HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/12/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
May 12, 2015
6:00 PM
• CALL TO ORDER.
1. Social Host and Minor in Possession Offenses. (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Jeremy Yonce; 15 minute
staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider whether to move forward with draft ordinances intended to: 1)
prohibit the promotion or facilitation of possession or consumption of alcohol or marijuana by persons
under the age of twenty-one (21) by holding accountable "hosts" who are present and have control of
the access or use of premises, and 2) prohibit a person less than twenty-one (21) years of age from
possessing or consuming alcohol.
2. Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update. (staff: Donnie Dustin, Adam Jokerst, Carol Webb;
15 minute staff presentation; 60 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to update the City Council on the Utilities water supply reliability and
storage projects. The Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”) guides the City of
Fort Collins Utilities in planning supplies for the water service area. Staff will present the Utilities
current water supplies and demands, key Policy elements, future water service area needs and
provide an update on the Utilities storage projects including Rigden and Halligan Reservoirs.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Northern Integrated Supply Project and Poudre River Health Framework. (staff: John Stokes,
Donnie Dustin, and Jennifer Shanahan ; 15 minute staff presentation; 60 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review and discuss the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) and
Poudre River Health Assessment Framework (Framework).
• OTHER BUSINESS.
• ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
May 12, 2015
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services Dir
Jeremy Yonce, Police Lieutenant
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Social Host and Minor in Possession Offenses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider whether to move forward with draft ordinances intended to: 1) prohibit the
promotion or facilitation of possession or consumption of alcohol or marijuana by persons under the age of
twenty-one (21) by holding accountable "hosts" who are present and have control of the access or use of
premises, and 2) prohibit a person less than twenty-one (21) years of age from possessing or consuming alcohol.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Should staff develop a public engagement plan to consider Social Host (SHO)?
2. Should staff develop a public engagement plan to consider underage possession or consumption of
alcohol?
3. What time frame is appropriate for public review and comment?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
There is not a standard SHO used by all communities. Staff researched numerous communities, and found a
variety of approaches employed, some criminal and some civil in nature. The level of knowledge or active
participation by the “host” or owner varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Additionally, some ordinances
combined the concepts of a social host with large social gatherings and unreasonable noise.
Fort Collins currently has provisions addressing both nuisance gatherings and unreasonable noise. The nuisance
gathering provision in the City Code is primarily designed to deter large social gatherings, rather than specifically
focusing on situations involving underage drinking and/or marijuana use. This Code provision only holds property
owners and hosts of a nuisance gathering criminally liable if such persons sponsor, conduct, host, or knowingly
permit a nuisance gathering. The unreasonable noise provision is similarly designed to deter large social
gatherings, and also to prevent disruptive noise, rather than preventing underage drinking.
Team Fort Collins (TFC) advocates enacting a SHO in Fort Collins and requested that Council consider enacting
such an Ordinance. TFC has been providing alcohol and drug prevention services to the Fort Collins community
since 1989. TFC is dedicated to promoting healthy lifestyles through the prevention of substance abuse and
believes that enacting a SHO will be a step in that direction for Fort Collins. TFC has begun to distribute materials
and provide community education as to the need for such an ordinance. Their goal is to reduce underage
drinking and marijuana use. Both Police and Neighborhood Services staff have met with TFC and Colorado State
University (CSU) leaders and discussed the potential for implementing such an Ordinance.
Proponents of the SHO seek to hold property owners, occupants, and tenants or others having possessory
control of any premises where a person under the age of twenty-one (21) obtains, possesses or consumes an
alcoholic beverage or marijuana strictly liable. Strict liability means absolute legal responsibility without proof of
intent, knowledge, carelessness or fault. This would be in the form of a civil infraction violation rather than a
criminal violation.
May 12, 2015 Page 2
Communities have found that criminal laws designed to target those that provide liquor to underage drinkers are
hard to prove and therefore difficult to enforce. A host will usually claim that they had no actual knowledge of
underage drinking; relieving him or her of legal accountability even though they were aware that underage
consumption was likely occurring. Unless it can be shown that they personally provided alcohol to an underage
drinker, it is hard to enforce. Fort Collins faces a similar challenge with the use of the state charge of “Contributing
to the Delinquency of a Minor”.
Many communities also include the homeowners or landlords for potential enforcement of the SHO. The idea is
that a homeowner (possibly a parent) who knowingly allows underage consumption to occur at his/her home,
even if not present, should have some accountability for such a decision. A parent might decide to allow his or her
underage child to drink in his or her home, but shouldn’t be able to make that decision for other parents.
Conversely, a landlord that is made aware that such parties are occurring at a rental property, who takes no
action to impact such parties, could be held responsible in some fashion. Some communities only take action
against property owners after sufficient notice and education has been provided and the property owners failed to
act or continued to allow such gatherings to occur.
The proposed draft SHO (Attachment #1) holds “hosts” who are present and have control and access or use of
premises, but only to the extent they are in use for private events or private uses (i.e. a park shelter in use for a
private gathering or a reception hall at the Lincoln Center in use for a private wedding party) where underage
drinking is occurring accountable. Such hosts are accountable, regardless of whether other issues, such as noise
or other party-related impacts are present. A violation of the SHO is a civil infraction with the potential of turning
into a criminal offense upon a third violation of the SHO within a twelve month period.
It is also important to note that the current provision in the City Code regarding public nuisance would apply to the
owner or landlord of the property upon which the social host ordinance was violated if there were two or more
violations within a six month period or five or more separate violations within a twenty-four-month period.
Those expressing concern about a social host ordinance believe Fort Collins already has a number of existing
laws and ordinances addressing house parties and underage drinking and marijuana use: Unreasonable Noise,
Nuisance Gatherings, Disorderly Conduct, Open Container/Consumption, etc. The data related to its
effectiveness is limited and mixed, with findings showing no association with a SHO and where and how much
underage consumption occurs. Additionally, many SHO’s around the country were adopted to curtail parents
hosting parties for high school students and friends. Opponents believe a SHO overreaches bounds of
responsibility of owners, landlords, and property managers for the unknown actions of others, and therefore
questions the need for a SHO in relation to community needs and eventual impact.
The proposed draft Underage possession or consumption of alcohol Ordinance (Attachment #2) creates a
municipal ordinance violation, similar to the state statute violation, which prohibits a person less than twenty-one
years of age from possessing or consuming alcohol. A violation of such municipal ordinance is a criminal
misdemeanor that for a first offense can be removed from the person’s record.
The draft ordinances as described above may be less controversial due to many components of more
comprehensive SHO’s from other jurisdictions already in place in Fort Collins, and that landlord liability is already
in place through the Public Nuisance Ordinance. Additionally, the Underage possession or consumption
Ordinance would provide another enforcement method to further prevent underage drinking. As such, staff
prepared draft ordinances for Council’s consideration.
Next Steps:
A Staff project team was established to further evaluate the impacts and opportunities of enacting a SHO in Fort
Collins. Significant resistance to the strict liability provisions within the SHO has been experienced in other
communities; however, because of the Public Nuisance Ordinance that is already in place, there may not be as
great of a concern regarding these recommendations in Fort Collins. However, staff suggests a comprehensive
public engagement plan be resourced prior to consideration of any SHO.
May 12, 2015 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Strict Liability Parent to Minors Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
2. Minor in Possession of Alcohol Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
3. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
Pending/strict liability parent to minors ORD
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 17
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO PROHIBIT A SOCIAL HOST FOR
POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION OF ETHYL ALCOHOL OR MARIJUANA BY
PERSONS UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE
WHEREAS, persons under the age of twenty-one often obtain, possess or consume
alcoholic beverages and marijuana at private residences or other property under the control of a
person who knows or should know of such conduct; and
WHEREAS, underage consumption of both alcoholic beverages and marijuana poses an
immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that it leads to increased physical
altercations and an overall increase in rate of crime, which often requires intervention by local
law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently addresses, through the City’s unreasonable noise
and nuisance gathering provisions, large social gatherings that become noisy or unruly where
underage consumption of both alcohol and marijuana occurs, however, the Code does not have a
specific provision to address a person who acts as a social host at a private residence or other
property where underage possession or consumption of both alcohol and marijuana occurs; and
WHEREAS, the imposition of a strict liability standard on a person who is responsible
for allowing the underage possession or consumption of alcohol and marijuana to occur is
necessary to deter and prevent such happenings; and
WHEREAS, the prohibitions found in this Section are reasonable and expected to deter
underage persons from obtaining, possessing and consuming alcohol and marijuana by imposing
a civil fine and strict liability on responsible persons who are aware of, or should be aware of the
illegal conduct; and
WHEREAS, for these reasons, the City Council believes that these amendments to the
City Code are in the best interests of the citizens of Fort Collins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 17-161 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of two new definitions “Ethyl alcohol”, “Marijuana” and “Private
place” which read in their entirety as follows:
Ethyl alcohol shall mean any substance which is or contains ethyl alcohol and includes
fermented malt beverage, malt liquor, vinous liquor and spirituous liquor as defined in
the Colorado Beer Code and the Colorado Liquor Code.
LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
Pending/strict liability parent to minors ORD
Marijuana shall have the same definition as in Section 17-190 of this Code.
Private place shall mean a property, building or structure, owned, occupied or in use for
private purposes, including, but not limited to, a home, apartment, condominium, place of
business or employment, outdoor patio or yard, including any common areas or other
dwelling units, or a hall or meeting space or privately reserved area within a public
facility or property, whether occupied on a temporary or permanent basis, and whether
occupied as a dwelling, or for a social function or other use, and whether owned, leased,
rented or used with or without compensation. Private place does not include a liquor-
licensed establishment when in operation pursuant to said liquor license.
Section 2. That Article IX of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 17-167 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 17- 167. Social host for ethyl alcohol or marijuana possession or consumption
by persons under twenty-one years of age.
(a) A person shall be liable as a social host if:
(1) such person had control of the access to or use of a private place; and
(2) such person was present at such private place while the possession or
consumption of either ethyl alcohol or marijuana by an individual under twenty-
one (21) years of age occurred.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this Section is a strict liability offense.
