection
and restoration of important ecological functions.
4. Pollution Prevention
• Does this proposal generate, or cause to be generated,
waste products that can contaminate the environment?
• Does this proposal require or promote pollution prevention
through choice of materials, chemicals, operational practices
and/or engineering controls?
• Does this proposal require or promote prevention of
pollution from toxic substances or other pollutants
regulated by the state or federal government?
• Will this proposal create significant amounts of waste or
The project does not generate waste.
The project promotes positive environmental outcomes by influencing
operational practices and engineering controls.
The project promotes pollution prevention (clean water, MS4 program)
6
pollution?
5. Rethink, Replace, Reduce, Reuse, Recirculate/Recycle
• Does this proposal prioritize the rethinking of the materials or
goods needed, reduction of resource or materials use, reuse of
current natural resources or materials or energy products, or
result in byproducts that are recyclable or can be re-circulated?
N/A
6. Emphasize Local
• Does this proposal emphasize use of local materials,
vendors, and or services to reduce resources and
environmental impact of producing and transporting
proposed goods and materials?
• Will the proposal cause adverse environmental effects
somewhere other than the place where the action will take
place?
N/A
The proposal could have a positive environmental impact on river reaches
beyond the City’s GMA.
Environmental Health Summary
Key issues: The project will help support robust and transparent analysis of ecosystem functions and processes related to the river environment. Moreover, it
establishes indicators and success benchmarks. It also directly generates data and promotes a more informed approach to river health issues and aspirations.
Water conservation, clean water, pollution prevention, and habitat improvements are all supported by the project.
Potential mitigation strategies
Overall, the effect of this proposal on environmental health would be:
Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of
the following boxes and indicate the overall rating.
Rating represents group consensus
Rating represents group average x
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
2.6
Economic Health
Described: Support of healthy local economy with new jobs, businesses, and economic opportunities; focus on development of a diverse economy,
enhanced sustainable practices for existing businesses, green and clean technology jobs, creation or retention of family waged jobs.
7
Goal/Outcome: A stable, diverse and equitable economy; support of business development opportunities.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has
advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or
may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Infrastructure and Government
• How will this proposal benefit the local economy?
• If this proposal is an investment in infrastructure is it designed
and will it be managed to optimize the use of resources
including operating in a fossil fuel constrained society?
• Can the proposal be funded partially or fully by grants, user
fees or charges, staged development, or partnering with
another agency?
• How will the proposal impact business growth or operations
(ability to complete desired project or remain in operation), such
as access to needed permits, infrastructure and capital?
Analysis/Discussion
There are a number of industries, such as breweries and high-tech
companies located in Fort Collins due to the high quality of water
provided by the Poudre. The monitoring, awareness and adaptive
management that will be advanced by this Framework also benefit
these businesses and the local economy by helping to support the
continued provision of critical watershed services.
This project partners with and benefits from the expertise of
collaborating scientists (CSU, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Water
Quality Monitoring Alliances). A subsequent and related project -
known as the State of the River Assessment – could be leveraged by
grant funds and volunteer assistance.
There are no known impacts to local businesses with respect to access
to permits, infrastructure, or capital.
2. Employment and Training
• What are the impacts of this proposal on job creation
within Larimer County?
• Are apprenticeships, volunteer or intern opportunities
available?
• How will this proposal enhance the skills of the local workforce?
N/A
Yes, there is potential for volunteer or internships in the subsequent phase of
the project.
3. Diversified and Innovative Economy
• How does this proposal support innovative or
entrepreneurial activity?
• Will “clean technology” or “green” jobs be created in this
proposal?
• How will the proposal impact start-up or existing businesses or
Could stimulate local business opportunities with groups such as those involved
in the Colorado Water Innovation Cluster.
8
development projects?
4. Support or Develop Sustainable Businesses
• What percentage of this proposal budget relies on local services
or products? Identify purchases from Larimer County and the
State of Colorado.
• Will this proposal enhance the tools available to businesses
to incorporate more sustainable practices in operations and
products?
• Are there opportunities to profile sustainable and socially
responsible leadership of local businesses or educate
businesses on triple bottom line practices?
N/A
5. Relevance to Local Economic Development Strategy
The City of Fort Collins Economic Health Office recently completed an update to
the Economic Health Strategic Plan, which is going forward to Council for final
approval on June 2. The River Health Analysis tool has both direct and indirect
positive economic effects. Many prominent industries in the region including
Brewing, Agriculture and high tech Manufacturing/Chip Design require a stable
supply of clean water. Indirectly, this project will also affect the “Grow Our
Own” and “Climate Economy” subsections, by partnering with local firms and
encouraging the development of innovative water monitoring technologies. A
clean and healthy river also has a direct effect on the “Place Matters”
subsection, as our natural amenities and quality of life play a key role in
attracting and retaining strong business partners.
Economic Prosperity Summary
Key issues: This project supports sustainable watershed services and a healthy Poudre River ecosystem that benefits local businesses. The
project includes a number of important community collaborators such as CSU.
Potential mitigation strategies:
9
Overall, the effect of this proposal on economic prosperity will be:
Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of
the following boxes and indicate the overall rating.
Rating represents group consensus
Rating represents group average x
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
0.8
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
DATE: 4-30-2015
SUBJECT: Sustainability Assessment (SA) Summary for
Key issues identified:
Social-The team identified direct benefits to the health and wellness of the community such as: clean
water, recreation, flood damage mitigation, and neighborhood access to a healthy environment.
