HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/08/2017 - RESOLUTION 2017-073 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TOAgenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017
City Council
STAFF
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Resolution 2017-073 Directing the City Manager to Submit to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and
Other Agencies the City's Comments on the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the
Northern Integrated Supply Project and Directing Testimony Regarding the Same.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a resolution to adopt a set of draft comments regarding the State of
Colorado Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (the Plan) for the Northern Integrated Supply
Project (NISP). As early as the turn of the 19th century, the Poudre River was known as a “hard working”
river. Now, well into the 21st century, pressures on the Poudre have increased dramatically as the region
thrives. In the early 1970s Fort Collins realized that the Poudre had the potential to be more than an industrial
zone. Since that time, Fort Collins has invested many tens of millions of dollars in parks, natural areas, river
restoration, flood mitigation, and a riverside trail. Fort Collins owns about 70% of the floodplain within the
city’s growth management area. The Poudre River trail starts west of the City at the CPW Watson Lake
facility and with the exception of a short section yet to be completed near Timnath, runs to Greeley.
Throughout the year visitors throng the River, including boaters, tubers, hikers, bikers, and anglers. According
to a 2012 CPW report, the highest creel counts on the Poudre are in downtown Fort Collins not, as one might
expect, in the upper reaches of the wild and scenic section.
In short, the 10 miles of the Poudre corridor through Fort Collins have become a defining feature of the
community’s connection to the outdoors, its culture, and its sense of place.
In 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted a position regarding NISP in Resolution 2015-082. The resolution
states that NISP would be harmful to Fort Collins and states “City Council cannot support NISP as it is
currently described and proposed…”
In 2017, Fort Collins City Council adopted Resolution 2017-024 authorizing the City Manager and his
designees to meet on a regular basis with Northern Water to discuss and explore Fort Collins’ interests in
order to ascertain whether those interests can be met pursuant to the terms of the resolution. To date, while
several amicable meetings have occurred, Fort Collins and Northern Water have not reached any new
understandings or agreements.
While staff’s draft comment letter implicitly assumes that NISP will be permitted and constructed by
recommending various changes to NISP and its operations, nothing in draft comment letter should be
interpreted to be a change of Fort Collins’ position regarding NISP.
While the Plan contains new, useful, and encouraging mitigation measures, staff continues to believe that
NISP will have damaging impacts to Fort Collins and is concerned that the Plan does not sufficiently address a
number of key concerns. In addition to describing a number of concerns, the comment letter also describes
numerous recommendations to address the concerns.
The major elements of the proposed comments on the Plan are:
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
Peak Flows
Water Quality
Mitigation, Restoration, Channel Improvements, and Conveyance
Adaptive Management and Long-term Monitoring
Uncertainties regarding agreements
Mitigation and Enhancement Costs
Big game habitat
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
NISP, a proposed water supply and storage project serving 15 communities and water districts in northern
Colorado (including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District that serves portions of southeast Fort Collins) has
been in the federal permitting process for 12 years. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) must
issue a (404) permit before the project may proceed to construction. The City has participated in the federal
permitting process as a stakeholder, in particular making comments Draft Environmental Impact Statement in
2008, and again in 2015 with respect to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Currently,
the Corps is drafting a Final Environmental Impact Statement expected for release in late 2017.
In addition to the Army Corps permit, the project must receive a water quality certification from the Colorado
Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and an approved State Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan (the Plan).
The purpose of this agenda item is to review and discuss staff’s proposed comments on the draft Plan that has
been submitted to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPW). CPW is accepting public comments
(<http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/pages/commission.aspx>) on the Plan and the Commission will be having a
public hearing on August 10 or 11, 2017, to accept oral testimony.
The Plan is due for final consideration by the Commission on September 7. If the Commission approves the
Plan, it is submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and then to the Governor’s office for
final approval. Once the Plan has been approved by the CPW Commission, it is likely to be accepted by
CWCB and the Governor.
Staff believes it is vitally important for the City to comment on the Plan. The Plan will have a significant long-
term impact to Fort Collins. Furthermore, the Plan is likely to strongly influence the Army Corps of Engineers
and its approach to NISP mitigation
The state statute (CRS 37-60-122.2) that requires the creation of the Plan explains:
“The general assembly hereby declares that such fish and wildlife resources are a matter of statewide
concern and that impacts on such resources should be mitigated by the project applicants in a
reasonable manner. It is the intent of the general assembly that fish and wildlife resources that are
affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of water diversion, delivery, or storage facilities
should be mitigated to the extent, and in a manner, that is economically reasonable and maintains a
balance between the development of the state's water resources and the protection of the state's fish
and wildlife resources.”