(c) The prohibition set forth in subsection (a), of this Section does not apply to
situations in which:
(1) A person under twenty-one (21) years of age was legally at a private place
with the knowledge and consent of a person who had control of the access to or
use of such private place and possessed or consumed ethyl alcohol with the
consent of the individual’s parent or legal guardian who was present during such
possession or consumption;
(2) A person under twenty-one (21) years of age possessed or consumed
medical marijuana pursuant to Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado
Constitution, and possessed a valid registry identification card;
(3) A person who consumed ethyl alcohol was a student who tasted but did
not imbibe an alcohol beverage only while under the direct supervision of an
instructor. Such instructor must have been at least twenty-one (21) years of age
and employed by a post-secondary school. Such student shall have been enrolled
in a university or a post-secondary school accredited or certified by an agency
recognized by the United States department of education, or a nationally
recognized accrediting agency or association, or the "Private Occupational
LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
Pending/strict liability parent to minors ORD
Education Act of 1981", article 59 of title 12, C.R.S. Such student must have
participated in a culinary arts, food service, or restaurant management degree
program, and must have tasted but not imbibed the alcohol beverage for
instructional purposes as a part of a required course in which the alcohol
beverage, except the portion the student tasted, remained under the control of the
instructor;
(4) The possession or consumption took place for religious purposes protected
by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; or
(5) The possession or consumption took place during the course of a
supervised and bona fide investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency.
(d) Any person found liable for violating this Section commits a civil infraction and
is subject to penalty provisions of Subsection 1-15(f) of the Code.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of
___________, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of ______, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this ____ day of ________, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
Pending/minor in possession of alcohol ORD
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO
ESTABLISH AN OFFENSE FOR UNDERAGE POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION OF
ETHYL ALCOHOL
WHEREAS, Section 17-141 of the City Code prohibits all persons from carrying or
drinking liquor or fermented malt beverages in certain places; and
WHEREAS, the City Code does not currently have a provision related to underage
possession or consumption of alcohol; and
WHEREAS, incidents of illegal possession and consumption of alcohol by persons under
twenty-one years of age in the City have increased; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to deter such incidents by including a specific provision in
the City Code designed to apply to persons under twenty-one years of age who possess or
consume alcohol.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 17-141 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of two new definitions, “Ethyl alcohol” and “Possession of ethyl
alcohol” which read in their entirety as follows:
Ethyl alcohol shall mean any substance which is or contains ethyl alcohol and includes
fermented malt beverage, malt liquor, vinous liquor and spirituous liquor as defined in
the Colorado Beer Code and the Colorado Liquor Code.
Possession of ethyl alcohol shall mean that a person has or holds any amount of ethyl
alcohol anywhere on his or her person, or that a person owns or has custody of ethyl
alcohol, or has ethyl alcohol within his or her immediate presence and control.
Section 2. That Chapter 17 of Article IX of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 17-167 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 17-167. Underage possession or consumption of alcohol prohibited.
(a) No person under twenty-one (21) years of age may:
(1) Obtain or attempt to obtain any ethyl alcohol by misrepresentation of age
or by any other method in any place where ethyl alcohol is sold; or
LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
Pending/minor in possession of alcohol ORD
(2) Possess or consume any ethyl alcohol anywhere in the City.
(b) A violation of any provision of subsection (a) of the section shall be a strict
liability offense. It shall be an affirmative defense to the offenses described in subsection
(a)(1) and (a)(2) above that the ethyl alcohol was possessed or consumed by a person
under twenty-one (21) years of age under the following circumstances:
(1) The person was legally upon private property with the knowledge and
consent of the owner or legal possessor of such private property and the ethyl
alcohol was possessed or consumed with the consent of his or her parent or legal
guardian who was present during such possession or consumption;
(2) The existence of ethyl alcohol in a person's body was due solely to the
ingestion of a confectionery which contained ethyl alcohol within the limits
prescribed by section 25-5-410(1)(i)(II), C.R.S.; or the ingestion of any substance
which was manufactured, designed, or intended primarily for a purpose other than
oral human ingestion; or the ingestion of any substance which was manufactured,
designed, or intended solely for medicinal or hygienic purposes; or solely from
the ingestion of a beverage which contained less than one-half of one percent of
ethyl alcohol by weight;
(3) The person was a student who tasted but did not imbibe an alcohol
beverage only while under the direct supervision of an instructor. Such instructor
must have been at least twenty-one (21) years of age and employed by a post-
secondary school. Such student shall have been enrolled in a university or a post-
secondary school accredited or certified by an agency recognized by the United
States department of education, or a nationally recognized accrediting agency or
association, or the "Private Occupational Education Act of 1981", article 59 of
title 12, C.R.S. Such student must have participated in a culinary arts, food
service, or restaurant management degree program, and must have tasted but not
imbibed the alcohol beverage for instructional purposes as a part of a required
course in which the alcohol beverage, except the portion the student tasted,
remained under the control of the instructor;
(4) The possession or consumption takes place for religious purposes
protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; or
(5) The person is participating in a supervised and bona fide investigation
conducted by a law enforcement agency.
(c) An underage person shall be immune from criminal prosecution under this section
if he or she establishes the following:
(1) The underage person called 911 and reported in good faith that another
underage person was in need of medical assistance due to alcohol
consumption;
LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
Pending/minor in possession of alcohol ORD
(2) The underage person who called 911 provided his or her name to the 911
operator;
(3) The underage person was the first person to make the 911 report; and
(4) The underage person who made the 911 call remained on the scene with
the underage person in need of medical assistance until assistance arrived and
cooperated with medical assistance or law enforcement personnel on the scene.
(d) The testimony regarding the label of a bottle, can or other container will not
constitute hearsay.
(e) A label which identifies the contents of any bottle, can or other container as
“beer,” “ale,” “male beverage,” “fermented malt beverage,” “malt liquor,”
“wine,” champagne,” “whiskey,” “gin,” “vodka,” “tequila,” “schnapps,”
“brandy,” “cognac,” “liqueur,” “cordial,” “alcohol,” or “liquor” shall constitute
primae facie evidence that the contents of the bottle, can or other container was
composed in whole or part of ethyl alcohol.
(f) Evidence that the defendant was under the age of twenty-one (21) years, and
manifested any of the characteristics commonly associated with ethyl alcohol intoxication
or impairment while present anywhere in the City, shall be prima facie evidence of the
violation of subsection (a) (2).
(g) The Municipal Court shall report violations of this Section and the failure to
complete an alcohol education program to the Colorado Department of Revenue pursuant
to C.R.S., 42-2-131.
(h) Upon dismissal of a case after a completion of a deferred judgment or diversion or
any other action resulting in dismissal of the case or upon completion of the court-
ordered substance abuse education and payment of any fine for a first conviction of this
Section, the Municipal Court shall immediately order the case sealed and provide to the
underage person and the prosecutor a copy of the order sealing the case for distribution
by the appropriate party to all law enforcement agencies.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of
___________, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of ______, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
Pending/minor in possession of alcohol ORD
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this ____ day of ________, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
5-24-15
Social Host and
Underage Consumption-
Possession Ordinances
City Council Work Session
April 28, 2015
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director
General Direction Sought
1. Does City Council direct staff to develop a public
engagement plan to the consider a Social Host
Ordinance (SHO)?
2. Does City Council direct staff to develop a public
engagement plan to consider underage possession or
consumption of alcohol?
3. What time frame is appropriate for public review and
comment?
2
3
Social Host Ordinance
• Intended to Prevent
Underage Drinking
• Holds owner and/or
“host” responsible
• “Mirrors” local
Public Nuisance
Ordinance notice
requirements
Public Nuisance Ordinance
1. Currently in place to address primarily:
• Nuisance gatherings
• Unreasonable noise
2. Holds property owners liable:
• Knowingly permit
• Civil penalty after notices of violations
4
Underage possession –
consumption Ordinance
• Creates Local
Ordinance
• Prohibits a person
less than 21 from
possession or
consuming alcohol
• “Mirrors” State law by
sealing record on first
offense
5
6
Community Concerns
• Team Fort Collins
• Colorado State
University
• Property Owners;
including parents
General Direction Sought
1. Does City Council direct staff to develop a public
engagement plan to the consider a Social Host
Ordinance (SHO)?
2. Does City Council direct staff to develop a public
engagement plan to consider underage possession or
consumption of alcohol?
3. What time frame is appropriate for public review and
comment?
7
DATE:
STAFF:
May 12, 2015
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the City Council on the Utilities water supply reliability and storage projects.
The Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”) guides the City of Fort Collins Utilities in planning
supplies for the water service area. Staff will present the Utilities current water supplies and demands, key Policy
elements, future water service area needs and provide an update on the Utilities storage projects including
Rigden and Halligan Reservoirs.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The Agenda Item Summary and presentation provide an update on the water supply reliability of the City of Fort
Collins Utilities water service area, including an update on the Rigden Reservoir and Halligan Reservoir
Enlargement projects. What questions does Council have regarding the Utilities water supply reliability and
storage projects?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Water Supplies and Demands
The City of Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. As the City
continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, more of the water needs will be met by surrounding water
districts (mostly the East Larimer County and Fort Collins-Loveland Water Districts). All discussion relative to
water supply reliability and storage in this document is only for the Utilities water service area (Attachment 1).
The Utilities main sources of water supply come from the Poudre River and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(“CBT”). On average, Utilities annually uses about an equal amount from these two sources. The Poudre River
supplies, which include senior direct flow rights, converted agricultural rights and the Michigan Ditch and Joe
Wright Reservoir system, are delivered to the Water Treatment Plant through two pipelines that divert off the
Poudre River. Joe Wright Reservoir, which has an active capacity of about 6,500 acre-feet, is the only storage
reservoir that is fully owned and operated by Utilities. Utilities owns units in the CBT project, which is administered
by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (commonly known as “Northern Water”). These CBT units
are delivered to Utilities out of Horsetooth Reservoir, which is not owned or operated by Utilities. Northern Water
is directed by a Board of Directors that establish policy and strategic direction which is independent from the
Utilities. These policies limit the Utilities’ ability to store excess water in Horsetooth Reservoir for use in later years
(also known as carry over). More information on the CBT System is included (Attachment 2).