Economic- This project supports sustainable watershed services and a healthy Poudre River ecosystem
that benefits local businesses. The project includes a number of important community collaborators such
as CSU.
Environmental- The project will help support robust and transparent assessment of ecosystem functions
and processes related to the river environment. Moreover, it establishes indicators and success
benchmarks. It also generates data and promotes a more informed approach to river health issues and
aspirations. Water conservation, clean water, pollution prevention, and habitat improvements are all
supported by the project.
Suggested mitigation actions:
The SAT team suggested modest additional stakeholder participation might enhance the project.
Economic , 0.8
Social , 1.6
Environmental
, 2.6
Rating
Average, 1.7
1.8
1.7
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Sustainability Rating
Rating without mitigation Rating with mitigation
Rating Legend
3 Very positive
2 Moderately positive
1 Slightly positive
0 Not relevant or neutral
-1 Slightly negative
-2 Moderately negative,
impact likely
-3 Very negative, impact
expected
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE: Cache la Poudre River Health Framework
OVERALL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT LEVEL: Inform and Consult
KEY STAKEHOLDERS: Visitors to river corridor, recreationists, environmental
interests, water users, water providers, river scientists/CSU, internal city departments and
staff, board and commission members, City Council and City leadership.
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: What are your thoughts on the City’s River Health
Framework and the recommended ranges for river health?
TIMELINE:
April 6 through 17- Presentations to Land Conservation and Stewardship Board,
Natural Resources Advisory Board.
May 12- City Council meeting
May 21- Open House
June 1 - draft report and recommendations completed
Key Messages:
Several plans and policies direct the City towards a “healthy and resilient river.”
But what is that? The River Health Framework articulates what a “healthy river”
means and informs efforts to support and sustain the river.
The framework is a science-based tool that will be used by City staff to guide and
evaluate river-related initiatives, both internal and external to the City
organization.
The River Health Framework is under development by a collaborative,
interdisciplinary City team.
Please share your thoughts on the framework and the ranges for river health.
Tools and Techniques:
Early April- Prepare materials
April 6 through 17- Board presentations
Early May- List Open House on electronic calendars
Early May- Project website with comment form, live
May 5- Natural Areas Enews article invitation to Open House
May 5- Press release invitation to Open House
May 5- Email invitations to Natural Areas’ and Utilities’ stakeholder lists
May 5- Trailhead kiosk poster inviting to Open House posted
May 12 and May 18-20- Social media invitations to Open House
May 12- City Council meeting
May 21- Open House
1
May 12 City Council Work Session
Donnie Dustin – Water Resources Manager
John Stokes – Natural Areas Director
Jennifer Shanahan – Environmental Planner
2
Northern Integrated Supply Project
(NISP) Review Process
2004: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD) and project participants apply for a 404 permit
2008: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
2015: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(SDEIS) expected to be published on June 19
3
NISP: How it works
• Project for ~15 participants in NCWCD
• Proposed annual yield of ~40,000 acre-feet/year
• Two main components (preferred alternative)
– Glade Reservoir (170,000 acre-feet)
• Poudre River water rights
– Galeton Reservoir (45,000 acre-feet)
• South Platte River water rights exchanged
into Glade Reservoir
44
55
6
7
Diversions
into Glade
Releases
from Glade
~1,000 cfs
max. rate
8
Flow
reductions
• 32% to 71% reduction
in high flow months
• Central Fort Collins
• Impacts will be
described in SDEIS
• Mitigation strategies
will likely be described
9
Purpose and Scope of 2008 Review
• To understand the impacts from the proposed action
• To determine if the impacts were properly analyzed
and disclosed
• Scope limited to the proposed action and its impacts
to City of Fort Collins interests
10
2008 Comment Themes
• Impacts to City likely to be substantial
• Source Water Impacts – Water Quality
• Wastewater Impacts - Treatment
• Environmental and other impacts
• Significantly alter extent and
character of vegetation/wildlife
• Potential for increased flood risk
11
What’s Next?
• Expected publication of SDEIS on June 19
• Likely 45 to 60 days for public review/comment
• Staff and consultant team to review and prepare
comments
• Council will review comments and release to Corps
12
River Health
Assessment Framework
13
Around the World
14
Vision:
Healthy and Resilient River
Watershed Services and
Related City Objectives
River Health Assessment
Framework
Monitor - State of the River
15
Watershed Services
Stormwater
River Ecology
Clean Water Reliable Water
Supply
Recreation,
Health &
Wellness
A resilient system provides five watershed services essential to our community.
Our Common Purpose: Watershed Services
16
Vision:
Healthy and Resilient River
Watershed Services and
Related City Objectives
River Health Assessment
Framework
Monitor - State of the River
River Health Assessment
Framework
17
River Health
Indicators
Physical
Chemical Biological
18
Grading Guidelines for Indicators
Recommended Ranges
A Reference* No management needed
B Highly functioning May need some management
C Functioning Management likely required
D Functionally Impaired Extensive, active management
F Non-Functioning Biologically unsuitable
19
Outreach- Timeline
April
• Natural Resource Advisory Board
• Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
• Water Board
May
• City Council
• Report drafted, internal review
• Public open house May 21
• Outreach to other organizations
June
• Complete report
20
Discussion