Following are brief descriptions of each of the key concerns and associated recommendations. For the full
versions, please see the draft comment letter. (Exhibit A to Resolution 2017-073) Please note that the draft
comment letter is mostly unchanged from the July 25 work session version. Material was added at the
beginning of the letter to describe the City’s history of investing in the river corridor and describing its value to
the community.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 3
Peak Flows: Regular high flows are necessary to “clean” the River and protect fish and wildlife habitat and to
protect human health and safety (in particular with respect to maintain adequate capacity for flood flows). To
its credit, the Plan includes a peak flow mitigation strategy. However, the strategy is not likely to achieve the
state’s goal of protecting fish and wildlife, nor will it assure continued channel maintenance and capacity. Staff
recommends an annual 3-day peak flow bypass (i.e., no water will be diverted into Glade Reservoir for 3 days
during the peak flows that occur in May/June).
Water Quality: While the Plan proposes some water quality mitigation measures, the measures were
developed in the absence of a quantitative water quality impacts analysis (the State of Colorado water quality
401 certification currently under development as a part of the final environmental impact statement (“EIS”).
Fort Collins recommends withholding approval of the Plan until the final EIS and final water quality impacts
analysis are made publicly available.
Mitigation, Restoration, Channel Improvements, and Conveyance: The Plan proposes a number of
mitigation and enhancement measures. The mitigation measures are designed to address the unavoidable
impacts of NISP. In general, staff believes that these measures are inadequate to mitigate the system-wide
extent of NISP’s impacts and should be substantially improved. Staff recommends that NISP increase its $7.8
million financial commitment for restoration and enhancements by $14.2 million.
Adaptive Management and Long-term monitoring: The Plan includes a welcome adaptive management
and monitoring component, however the elements are incomplete. Staff recommends that an independent and
collaborative adaptive management and monitoring program be established. In addition, the monitoring
program should be funded for 50 years, not 20 and the annual budget should be increased from $50,000 to
$100,000.
Uncertainties Regarding Agreements: Agreements with various third-party entities and persons need to be
completed for the Plan to operate as contemplated to mitigate NISP’s impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
However, the Plan fails to identify completed and certain agreements, and there are numerous assumptions
throughout the Plan concerning agreements with third parties. Staff appreciates that Northern Water and CPW
have good intentions. CPW, however, should withhold approval of the Plan until crucial agreements are
complete.
Mitigation and Enhancement Costs: Fort Collins recommends increased spending on mitigation,
enhancement, and monitoring provisions by no less than $18.2 million (an additional $9.2 million for mitigation;
$5 million for enhancements; $4 million for monitoring). The original NISP budget is $857 million (page 9 of
the Plan). Though the mitigation and enhancement costs are represented in several different ways in the Plan,
on page 88, the costs are described as $40 million, or 4.6% of the overall NISP budget. An extra $18.2 million
would be a sum total of $58 million and would represent 6.8% of the original NISP budget. The proposal to
increase the budget for these items is reasonable, practicable, and achievable for a project with the scale and
impact of NISP and commensurate with the cost of mitigation on other major Front Range water projects (e.g.,
the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project and the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project). The total cost of
each NISP acre-foot of water at full build out would be negligibly affected and each NISP acre-foot of water
would still only be approximately one-half the current cost of an acre-foot of firm yield from the Colorado Big
Thompson Project.
Big Game Habitat: While these comments generally are restricted to those elements of the Plan that directly
pertain to Fort Collins and its boundaries, staff recommends additional big game habitat protection on the west
side of the proposed Glade Reservoir. An approximately 5,000-acre State Land Board (“SLB”) parcel will
adjoin the west side of Glade; to the west, the SLB parcel is bounded by Gateway Natural Area, owned and
managed by Fort Collins, as well as water and land managed by the City of Greeley, and then United States
Forest Service property. The SLB parcel currently is leased by CPW for hunting and fishing access and it
provides a crucial buffer to federal lands to the west as well as providing high quality big game winter range.