The Utilities currently delivers about 25,000 acre-feet per year of treated water to its customers and around 4,000
acre-feet per year of raw water for irrigation of City parks, golf course, etc. through various ditches that run
through the City. Per capita treated water demands, which are measured in gallons per capita per day (“gpcd”)
and exclude large contractual use (such as breweries and certain manufacturing companies), have declined
significantly over the last few decades. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, treated water demands were about 200
gpcd. Following the drought of the early 2000s, such demands have averaged around 150 gcd – which is about a
25 percent reduction in per capita water use.
May 12, 2015 Page 2
The current water supplies for the Utilities are adequate in most years. However, these snowpack driven water
supplies can vary significantly from year to year. Water supply system modeling is maintained to assess how
much demand can be met through certain droughts with the Utilities water supplies, also known as the firm yield
of the system. Currently, the firm yield of the Utilities water supplies is about 31,000 acre-feet per year through a
1-in-50 year drought. Utilities must plan for projected future increases in demand that will exceed the existing firm
yield.
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”)
The Policy (Attachment 4), which was updated and approved by City Council in 2012, provides guidance in
balancing water supplies and demands to help meet future needs. The Policy objective is to ensure an adequate,
safe and reliable supply of water while managing the level of demand for a valuable resource. Key policy
elements around water supply reliability are: 1) continuing the 1-in-50 year drought criterion, 2) maintaining a
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, 3) having a storage reserve for emergency situations equal to 20% of
annual demands and 4) planning for a demand level (150 gpcd) that is higher than the water conservation goal
(currently 140 gpcd). These criteria provide a water supply planning approach that address uncertainties such as
climate change, river administration changes, system outages, competing water rights, etc. A key concern for
Utilities is that its water supplies are highly reliant on CBT project storage. Utilities has very little storage for its
Poudre River water supplies, which restricts its ability to effectively manage these supplies and to meet demands
if the CBT supplies were ever unavailable.
Future Water Supply Needs
The amount of future water supplies needed for the Utilities water service area depends on population and
commercial growth. Utilities currently serves about 133,000 treated water customers. Given changes over time in
demand levels, population projections and other factors, a recent update to the Utilities future projected need has
been conducted. The water service area population is projected to grow to about 178,000 by the year 2065. In
addition, large contractual water use is expected to increase in the future. The Utilities total projected treated
water demand is expected to be about 38,400 acre-feet per year by the year 2065, which is about 7,400 acre-
feet/year greater than the existing firm yield of about 31,000 acre-feet per year.
Additional water supplies for meeting future projected demands will be acquired through the Utilities’ Raw Water
Requirements (“RWR”), which requires developments to provide either water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights
to support that development’s water needs. A main focus for the Utilities is to develop additional storage capacity,
which will allow management of the water rights portfolio that Utilities already has acquired. Operational storage
(e.g., gravel pit storage) is a critical need in order to fully utilize the Utilities’ existing water rights by meeting legal
return flow obligations. In addition, carryover and vulnerability protection storage (e.g., Halligan Reservoir
Enlargement) will allow Utilities to meet the future projected demands and provide a storage reserve for
emergency water shortage scenarios (e.g., CBT outage).
Storage Projects
Rigden Reservoir
Located near Horsetooth Road and the Poudre River, Rigden Reservoir will provide the critically needed
operational storage for Utilities. The project will provide about 1,900 acre-feet of storage, 1,700 acre-feet for
Utilities and 200 acre-feet for the City’s Natural Areas Department (which also has water storage needs). The
reservoir will be gravity filled via two existing, adjacent ditches. Outflows from the reservoir will be pumped to the
Poudre River via an adjacent storm water channel. In addition to meeting return flow obligations, the reservoir will
be able to capture and manage the Utilities reusable effluent from the Drake Water Reclamation Facility. Although
the reservoir will not be accessible for recreation, the land around the reservoir will become a City Natural Area
and trails will be constructed around it. In addition to building the reservoir, reclamation work was performed on
two adjacent gravel pits owned by Natural Areas, and a future park site will be located west of the reservoir. The
project will be operational in early June 2015 and has cost approximately $14 Million (of which Utilities portion is
about $11.5 Million).
May 12, 2015 Page 3
Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
The enlargement of Halligan Reservoir is a project Utilities has been pursuing for many years to provide carryover
and vulnerability protection storage. Halligan is an existing reservoir on the North Fork of the Poudre River. The
existing capacity of about 6,400 acre-feet is operated by the North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”). Enlarging
the reservoir by 8,125 acre-feet (to a total size of 14,525 acre-feet) would meet the Utilities future demands and
provide a storage reserve for emergencies. This size represents a substantial reduction from previous plans to
enlarge the reservoir to 40,000 acre-feet, which are the result of reduced Utilities needs and withdrawn project
partners.
Utilities believes there are several reasons for enlarging Halligan Reservoir over other potential alternatives.
Halligan is an existing reservoir that already has impacts on the river (compared to a new reservoir) and is a
gravity fed and released system (no pumping is required). Utilities plans to operate the enlarged Halligan
Reservoir in a way that will improve flows in the North Fork of the Poudre River, particularly during low winter
flows. The Halligan Enlargement project has been considered an “Acceptable Planned Project” by the Western
Resource Advocates1. However, there may be certain adverse impacts to enlarging Halligan, including altered
flow and sediment regimes and potential loss of wetlands, stream channel and wildlife habitat. The current federal
permitting process will identify and address environmental consequences of the project and impacts will be
avoided or mitigated.
The Halligan Enlargement project has included several City Council approvals in the last few decades. These
steps have included acquiring interest in the enlargement (Resolution (19)87-161), entering an option agreement
with NPIC to purchase the reservoir and ability to enlarge (Resolution (19)93-164), and approved authority to
exercise the NPIC option agreement, enter agreements with other Halligan participants and proceed with required
permitting (Resolution 2003-121). In addition, the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy has been
updated twice (in 2003 and 2012) to affirm the need to pursue the Halligan Enlargement project.
Utilities officially entered the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process in 2006 with the lead
agency being the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”). The permitting process has many steps, but
essentially includes determining the Utilities’ purpose and need for the proposed project (Halligan enlargement),
considering alternatives to the proposed project (including what would happen if no permit were issued, known as
the No Action Alternative), and providing detailed environmental analysis of all alternatives. The Corps must
permit the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to meet the Utilities’ needs. The
LEDPA may not be the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. All this work is compiled in an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), which will be published for public review and comment.
Although the Utilities purpose and need was identified early in the permitting process, it has recently undergone a
review given the length of the permitting process and changes that have occurred in this time. As described
above, the Utilities future water demands (and thus amount of storage required) depend on growth projections, as
well as modeling criteria (e.g., storage reserve factor). Since 2006, the growth projections have changed with a
general decrease in water use per capita, countered by an increase in projected future population. The Corps
independently reviewed the Utilities’ growth projections and future water needs and determined that the amount of
storage required at Halligan does not require adjustments.
In addition to updating the purpose and need, the Corps is currently focusing on the preliminary alternatives to the
Halligan Enlargement project. The Corps determined the alternatives being studied, which are: 1) construction of
gravel pit storage paired with Joe Wright Reservoir reoperations; 2) acquisition of existing agricultural reservoirs
north and east of the City; and 3) expansion of Glade Reservoir. It should be noted that each of these ‘action’
alternatives would require pumping and associated greenhouse gas production, which is not the case at Halligan
Reservoir. In addition to the action alternatives, the Corps and Utilities are working on defining the No Action
Alternative, which will describe what actions would be taken should the Corps not issue a permit to construct the
Halligan Reservoir enlargement or its alternatives. Currently, the No Action Alternative would likely involve
acquiring additional water rights (over what is currently projected to be obtained through RWR), exploring Joe
1 Western Resource Advocates (2011). Filling the Gap, Commonsense Solutions for Meeting Front Range Water Needs.
Available at: http://westernresourceadvocates.org/water/fillingthegap/FillingTheGap.pdf
May 12, 2015 Page 4
Wright Reservoir reoperations and describing the effects of not meeting the purpose and need (e.g., more
frequent and severe mandatory water restrictions).
The current projected schedule for the Halligan Enlargement project is for the Draft EIS to be released in the
summer of 2016. Once released, the Draft EIS will be available for public review and input. The Corps would
address any public comments in the production of a Final EIS prior to the Record of Decision (“ROD”), which is
expected in 2018. Between the draft and final EIS, Utilities will also work on other, separate permitting
requirements. Upon receiving the ROD, Utilities would work on final design of the project and is projected to start
construction in 2019, with completion around 2021.
The projected cost of enlarging Halligan Reservoir have recently been updated with more refined estimates of
rebuilding at the existing dam location. The total cost (past and future) is approximately $46 Million, which
includes acquisition (about $6 Million), permitting and mitigation (about $14 Million), and engineering and
construction (about $26 Million). Expenses through the second quarter of 2015 have been about $11.3 Million,
with Utilities share being about $6.8 Million. The total estimated cost to Utilities (both past and future) would be
approximately $41.5 Million, leaving about $35 Million in additional funds needed to complete the project.
Although these costs have increased over time, the costs continue to be reasonable compared to other water
supplies. The updated cost per acre-foot of additional firm yield for Utilities is around $5,600, which compares with
about $50,000 per acre-foot of firm yield for CBT supplies. It should be noted the preliminary costs of some of the
alternatives to enlarging Halligan Reservoir could be substantially more (up to four times the cost).
Revenues from RWR cash-in-lieu payments and raw water surcharges from commercial customers that use over
their annual water allotment accrue into the Utilities’ Water Rights Reserve Fund (“Fund”), which is used to
develop the Utilities water supplies. This Fund was used for acquiring Rigden Reservoir. The Fund has been and
will continue to be used to fund the Halligan Enlargement project. The Fund currently has around $17 million, or
about $18 million less than the remaining projected Halligan costs. However, expected growth and related RWR
should provide adequate funds for the project. As mentioned above, the alternatives to enlarging Halligan
Reservoir could cost significantly more and would likely require significant increases in RWR cash-in-lieu rates.
There have been a few events related to Halligan in the last couple of years. In December 2013, diligence for
maintaining a 1985 junior storage water right at Halligan was not filed that resulted in cancellation of that water
right. A new (2013) junior storage water right at Halligan was filed, which is currently in the water court
administrative process. The Utilities has other, more senior water rights to store in the Halligan enlargement that
result in the size of Halligan not changing in order to meet the Utilities’ needs. The outcome of the loss of the
1985 water right will not be clear until completion of the water court and permitting processes. In February 2014,
NPIC withdrew as a participant in the Halligan Enlargement project citing increased permitting costs and exploring
other alternatives. With NPIC in the project, a new dam would have needed to be constructed about 1,000 feet
downstream of the existing Halligan Reservoir dam. As a result of their exit, the existing dam can be
reconstructed at its existing location (which could be no larger than about 15,000 acre-feet total), which is less
costly to Utilities. In January 2015, Utilities mutually separated from the City of Greeley in a joint permitting
process for their proposed enlargement of Seaman Reservoir citing diverging timelines in completing the EIS
process. Utilities will continue to work with Greeley on modeling issues and cost sharing for certain shared
reports.
Next Steps
Quarterly reports on the Halligan Enlargement project will continue to be provided to City Council. Utilities staff will
continue working with the Corps on developing the Draft EIS, which is expected to be released in the summer of
2016. Staff will consider outreach to City Council and the public for the release of the Draft EIS.
May 12, 2015 Page 5
Summary
The Policy provides Utilities guidance for balancing water supplies and demands that help for planning our water
future. Acquiring additional storage capacity continues to be a key Utilities need. The permitting process for the
Halligan Reservoir Enlargement project should result in this needed storage. Utilities advocates for water
conservation coupled with storage for a sustainable water future.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map (PDF)
2. Northern Water and Colorado Big Thompson Information (PDF)
3. Northern Water Boundaries and Facilities Map (PDF)
4. Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (PDF)
5. Glossary of Water Resources Terms (PDF)
6. Sustainability Assessment for Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update 5-12-2015 (PDF)
7. PowerPoint (PPT)
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
1
1
Northern Water and Colorado-Big Thompson Project Information
This information was collected from the Northern Water website (http://www.northernwater.org/).
Northern Water
Northern Water is a public agency created in 1937 to contract with the federal government to
build the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (“C-BT”). The C-BT provides supplemental water to
more than 640,000 acres of irrigated farm and ranch land and about 880,000 people in
Northeastern Colorado.
Northern Water and the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation jointly operate and maintain the C-BT,
which collects water on the West Slope and delivers it through a 13-mile tunnel beneath Rocky
Mountain National Park to portions of eight Northeastern Colorado counties. In addition to
operating and maintaining the C-BT, Northern Water collects, distributes and monitors weather
and water quality data, tracks streamflows and reservoir levels, and provides water resource
planning and water conservation information.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project
The Colorado-Big Thompson Project collects and delivers on average more than 200,000 acre
feet of water each year. Most of this water is the result of melting snow in the upper Colorado
River basin west of the Continental Divide. The project transports the water to the East Slope
via a 13.1-mile tunnel beneath Rocky Mountain National Park. C-BT water flows to more than
640,000 acres of irrigated farm and ranch land and 860,000 people in portions of eight counties
within Northern Water boundaries.
The C-BT Project consists of:
12 reservoirs
35 miles of tunnels
95 miles of canals
Seven hydroelectric power plants
700 miles of transmission lines
Board of Directors
The 12-member Northern Water and Municipal Subdistrict boards establish policy and strategic
direction. Directors from the eight counties within Northern Water boundaries are appointed to
4-year terms by District Court judges. The boards hold monthly meetings and planning and
action sessions at Northern Water’s Berthoud headquarters. The meetings are open to the
public.
B
o
x
e
l
d
e
r
Cr
e
e
k
L
o
n
e
T
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
C
r
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
W
i
l
d
c
a
t
C
r
e
e
k
P
a
w
ne
e
C
r
e
e
k
Ced
a
r
C
1 of 11
ATTACHMENT 4
2 of 11
1
City of Fort Collins
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
The City of Fort Collins’ Water Supply and Demand Management Policy provides a
foundational framework for water supply and demand management decisions concerning the
City’s water supply system. Operational and management actions and decisions by the Water
Utility will be consistent with the provisions of this policy.
Objective
To provide a sustainable and integrated approach to 1) ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable
supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community and 2) managing the level
of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource consistent with the preferences
of Water Utility customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.
This objective aligns with the 2010 Plan Fort Collins that provides a comprehensive 25-year
vision for the future development of Fort Collins. Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states,
“Abide by Water Supply and Demand Management Policy: Provide for an integrated approach to
providing a reliable water supply to meet the beneficial needs of customers and the community
while promoting the efficient and wise use of water.”
This Water Supply and Demand Management Policy calls for a “sustainable and integrated
approach” to water demand and water resources management. Sustainability is defined within
the context of the triple-bottom-line decision making in Plan Fort Collins as, “To systematically,
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.” Aligning with Plan Fort Collins, the Water Utility will take a leadership role by
incorporating the triple-bottom-line in its management of water supply and demand. When this
core value is applied to the use and development of our valuable water resources, the Utility will
strive to:
Avoid, minimize or offset impacts to our environment
Consider the social benefits and impacts of having a reliable and high quality water supply
Analyze the economic cost to provide such supplies, while also considering the effects it has
to our local and regional economies
The Utility will continue to provide a culture of innovation that finds proactive and creative
solutions in managing its water supplies and demands, which is a dynamic process that evolves
along with changes in data management and technology, legal and political environments,
economic development and water innovation, and as the State’s population continues to increase.
Given these factors, it is important to maintain an up-to-date effective policy that is based on
current data. The policy’s terms and conditions should be reviewed and updated by 2020, or
sooner if desired by the City Council or the Utilities Executive Director.
3 of 11
2
1.0 WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The City views its water use efficiency program as an important proactive response to supply
variability and climate change. Elements of the City’s conservation program include reducing
indoor demand through improved technology, leak reduction and behavior change and reducing
outdoor demand through improved irrigation efficiency and reasonable changes in landscaping.
The City believes water use efficiency is of vital importance for many reasons, including to:
Foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste
Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability
Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes
Reduce the need for capital expansion projects and certain operational costs
Encourage and promote innovation in water demand management
Prepare for potential impacts of climate change
1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use
The City’s 2009 Water Conservation Plan1 established a goal of reducing the City’s treated water
use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)2 by the year 20203. The City will utilize water use
efficiency measures and programs with the aim of reducing its water use to an average of 140
gpcd, subject to 1) continuing study of the water requirements of the City’s urban landscaping, 2)
impacts on water demand due to changes in land use policies, building codes and housing trends,
3) additional studies on climate change, and 4) changes in the water use goal as may be adjusted
by any subsequent water conservation plans. This water use goal is subject to change as
discussed above and is intended as a goal that can be met while sustaining reasonable indoor and
outdoor values of the City.
The per capita peak daily demand4 will be reduced or maintained to be no more than 350 gpcd by
the year 2020, but may be adjusted by any subsequent water conservation plans.
1.2 Water Use Efficiency Program
Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Conservation measures should be implemented in
accordance with the Water Conservation Plan and periodically adjusted to reflect new and
effective conservation measures.” The City will optimize water use efficiency through the
programs and measures specified in its Water Conservation Plan. These programs and measures
include educational programs, incentive programs, regulatory measures and operational
1 State guidelines are changing the terminology of Water Conservation Plans to Water Use Efficiency Plans, and
likewise conservation is being changed to water use efficiency. For purposes of this policy, water use efficiency is
referred to as water conservation; however, the terminology may be used interchangeably.
2 Gallon per capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment
Facility for use by Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange
arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area.
3 This goal represents an 8.5% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ 2006-2010 average daily water use
of 153 gpcd. It represents a 29% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ pre-drought (1992-2001) average
daily water use of 197 gpcd.
4 The peak daily demand is 2.5 times the average daily use water conservation goal and is based on historic ratios of
average to peak daily use.
4 of 11
3
measures. Specific measures and programs are outlined in the Water Conservation Plan.
The overall effectiveness of these measures and programs will be evaluated on a regular basis
and if necessary, modifications will be made to increase effectiveness or to modify the City’s
water use goal. An annual water conservation report will be prepared to describe the status and
results of the various measures and programs. The Water Conservation Plan will be updated at a
minimum of every seven years, as currently required by the State of Colorado.
1.3 Water Rate Structures
The City will have stable water rate structures with transparent accountability for all classes of
customers. The water rate structures will provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently
while also providing sufficient revenue for operational and maintenance purposes. Examples of
structures that may be utilized include 1) tiered rates with increasing prices as water use
increases, 2) seasonal blocks with higher rates during the irrigation season, and 3) water budget
approaches based on appropriate targets for individual customers.
The City will annually review the effectiveness of its water rate structures as part of its financial
analyses regarding Water Utility revenue, expenses and rates. Specific studies or changes to the
rate structure may be made upon identification of the need to revise it. Any changes to the rate
structure will require City Council approval.
1.4 Population Growth
Population growth is an important factor in determining the City’s water supply needs, since
increases in population generally increase the need for additional supplies. Population growth
projections and associated water demand are mostly a function of land use planning,
development densities, annexation and other growth related issues that can be affected by City
Council decisions. The Water Utility will continue to work closely with the Current Planning
Department, which provides population projections that may be effected by changes in City
policies related to growth.