This range will be even more important should Glade Reservoir be constructed and fragment big game habitat,
especially critical winter range. Fort Collins recommends a partnership - that could include Fort Collins - to
conserve the SLB parcel in perpetuity for it wildlife and associated recreation values.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 4
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts associated with the resolution or comments letter.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff met with the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, and the
Water Board to review and discuss the proposed comments. The boards were not asked to take action and
none chose to do so.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The draft comments were posted online for ten days. A handful of comments were received. (Attachment 1) An
email was distributed to several hundred citizens who attend the last NISP open house with an invitation to utilize
the online comment form.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Community comments (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Report for Comments on NISP
Completion Rate: 100%
Complete 9
Total: 9
Response Counts
Count Response
1 NISP agreed to keep flows of the Poudre River at 25 cfs in the summer and 18 cfs in
winter. This is dismal at best! Werner of NISP said "We think this is a great opportunity
to make the river better." Based on article in the Fort Collins Coloradoan July 27, 2017.
Fort Collins is in the top 10 or close to the top 10 cities in the USA to live in before
NISP. It's not broken. So don't try to fix it! The best plan to help fish and wildlife at the
Poudre River is to leave it flowing as before NISP. If a reservoir is built, build it down
stream from Fort Collins. Citizens of Fort Collins should always be given free entry and
use to offset the negative impact of NISP. The city of Fort Collins is not a participant in
the project for a reason. It hurts Fort Collins! More needs to be done to protect the city
of Fort Collins from NISP and this project. Once the project is in place at it's prescribed
location, it will be too late to protect Fort Collins. To me
1. Submit your thoughts on the City’s comments here.
ATTACHMENT 1
1 1. I think this document makes a valiant attempt to mitigate what cannot be mitigated.
The construction of NISP will write the epitaph of the Poudre River. 2. The decapitation
of peak flows in the spring caused by NISP will lead to greater simplification of the
aquatic invertebrates in the Poudre River. This will lead to greatly diminished health in
both trout and native fish species in the river, especially in areas where minimum flows
will not be maintained. 3. I would like to see some discussion of the effect of diminished
peak flows on our native minnows. The stress on the Poudre River ecology may be fatal
to some of our native fish species that are already struggling to survive. 4. The in-town
fishery in Fort Collins is a minor miracle, adding to the quality of life and the economy of
our city. This will, I believe, be eliminated by the construction of NISP.
1 Comments On The Proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project As you are all aware
the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) has been a contentious project for many.
While it was proposed to benefit some front range communities in supplying water for
their future growth, Fort Collins was not one of those participants and would not
benefit from NISP's implementation. The Poudre River, flowing through the heart of Fort
Collins, provides its primary benefit to the city and its residents through its ecological,
recreational, educational and quality of life attributes. The past history of reduced water
flows in the Poudre from water diversions for municipal and agricultural uses and in
more recent decades, drought related issues, have manifested themselves in a river that
is seen by many as facing a critical stage in its ability to sustain a healthy riparian and
biological environment. Reduced water flows during most of the year have greatly
impacted the ability of aquatic life to
1 I agree with city staff; mitigation will not work. The city should oppose NISP and push
for real conservation by the cities that want it.
1 I am uncomfortable with the City staff offering to discuss damming the Poudre River at
the Glade location. There is only so much water to come through the Fort Collins
channel. I live by the river and off season the water is in pools but not continuous. I saw
a pair of ducks swimming down the Poudre at Martinez Park, then walking on the rocks
for a bit until another pond is available. This is not a River in all seasons. Global warming
is thawing the snow in the mountains sooner and changing the seasons for earlier. Sand
cranes come to find the season is warmer earlier so the habitat they used to depend on
is changed. I believe this planning the dam on the mouth of the river will be a warm,
mosquito breeding place. The Hallogen dam up the river is easier to get a quantity of
water stored in cooler, deeper location, for much less cost and without destroying such
a large area including moving the Highway 287. dolores williams 415 Mason Court 7A,
Fort Collins, CO 80524
1 Last sentence "maintain or improve grade". Be more specific, fail to maintain means will
continue to degrade. Say this explicit and give an estimated time until a D and F would be
hit references data and standards.
Count Response
1 Thank you for specifying that the City of Fort Collins has not changed its position on
NISP and the negative impact it will have on Fort Collins in the City's introductory
comments. I do not have water or natural resources expertise but my overall concern
with the NISP FWMEP is that the only certainty in the plan is that the 15 participants will
receive 40,000 acre feet of water annually no matter the impact on the Poudre River. I
appreciate City staff members expertise as demonstrated in the City's draft comments.
Building on and using the findings and recommendation in the "State of the Poudre - A
River Health Assessment" is an excellent point and I would hope the CPW and Northern
Water recognize the utility of using this approach. Thank you for your attention to detail
in the technical portion of the City's draft comments. Please continue to advocate for
Fort Collins and the health of the Poudre River.