2.0 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
The City needs to meet future water demands in an efficient and reliable manner. Policy ENV
21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Water supply reliability criteria will take into consideration
potential effects of climate change and other vulnerabilities. Water supplies and related facilities
shall be acquired or developed after careful consideration of social, economic and environmental
factors.” One of the Water Utility’s primary objectives is to provide an adequate and reliable
supply of water to its customers and other water users. Key principles that need to be considered
when addressing water supply for municipal use include:
Providing water supply system reliability and flexibility
Considering a broad portfolio of resources that do not overly depend on any one source
Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances
Maintaining water supply infrastructure and system security
Being a steward of the City’s water resources, which includes watershed management
Collaboration with the City’s regional water providers and users
5 of 11
4
Maintaining awareness of state, national and worldwide trends and adapting as needed to
meet our customer needs
Promoting education, awareness and a culture of innovation among the Water Utility and
others to enable creative responses to future water supply uncertainties
2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria
An integral component of the City’s water supply planning efforts is to maintain computer
models that estimate the yield of its existing and future water supplies. The following water
supply planning criteria are key parameters used in these models that provide a foundation for
planning future supplies.
2.1.1 Planning Demand Level
The reliability of the City’s water supply should be maintained to meet an average per capita
demand level of 150 gpcd5,6. This planning level provides a value that is higher than the water
use goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning.
It is important to have a planning number that can be used for development of long-range water
supply facilities. Because water supply system infrastructure may take many years to permit and
construct, it is desirable to use conservative assumptions to size facilities that may be needed for
the long-term. A planning demand level should be larger than the water use goal, primarily
because of the uncertainties related to projected water demands, yields from specific water
rights, climate change and other unanticipated effects.
2.1.2 Drought Criterion
The reliability and capacity of the City’s water supply system should be maintained to meet the
planning level demand during at least a l-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre River
Basin. Water rights should be acquired and facilities (including storage capacity) should be
planned and constructed sufficiently ahead of the time to maintain the 1-in-50 year drought
criterion, considering the time required to obtain water court decrees and permit and construct
diversion, conveyance and/or storage facilities. In using this criterion, the City seeks to provide a
balance among water supply reliability, the financial investment necessary to secure such
reliability and the environmental impacts associated with water storage and diversions.
2.1.3 Storage Reserve Factor
The City’s water supply planning criteria will include a storage reserve factor that equates to
20% of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought7,8. This factor provides an
5 The 150 gpcd value is based upon the normalized 2006-2011 average daily use.
6 The average per capita demand planning level is used for facility planning purposes. Gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment Facility for use by Water
Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by the
estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area. This number is multiplied by population projections
developed by the City’s Planning Department to calculate future water demands.
7 For the Water Utility, 20% of annual demand is equivalent to around 3.7 months of average winter demand and
about 1.5 months of average July demand.
6 of 11
5
additional layer of protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other
reliability criteria, including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed
a 1-in-50 year drought.
2.2 Climate Change
Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the City’s supplies and/or the amount
of water required to maintain existing landscapes9; however, there is a great deal of uncertainty
related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on
municipal demands and water supply systems. The City’s planning criteria and assumptions are
conservative in part to account for climate change based on the information to date. The City will
continue to monitor climate change information and, if necessary, will revise its water supply
planning criteria and assumptions to ensure future water supply reliability.
2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
The City will maintain a plan for responding to situations where there are projected water supply
shortages, either because of severe drought conditions (i.e., greater than a 1-in-50 year drought)
or because of disruptions in the raw water delivery system. When needed, the Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan will be activated based on the projected water supply shortage.
This plan will include measures to temporarily reduce water use through media campaigns,
regulations, restrictions, rate adjustments and other measures. The plan may also include
provisions to temporarily supplement the supply through interruptible water supply contracts,
leases, exchanges and operational measures. Reducing the City’s water use during supply short
situations may lessen adverse impacts to irrigated agriculture and flows in the Poudre River. The
plan will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, updated to reflect changes in the City’s
water use and its water supply system.
2.4 Additional Supplies and Facilities
In order to meet projected growth within the Water Utility’s service area, as well as maintain
system reliability and operational flexibility, the City will need to increase the firm yield of its
current water supply system. The following policy elements address ways of meeting these
needs.
8 In meeting this factor, it is assumed that the City cannot rely on the existing Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(CBT) carryover program. This program currently allows each CBT unit holder to carry over up to 20% of its CBT
unit ownership in CBT reservoirs for use in the following year. However, this program has varied over the years and
there is no guarantee that it will be continued in the future.
9 Current research indicates that changes in precipitation in this area are uncertain but that temperatures will increase
and therefore it is likely that runoff will come earlier and in a shorter amount of time, precipitation may more often
come as rain, and higher temperatures will increase outdoor demands and change growing seasons for existing
landscapes.
7 of 11
6
2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements for New Development
The City shall require developers to turn over water rights as approved by the City, or cash in-
lieu-of water rights, such that supplies can be made available to meet or exceed the demands of
the Water Utility’s treated water customers during a l-in-50 year drought.
Cash collected shall be used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system. Potential uses of cash include acquiring additional water rights, entering into
water sharing arrangements with agricultural entities, purchasing or developing storage facilities
and pursuing other actions toward developing a reliable water supply system. Consideration will
be given to providing a diversified system that can withstand the annual variability inherent in
both water demands and supplies. The balance between water rights being turned over and cash
received by developers should be monitored and adjusted as needed to develop a reliable and
effective system.
2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies
The City currently owns and will acquire additional water rights that are decreed only for
agricultural use. The City will periodically need to change these water rights from agricultural
use to municipal use to meet its water supply needs. The City will change those rights that come
from areas upon which the City is growing, or from areas where the irrigation has ceased, when
needed. For water rights that were derived from irrigated agricultural lands that remain in viable
agricultural areas, the City will refrain from converting agricultural decrees to municipal use as
long as other water supply options are available or other factors make it prudent to do so. The
City will also work towards water sharing arrangements that provide water for municipal uses
when critically needed and that allow for continued agricultural use of water at other times, in a
manner that preserves irrigated agricultural lands over the long-term.
2.4.3 Facilities
The City will pursue the acquisition or development of facilities that are needed to manage the
City’s water rights in an efficient and effective manner and enhance the City’s ability to meet
demands through at least a 1-in-50 year drought. These facilities may include storage capacity,
diversion structures, pipelines or other conveyances, pumping equipment, or other facilities that
increase the firm yield of the City’s supply system.
Additional storage will be acquired or constructed considering 1) the City’s return flow
obligations incurred from changes of water rights, 2) the City’s need to carryover water from wet
years to dry years in order to meet its drought criteria, 3) operational flexibility, redundancy and
reliability of the City’s water supply system, and 4) potential multiple-use benefits (i.e.,
environmental flows, recreational uses, etc.). The City will analyze the potential environmental
impacts of developing storage along with other associated costs and benefits, and will develop
that storage in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment. Storage
capacity options include the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, the development of local gravel
pits into storage ponds, the acquisition of storage capacity in new or existing reservoirs, the
development of aquifer storage, or some combination of the above.
8 of 11
7
3.0 TREATED AND RAW WATER QUALITY
Policy ENV 21.1 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Develop and adhere to drinking water quality
standards, treatment practices, and procedures that provide the highest level of health protection
that can be realistically achieved.” In addition, the City will take an active role in protecting the
quality of water in the various watersheds from which the City’s raw water is derived and
maintaining the taste and quality of the City’s treated water. This may include mixing of the
City’s source waters to maintain high water quality and require collaboration with private,
county, state and federal land owners and managers. The acquisition, development, and
management of the City’s raw and treated water will be consistent with the City’s Drinking
Water Quality Policy and other applicable policies related to watershed protection and water
treatment.
4.0 USE OF SURPLUS RAW WATER
The City will use its existing supplies to meet municipal obligations with the following priorities:
1) to meet water demands by the City’s treated water customers, and 2) to meet the City’s raw
water needs as well as other City raw water obligations. Raw water needs include use for such
purposes as irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemeteries and other greenbelt areas.
Additional raw water obligations include primarily water transfers to other entities because of
agreements or exchanges made to manage the water supply system more effectively.
Water not needed for the above purposes is referred to as surplus water and may be made
available to others in accordance with decrees and other applicable policies. Since the City plans
its water supply system using a 1-in-50 year drought criterion, it typically has significant
quantities of surplus raw water in many years. This surplus water may be available on a year-to-
year basis or through multi-year arrangements that do not significantly impair the City’s ability
to meet municipal demands. The City will continue to rent its surplus supplies at a fair market
price that helps offset the cost of owning such supplies and benefits the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes
Acknowledging that the City’s use of its valuable water resources has impacts to the
environment and the region, the City will commit to using its surplus supplies for other
beneficial purposes such as supporting irrigated agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre
River or providing other regional benefits. The City’s surplus supplies come from a variety of
sources, each of which has unique characteristics. These sources include CBT water and shares
in several irrigation companies. Some sources are more suitable and available than others to meet
beneficial purposes. Whether the surplus raw water can be used for these other purposes is
dependent upon a number of factors, including the type of water, place of use and other decree
limitations. Any potential use of these supplies should consider, and will likely require
coordination with, other water users, state agencies and other groups. Some uses of the surplus
supplies, such as maintaining an instream flow according to the State’s Instream Flow Program,
may require a change of water rights through the water court process. The City will engage in a
thorough evaluation of these issues as part of assessing the use of its surplus supplies for these
beneficial purposes.
9 of 11
8
Utilities will evaluate implementing a program to allow voluntary contributions from its
ratepayers (i.e., Utility bill “check-off box”) for programs that are designed to support the
following purposes: preserving local agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River, or
meeting other beneficial purposes that our community may desire.
4.1.1 Agriculture and Open Space
Policy SW 3.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Participate in and follow the Northern Colorado
Regional Food System Assessment project and other Larimer County agricultural efforts, and
implement their recommendations at a local level, if appropriate.” In addition, Policy LIV 44.1
of Plan Fort Collins states, “Maintain a system of publicly-owned open lands to protect the
integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas,
conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad
range of opportunities for educational, interpretive, and recreational programs to meet
community needs.” To the extent that surplus water is available, the City will continue to support
the local agricultural economy and help preserve the associated open spaces by renting surplus
agricultural water back to irrigators under the respective irrigation companies.
The City will explore long-term rental and sharing arrangements with irrigators10 in order to
support the regional food system, encourage agricultural open space and other benefits provided
by irrigated agriculture, as well as benefit the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1.2 Instream Flows
Policy ENV 24.5 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Work to quantify and provide adequate instream
flows to maintain the ecological functionality, and recreational and scenic values of the Cache la
Poudre River through Fort Collins.” Recognizing that its water use depletes natural streamflows,
the City will seek innovative opportunities to improve, beyond any associated minimum
regulatory requirements, the ecological function of the streams and rivers affected by its
diversions. The Water Utility will take a leadership role in working with other City departments,
local and regional groups and agencies towards the following objectives in accordance with
Colorado water law and the administration of water rights in Colorado: 1) encourage flows in
local streams to protect the ecosystem, 2) pursue the operation of its water supplies and facilities
in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment while meeting
customer demands, and 3) explore projects or measures that would provide flows in streams and
water in reservoirs for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
4.1.3 Other Arrangements
The City will consider and participate in other surplus water supply arrangements with other
entities that provide mutual benefits and support the region. These may include other rental
agreements, augmentation plans and other cooperative arrangements with regional partners.
These types of arrangements should be limited to unique opportunities that are mutually
10 The City’s largest irrigation company ownership interest is in the North Poudre Irrigation Company, which still
has substantial lands in irrigated agricultural production and has a unique mix of native water and CBT water that
lends itself to these types of partnership arrangements.
10 of 11
9
beneficial to the parties and provide significant social, economic or environmental benefits to the
region.
5.0 REGIONAL COOPERATION
The City recognizes the importance in maintaining good relationships with regional entities and
coordinating efforts to achieve mutual goals. The City also recognizes that growing Colorado
municipalities are currently struggling to define a way to meet future water supply needs in a
manner that minimizes negative impacts to agricultural economies and river ecosystems. The
Water Utility will endeavor to be a leader in demonstrating how water supply can be provided in
a manner that respects other interests and provides a culture of innovation.
5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers
The City will continue to work with the water suppliers throughout the northern Colorado Front
Range to assure that adequate supplies are maintained in the region. When benefits are identified,
the City will cooperate with area entities in studying, building, sharing capacity and operating
water transmission lines, distribution systems and storage reservoirs for greater mutual benefit.
The City has common interests and the potential to cooperate with regional entities including the
water districts around Fort Collins, the City of Greeley and the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, as well as other Colorado water providers. In particular, the City should
work closely with water districts that serve Fort Collins residents to encourage similar policies
regarding drought protection, conservation and to provide mutual assistance during emergencies.
5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies
The City will continue to cooperate with local irrigation companies regarding the use, exchange
and transfer of water in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. As a major shareholder in many of the
local irrigation companies, it is necessary and desirable that the City work closely with these
companies. Much of the water supply available to the City is through the ownership of shares in
local irrigation companies.
5.3 Working with Others
City Departments will work together and also cooperate with local, state and federal agencies,
civic organizations, environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations when
common goals would benefit City residents and the surrounding community. Examples of goals
that may involve City water supplies and be worthy of collaborative efforts include support for
existing and development of new local food sources, promoting open space, improving river
flows and supporting the local economy. Such efforts should identify appropriate entities and
sources of revenue for specific goals or projects.
11 of 11
1
City of Fort Collins Utilities
City Council Work Session
Water Supply Reliability & Storage Update
May 12, 2015
Glossary of Water Resources Terms
1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion - criterion adopted in the current Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy that defines the level of risk for the City’s water supply
system; a drought is a period of below average runoff that can last one or more years and
is often measured by its duration, average annual shortage and cumulative deficit below
the average; a 1-in-50 drought corresponds to a dry period that is likely to occur, on
average, once every 50 years; although the Poudre River Basin has several drought
periods in its recorded history, it is difficult to assess whether any of these droughts were
equal in magnitude to a 1-in-50 drought; the 1985 Drought Study developed the 1-in-50
drought used in assessing the Utilities water supply system; this drought period is six
years long and has a cumulative deficit of 550,000 acre-feet, which represents annual
river volumes that are about 70% of the long-term average for the Poudre River; see also
“Statistically Based Drought Analysis”
Acceptable Planned Project - refers to a term used in a 2011 report by Western Resource
Advocates “Filling the Gap: Commonsense Solutions for Meeting Front Range Water
Needs” where it is mentioned that the Halligan and Seaman enlargements have the
potential to be Acceptable Planned Projects if urban efficiency measures are implemented
first and Poudre River (particularly the North Fork) flows and water quality are protected
and/or restored
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (AF) - volume of water equal to about 326,000 gallons; one acre-
foot can supply around three to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year; for
storage comparison the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-
feet
Active Capacity - the usable capacity of a reservoir for storage and regulation of inflows
and releases that does not include any capacity below the reservoir’s lowest outlet (which
is known as dead capacity)
Carryover - used in reference to storage; it is the ability to save water in storage for use at
a later time, most notably in following years
Change in Water Right - used to refer to changing water rights under Colorado water law
from agricultural to municipal water use; see also “Legal Return Flows or Return Flow
Obligations”
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project - a Bureau of Reclamation project that brings
water from the Colorado River basin to the east side of the continental divide via a tunnel
and the Big Thompson River to several locations including Horsetooth Reservoir;
2
operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (or Northern Water); Fort
Collins Utilities currently owns 18,855 units of the 310,000 total units in the CBT project
Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) - volumetric flow rate equal to one cubic foot flowing every
second; for comparison, an average peak flow rate on the Poudre River at the Lincoln
Street gage (downtown) is around 1,900 cfs and a median winter-time low flow rate in
December at the same location is around 7 cfs
Direct Flow Rights - water rights that can be taken for direct use, as opposed to storage
rights that can be taken for later use; see also “Senior Water Rights”
DEIS or EIS - short for Draft Environmental Impact Statement; a report detailing the
findings of the NEPA permitting process; report can be reviewed by public for their
comments which are typically addressed in a Final Environment Impact Statement; see
also “NEPA”
ELCO - short for East Larimer County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
FCLWD - short for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Firm Yield - a measure of the ability of a water supply system to meet water demands
through a series of drought years; for the Fort Collins Utilities, this means being able to
meet the planning demand level and storage reserve factor through the 1-in-50 year
drought criterion; see also “1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion”, “planning demand level”
and “storage reserve factor”
GMA – short for Growth Management Area, which is the planned boundary of the City
of Fort Collins’ future City limits
gpcd - short for gallons per capita per day; a measurement of municipal water use; for the
Fort Collins Utilities, gpcd is calculated based on the total annual treated water produced
at the Water Treatment Facility for use by all Water Utility customers (minus large
contractual customers and other sales or exchange agreements) divided by the estimated
population of the Water Utility’s service area and 365 days
LEDPA – short for Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, which is
what is allowed to be permitted through the NEPA permitting process; see also “NEPA”
HSWMP - short for Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project
Legal Return Flows or Return Flow Obligations - refers to legal requirements when
changing water rights from agricultural to municipal use; this process requires obtaining a
decree from Colorado Water Court that involves detailed analysis of the historic
agricultural water use, including the water diversions, amount used by the crops, and the
return flow patterns of the water not used by the crops; terms in the decree to prevent
3
municipalities from taking more water than was historically taken and replacing return
flows in the right amount, location and time to prevent injury to other water rights
NEPA - short for National Environmental Policy Act; federal legislation that established
environmental policy for the nation; it provides interdisciplinary framework for federal
agencies to prevent environmental damage and contains “action-forcing” procedures to
ensure that federal agency decision-makers take environmental factors into account
NISP - short for Northern Integrated Supply Project
Northern Water or NCWCD - short for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD); Northern Water operates the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project and is
involved in several other regional water projects on behalf of their participants; see also
“Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project”
NPIC - short for North Poudre Irrigation Company; an irrigation company that supplies
water to farmers north of Fort Collins and is the owner of all water currently stored in
Halligan Reservoir
NWCWD - short for North Weld County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Planning Demand Level - level of water use (demand) in gpcd used for water supply
planning purposes that is a factor in determining the amount of water supplies and/or
facilities needed; see also “gpcd”
RWR – short for Raw Water Requirements, which requires new development to turn in
water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights to support the water needs of that
development; cash is used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage capacity)
Storage Reserve Factor - refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing
water supply systems to address short-term supply interruptions; as defined in the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy, the storage reserve factor incorporates having
20 percent of annual demands in storage through the 1-in-50 drought which equates to
about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demands or 1.5 month of summer demands
Senior Water Rights - refers to Colorado water law’s use of the “prior appropriation” or
priority system, which dictates that in times of short supply, earlier water rights decrees
(senior rights) will get their water before others (junior rights) can begin to use water,
often described as “first in time, first in right”
Tri-Districts - the combination of the three regional water districts ELCO, FCLWD and
NWCWD; these districts share the same water treatment plant called Soldier Canyon
Filter Plant, which is located adjacent to Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility
4
Water Rights Portfolio - the mix of water rights owned by a water supplier; typically
includes water for direct use, as well as for storage for later use; for the Fort Collins
Utilities, includes City owned water rights, owned and/or converted shares in agricultural
rights, storage rights at Joe Wright Reservoir, and ownership in the CBT project
WSDMP - short for Water Supply & Demand Management Policy, which provides Fort
Collins Utilities guidance in balancing water supplies and demands
Yield or Water Rights Yield - refers to the amount of water that is produced from a water
right; the yield of water rights vary from year to year depending on the amount of water
available (i.e., low or high river runoff) and the priority of the water right; see also “Firm
Yield” and “Senior Water Rights”
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
DATE: May 4, 2015
SUBJECT: Sustainability Assessment (SA) Summary for Water Supply Reliability and Storage
Update
Key issues identified:
Economic
Having a reliable water supply is key to supporting the local economy.
Social
Reliable water supply is a key need for our community.
Community members are being informed on the need for storage and reservoir project updates
through multiple avenues.
Environmental
Development of additional storage capacity (e.g., Halligan Project) will have adverse
environmental impacts.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Halligan Project will describe the
environmental impacts in detail.
Suggested mitigation actions:
Mitigation has not been considered at this point.
Economic , 1.0 Social , 1.0
Environmental
‐1.0
Overall Rating,
0.3
‐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
*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
Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update: In order to meet future water demands and provide a storage reserve for emergency situations, Utilities has been
pursuing increased raw water storage for many years. The Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project (“Halligan Project”) would provide this much needed storage,
which has been supported by previous Utilities and City Council actions. Staff is currently working on obtaining a federal permit for the enlargement of Halligan
Reservoir. The permitting process will look at alternatives to the project and provide detailed analysis of the effects of the project.
Staff lead(s):
Please note staff name, position/division and phone number
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
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
Water meets an essential basic human need. Acquiring additional raw water
storage would support this basic need by helping to provide a reliable water
supply to the community. A reliable and cost effective water supply is
important in maintaining affordable housing, employment and an overall
healthy community.
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 – The development of additional storage should not directly impact specific
population subsets, disabled, youth, etc.
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?
A reliable water supply is key to providing clean water for drinking, cleaning,
and fire protection (among others). These benefits are available to all members
of the community.
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?
N/A – The development of additional storage should not directly impact cultural
concerns.
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?
N/A – The development of additional storage does not directly impact
neighborhood needs. See below for how community members are informed.
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?
Community members, stakeholders and interested parties have been informed
of the Halligan Project through many avenues over the years the project has
been pursued, including City Council decisions and updates, website
information, numerous presentations to community organizations, and through
various outreach efforts associated with the 2012 update to the Water Supply
and Demand Management Policy – which included a Community Working
Group.
Social Equity Summary
Key issues: Reliable water supply is a key need for our community. Community members are being informed on the need for storage and project
updates through multiple avenues.
4
Potential mitigation strategies: None considered at this time.
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 X
Rating represents group average
+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
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?
• Will this proposal promote or support education in
Analysis/Discussion
The Halligan Project would affect ecosystem functions on the Poudre River. The
federal permitting process will include a detailed analysis of environmental (and
social) impacts. In general, the development of storage will alter flow and
sediment regimes in the river and result in loss of wetlands, stream channel and
wildlife habitat around the reservoir. The level of these impacts will be
5
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?
described in detail (with lots of generated data related to the use of water) in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as part of the permitting.
Utilities staff has continually tried to educate the community about the
importance of both water storage and water conservation.
Acquiring additional water storage capacity helps provide a reliable water
supply for the community’s landscapes.
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 proposed Halligan Project would be a gravity water supply facility that does
not require pumping and associated greenhouse gas production. As part of the
permitting process, alternatives to the proposed project must be developed.
The current storage alternatives being investigated would all require some
pumping, which would increase the City’s greenhouse gas production.
It should be noted that additional water storage capacity would help provide a
more reliable water supply considering the potential effects of climate change
on our water supplies, such as more severe droughts, earlier runoff, and
increased outdoor water use due to longer irrigation season from projected
higher temperatures.
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?
As mentioned above, the Halligan Project would affect ecosystem functions on
the Poudre River. These impacts would occur around the reservoir, as well as in
the river via altered stream flows. Again, these impacts will be described in
detail in the DEIS.
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 development of additional storage should not directly create waste
products. However, the Halligan Project will result in generated pollution during
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?
Water conservation is an important part of Fort Collins Utilities balancing water
supplies and demands. In addition to guiding Utilities in the development of
additional storage capacity, the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
set a water conservation goal to manage the use of a valuable resource.
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?
The Halligan Project will likely cause adverse environmental effects around the
reservoir, as well as along various sections of the Poudre River. These impacts
will be fully described in the DEIS and avoidance or mitigation will be
considered. Consideration will also be given to using local materials and
services upon construction of additional storage (e.g., Halligan Project).
Environmental Health Summary
Key issues: Development of additional storage capacity (e.g., Halligan Project) will have adverse environmental impacts. The Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Halligan Project will describe the environmental impacts in detail.
Potential mitigation strategies: Mitigation strategies will be considered at a later time.
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 X
Rating represents group average
+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
Economic Health
7
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.
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
Water being an essential need for everyday living, having a reliable water
supply is key to supporting the local economy. As a result of past planning, the
Utilities water supply has been reliable for many years which has attracted
some water intensive industries (e.g., breweries and certain manufacturing) to
Fort Collins. The Halligan Project would provide a continued reliable water
supply that supports business growth.
Acquiring additional storage is a low cost way of providing reliable water
supplies relative to recent increases in water rights prices. Utilities has had a
funding mechanism in place for many years to cover the Halligan Project costs.
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?
The development of additional storage (e.g., Halligan Project) will likely not
impact employment directly, except with possible construction work once
permitted which can be considered then.
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
development projects?
N/A – The development of additional storage does not directly impact
diversified and innovative economic activity.
4. Support or Develop Sustainable Businesses N/A ‐ The development of additional storage does not directly support or
8
• 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?
develop sustainable businesses.
5. Relevance to Local Economic Development Strategy Economic development in Fort Collins is dependent upon having reliable water
supplies.
Economic Prosperity Summary
Key issues: Having a reliable water supply is key to supporting the local economy.
Potential mitigation strategies: None considered at this time.
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 X
Rating represents group average
+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
1
Water Supply Reliability
& Storage Update
City Council Work Session
May 12, 2015
2
Overview
• Current Water Supplies and Demands
• Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
• Future Water Supply Needs
• Update of Storage Projects
– Rigden Reservoir
– Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
3
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
Only planning for
Utilities water
service area
4
City of Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply - Sources
Poudre River CBT Project
On average, about 50/50 split between these sources
5
Current Water Demand (Use)
• Deliver about 25,000 acre-feet/year treated and
4,000 acre-feet/year of raw water
• Demand levels have declined significantly
– ~230 gpcd early 1990s
– ~200 gpcd before 2002
– ~150 gpcd last ten years
6
0
50
100
150
200
250
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Use (gallons per capita per day - GPCD)
Year
Fort Collins Utilities - Per Capita Water Use
Actual Use Normalized Use
These values do not include
large contractual water use.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1884
1889
1894
1899
1904
1909
1914
1919
1924
1929
1934
1939
1944
1949
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
2009
Runoff (Acre-feet/year)
Year
Poudre River Annual Native Runoff at the Mouth of the Canyon
Total Annual Flow
Long Term Average
Highly variable flows affect
Utilities water right yields
7
2014
2/3rds
of runoff
occurs in 2 months
8
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
EOM Storage (acre-feet)
Water Year
CBT Project End of Month Active Storage Levels
(Granby, Carter, Horsetooth)
Horsetooth Carter Granby Maximum Active Capacity
9
CBT project yields also
subject to variability
10
Current Water Supplies
• Adequate supplies in most years
• Existing firm yield about 31,000 acre-
feet/year through 1-in-50 year drought
• Need to plan for future
11
Water Supply & Demand
Management Policy (updated 2012)
• Guides Utilities in balancing water
supplies and demands
• Policy Objectives
– Ensure an adequate, safe and
reliable supply of water
– Manage the level of demand
12
Key Policy Elements
• Water Supply Reliability
– 1-in-50 year drought criterion
• Shortage Response Plan
– Storage reserve factor
• 20% of annual demand
– Planning demand level
• 150 gpcd: supply system target
• Demand management
– 140 gpcd goal by 2020: water conservation target
13
Why different levels?: Uncertainties
• Climate change
• CBT curtailment
• Michigan Ditch issues
• River administration changes
• Competing water rights
14
Concern: Reliant on CBT Storage
15
Utilities Water Service Area
Future Water Demands/Supplies
• Depends on population and
commercial growth (recent update)
• 2015 Population: ~133,000
• 2065 Population: ~178,000
• Large contractual use increases
– Breweries, manufacturing
• 2065 Total Demand: ~38,400 acre-
feet/year
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
Acre-Feet
Year
Fort Collins Utilities - Historical Demands, Projected
Water Needs and Current Firm Yield
Historical Demand
Projected Water Needs
Current Firm Yield
16
17
Future Supply Plans
• Acquire additional water rights and/or cash
– Raw Water Requirements
• Acquire additional storage capacity
– Operational storage (gravel pits or similar)
– Carryover and vulnerability protection storage
(Halligan Res. or similar)
18
Rigden Reservoir
• Critical for fully utilizing existing
water rights
• Operational in early June 2015
• About 1,900 acre-feet of storage
– 1,700 for Utilities, 200 for
Natural Areas
• Adjacent natural areas and
future park site
• About $14 million cost
19
N
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
Horsetooth Road
19
Rigden Reservoir
Location Map
20
Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
• Enlarged to ~14,525 acre-feet (reduced from
40,000 acre-feet)
– Existing NPIC ~6,400 acre-feet
– Utilities portion ~8,125 acre-feet
• Existing reservoir on the
North Fork of the Poudre
River
Halligan Reservoir
Location Map
21
22 22
23
Why Enlarge Halligan?
• Existing reservoir
• Gravity system (no pumping)
• Improved flows in North Fork
• Meets needs at reasonable cost
• Considered and “Acceptable Planned
Project” by Western Resource Advocates
24
Adverse Impacts of
Enlarging Halligan
• Altered flow and sediment regime
• Potential loss of wetlands, stream
channel and wildlife habitat
• Permitting process will identify and
address environmental consequences
– Impacts will be avoided or mitigated
25
Permitting Process
• Entered NEPA process with U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in 2006
• Key: Define purpose and need
– Recently updated
• Detailed environmental and
alternatives analysis
– Must permit LEDPA
– May not be Halligan
26
Preliminary Alternatives
• Halligan Reservoir Enlargement (“Preferred”)
• Glade Reservoir enlargement
• Local gravel pits and Joe Wright reoperations
• Use existing irrigation company storage
• No Action Alternative
Alternatives are subject to change by
the Corps prior to release of the DEIS
27
Current Projected Schedule
• 2005-2018 EIS and permitting decision
– Mid-2016: Projected DEIS release
• 2018-2019 Final design
• 2019-2020 Construction
Schedule subject to change.
28
Halligan Enlargement Costs
• Estimated Project Costs
– Acquisition $ 6 Million
– Permitting & mitigation $14 Million
– Engineering & construction $26 Million
Total $46 Million
• Expenses through 2nd Qtr. 2015 $ 11.3 Million
– Utilities share $6.8 Million
• Total estimated Utilities share $41.5 Million
– $5,600 per acre-foot of firm yield
29
Halligan Funding
• ~$35 Million additional funds needed
• Water Rights Reserve Fund
– Revenues from Raw Water Requirements
(RWR) and Surcharges
– Current fund around $17 Million
• Alternatives could cost up to 4 times this amount
– Would require significant RWR increase
30
Halligan Recent Events
• Dec. 2013: Loss of 1985 junior water right
• Feb. 2014: North Poudre Irrigation Comp. withdraw
• Jan. 2015: Separation from City of Greeley
31
Moving Forward
• Policy provides guidance for planning water future
• Storage continues to be key Utilities need
• Permitting process should result in needed storage
• Advocate water conservation for sustainable water
future
• Next update at release of DEIS (mid-2016)
32
Thank You
DATE:
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
construction. These impacts will be described in the DEIS and minimization of
impacts will be considered during construction.
re
e
k
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
a
d
ge
r
C
re
e
k.
B
i
j
o
u
C
r
e
e
k
K
i
o
w
a
C
r
ee
k
Bo
xe
ld
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
i
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
Ri
v
e
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
t
. V
ra
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
S
t
.
V
r
a
in
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
L
ef
t
h
a
n
d
C
r
e
e
k
S
o
u
t
h
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
C
o
a
l
C
r
e
e
k
R
a
l
s
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Cle
a
r
C
r
ee
k
Be
a
r
C
r
e
e
k
N
o
r
t
h
F
o
r
k
So
u
t
h
P
l
a
tt
e
Ri
v
e
r
L
a
r
a
m
i
e
R
i
v
e
r
M
ic
h
i
g
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
I
l
l
in
o
i
s
R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y
Cr
e
e
k
W
i
l
l
ow
Cr
e
e
k
N
o
r
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
Fr
a
s
e
r
R
i
v
er
St.
L
o
u
is C
r
eek
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
F
o
r
k
R
i
v
e
r
B
l
u
e
R
i
v
e
r
Estes Park
Granby
Winter
Park
Dillon
Silverthorne
Boulder
Longmont
Loveland
Sterling
MARY'S
LAKE
LAKE
ESTES PINEWOOD
RESERVOIR
CARTER
LAKE
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
Julesburg
Superior
Hudson
Denver Metro
Area
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
So
ut
h P
l
at
t
e
R
iv
er
S
o
uth
P
l
atte
River
S E D G W I C K
P H I L L I P S
L O G A N
W A S H
E L B E RT
A R A P A H O E
A D A M S
M O R G A N
W E L D
L A R I M E R
BOULDER
G I L P I N
J E F F E R S O N
P A R K D O U G L A S
C L E A R
C R E E K
S U M M I T
G R A N D
J AC K S O N
C
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t
a
l
D
i
v
i
d
e
C
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t
a
l
D
i
v
i
d
e
76
76
70
70
70
36
85
C O L O R A D O
SHADOW
MOUNTAIN
RESERVOIR GRAND
LAKE
C
a
n
a
dia
n
Ri
v
e
r
14
125
FLATIRON
RESERVOIR
66
119
Ara
p
a
h
o
C
re
e
k
B
o
uld
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
C
o
tt
o
n
w
o
o
d
C
r
e
e
k
14 14
34
GREEN
MOUNTAIN
RESERVOIR
287
287
76
34
76
0 5 10 15 20
Scale of Miles (Approximate)
0 5 10 15 20
Scale of Miles (Approximate)
Canal
Pipeline/Conduit
Tunnel
Dam
Power Plant
Pump Plant
Legend
JA Dahlstrom 06/01 revised 04/10
Northern Water
Colorado-Big Thompson Project
Northern Water Boundaries
and Facilities
WILLOW CREEK
RESERVOIR
WINDY
GAP
RESERVOIR
LAKE
GRANBY
GRAND
SHADOW MOUNTAIN LAKE
RESERVOIR Rocky
Mountain
National
Park
Granby
Grand
Lake
WINDY GAP
PUMP PLANT
WATCHABLE WILDLIFE AREA
GRANBY
PUMP
CANAL
WEST PORTAL
SHADOW
MOUNTAIN
DAM
GRANBY
DAM
FARR
PUMP
PLANT
ALVA B. ADAMS TUNNEL
WINDY GAP PIPELINE
WILLOW CREEK PUMP
CANAL & PUMP PLANT
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Fr
a
s
e
r R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
Ea
st
In
l
e
t
No
r
t
h
I
n
let
N
or
t
h
F
o
rk
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
er
1 0 1 2 3 4
Scale of Miles (Approximate)
64
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
ho
m
p
s
o
n
R
iv
e
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
S
t.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
er
L
e
f
t
h
a
n
d
C
r
e
e
k
Boulder
Longmont
Lyons
Berthoud
Fort
Lupton
Loveland Greeley
Fort Collins
Windsor
Rocky
Mountain
National
Park
MARY'S
LAKE
Mary's Lake
Shadow Mountain
Reservoir
Green Mountain
Reservoir
Windy Gap Reservoir
Grand Lake
Lake Granby
Willow Creek Reservoir Lake Estes
Pinewood Reservoir
Flatiron
Reservoir
Horsetooth
Reservoir
Boulder Carter Lake
Reservoir
LAKE ESTES
PINEWOOD
RESERVOIR
FLATIRON
RESERVOIR
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
BOULDER
RESERVOIR
ADAMS
TUNNEL
BOULDER CREEK
SUPPLY CANAL SOUTH PLATTE
SUPPLY CANAL
BOULDER
FEEDER CANAL
SOUTHERN WATER
SUPPLY PROJECT PIPELINE
PLEASANT VALLEY PIPELINE
to Fort
Morgan
SAINT VRAIN
SUPPLY CANAL
ST. VRAIN
SUPPLY
CANAL
HANSEN
SUPPLY
CANAL
NORTH
POUDRE
SUPPLY
CANAL
HANSEN
FEEDER
CANAL
BOULDER
FEEDER
CANAL
SOUTH PLATTE
SUPPLY CANAL
East
Portal
HANSEN SUPPLY CANAL
POLE HILL
TUNNEL
OLYMPUS
TUNNEL
RAMS HORN
TUNNEL PROSPECT MOUNTAIN
TUNNEL
RATTLESNAKE
TUNNEL
Superior
Louisville Lafayette
B
o
ul
de
r
Cr
e
e
k
Broomfield
NORTHERN WATER
HEADQUARTERS
S
outh
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
East Slope
Distribution
System
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
R
i
v
e
r
W
h
i
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
A
r
k
a
n
s
a
s
R
i
v
e
r
A
n
i
m
a
s
R
i
v
e
r
US Index Map Colorado Index Map
C-BT Profile Map
WA
OR
MT
WY
UT
NV
CA
AZ
NM
TX
KS
SD
ND
ID
NE
OK
CO
DIXON FEEDER CANAL
Y
a
m
p
a
R
i
v
e
r
34
34
40
125
34
LAKE
GRANBY
Grand
Lake
34
14
34
34
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
NORTH POUDRE
DIVERSION TUNNEL NORTH POUDRE
SUPPLY CANAL
West Slope
Collection
System
40
125
CR 6
CR 6
CR 40
9
40
See inset upper left
Berthoud Pass
Willow Creek
Pass
Milner
Pass
Cameron
Pass
Trail Ridge Road
Eisenhower/Johnson
Memorial Tunnel
See inset lower right
40
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
52
Louisville
Fort Lupton
Estes Park
B
i
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
North
Adams
Tunnel
feet in elevation
(approximate)
7,000
6,000
5,000
8,000
9,000
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
West Slope East Slope
Continental Divide
S
o
u
t
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
B
i
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
Map Area
Colorado-Big Thompson Reservoirs
City/Town
Northern Water Boundaries
Southern Water Supply Pipeline
Pleasant Valley Pipeline
Berthoud Headquarters
6,500
HANSEN FEEDER CANAL
N
Erie
CARTER
LAKE
DILLE DIVERSION
TUNNEL
T
r
o
u
b
l
e
s
o
m
e
C
r
e
e
k
Jackson
Reservoir
Empire
Reservoir
Lower Latham
Reservoir
Milton
Reservoir
Boyd Lake
Lake Loveland
Horse Creek
Reservoir
Barr Lake
Cherry Creek
Reservoir
Chatfield
Reservoir
Ralston Reservoir
Standley
Lake
Barker
Reservoir
Gross
Reservoir
Ralph Price
Reservoir
Chambers
Lake
Poudre
Lake
Strawberry
Lake
Monarch
Lake
Seaman
Reservoir
Cobb Lake
Douglas
Reservoir
Windsor
Reservoir
Black Hollow
Reservoir
Terry Lake
Dillon
Reservoir
Williams Fork
Reservoir
Wolford
Mountain
Reservoir
Prewitt
Reservoir
North Sterling
Reservoir
Jumbo Reservoir
( Julesburg Reservoir)
Riverside
Reservoir
287
85
Greeley
Windsor
Rocky
Mountain
National
Park
BROOMFIELD
COUNTY
Broomfield
Lafayette
BOULDER
RESERVOIR
287
Fort Morgan
Denver
International
Airport
36
25
E
W 470
470
470
N
or
th
F
o
r
k
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
NORTHERN WATER
HEADQUARTERS
Berthoud
25
25
Fort Collins
Union
Reservoir
25
402
56
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
n
e
C
r
e
e
k
Erie
C
h
e
r
r
y
C
r
e
e
k
Kremmling
40
WINDY GAP
RESERVOIR
WILLOW
CREEK
RESERVOIR
Muddy
Pass
S
o
u
t
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
ut
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
D
u
c
k
C
r
e
e
k
L
e
w
i
s
C
r
e
e
k
Long Draw
Reservoir
Joe Wright
Reservoir
B
e
e
b
e
D
r
a
w
G
u
n
n
i
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
ALVA B. ADAMS TUNNEL
E
470
E
470
14
R
o
a
r
i
n
g
F
o
r
k
T
w
i
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
1