1 The City should take advantage of the opportunity to work with Northern to improve
the river from its current condition, particularly with respect to guaranteed in-stream
flows, fish passage, etc. They should cooperate towards the best possible outcome,
and realize that compromise is necessary. Expecting perfection and taking too
adversarial of a position will likely result in disappointment. I would hate to see the City
lose a working seat at the table by being unreasonable.
1 testing by Zoe
Count Response
1
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the
Northern Integrated Supply Project
Consideration of City’s Proposed Response
Council Regular Meeting August 8, 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
Process
2
Overview Presentations to boards (mid-July)
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board,
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Water Board
Council
July 25th
Work session review of comments
August 8th
Council consideration of a resolution
Public
Online comment opportunity July 20th
-July 30th
August 10/11
Public testimony opportunity to “Wildlife Commission” (Trinidad)
September 8
Wildlife Commission may adopt the Plan
Colorado State Statute
“The general assembly hereby declares that such fish and wildlife
resources are a matter of statewide concern and…
…should be mitigated to the extent, and in a manner, that is
economically reasonable and maintains a balance between the
development of the state's water resources and the protection of
the state's fish and wildlife resources.”
3
4
National Environmental Policy Act (Final EIS-late 2017)
404 Clean Water Act permit
State of Colorado Wildlife Mitigation Plan (2017)
State of Colorado 401 Certification (2018)
Record of Decision
Permits and process
Fort Collins 2015 position
5
“…City Council cannot support NISP as it currently described and proposed
in the SDEIS with the understanding that the City Council may reach a
different conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP….if such variant
addresses the City’s fundamental concerns…
2017 Council Direction
6
In 2017, Fort Collins City Council adopted Resolution 2017-024 authorizing
the City Manager and his designees to meet on a regular basis with
Northern Water to discuss and explore Fort Collins’ interests in order to
ascertain whether those interests can be met pursuant to the terms of the
resolution.
7
8
Adds base flow for 12 mile reach
Summer 25 cfs
Winter 18 cfs
City’s concerns/comments
9
1. Peak flows
2. Mitigation, restoration, channel improvements, channel
conveyance
3. Water quality
4. Adaptive Management
5. Cost
6. Big Game
10
1. Peak flows –
• Definition for flushing flows too narrow, analysis
inappropriate, tiered approach for Peak Flow Program
provides flows too low to maintain “unclogged riverbed.”
• Recommendation: improve peak flow program to allow
a complete 3 day bypass (no diversion for 3 days)
2. Water quality
3. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
4. Adaptive Management
5. Uncertainties
Key concerns & recommendations
11
1. Peak flows
2. Water quality
2. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance:
Limited and piecemeal. Wrong type and scale for impacts
Recommendation: systematic mitigation
1. 3-day flow by-pass
2. Discuss flow based mitigation of ascending and
descending limbs with CPW/Northern
3. Large scale restoration of river-floodplain connectivity
Key concerns & recommendations
Key concerns & recommendations
12
1. Peak flows
3. Water quality: no data, analysis
Recommendation: do not adopt mitigation plan/adaptive
management until results for 401 certification are available
1. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
2. Adaptive Management
3. Uncertainties
4. Cost
13
1. Peak flows
2. Water quality
3. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
4. Adaptive Management: CPW and Northern lead monitoring and
adaptive management program, no defined performance
standards or “action” triggers.
Recommendation: create an independent monitoring group.
Establish clear objectives/triggers. Use all applicable
data/programs, not just EIS and new data.
Key concerns & recommendations
14
5. Cost: $$ commitment too low for scope/size cost of project.
Recommendation: increase total mitigation expenditures from
$53M to 71.2M. Cost would still be one-half the cost of CBT.
Key concerns & recommendations
15
1. Peak flows
2. Water quality
3. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
4. Adaptive Management
5. Uncertainties
t:
6. Big Game: important habitat in vicinity of Glade will be
fragmented.
Recommendation: conserve State Land Board property west of
Glade in perpetuity
Key concerns & recommendations
Resolution to consider
16
RESOLUTION 2017-073
Directing the City Manager to submit to the Colorado Parks
and Wildlife Commission and other agencies the City’s
comments on the fish and wildlife mitigation and
enhancement plan for the Northern Integrated Supply
Project…
-1-
RESOLUTION 2017-073
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT TO THE COLORADO PARKS AND
WILDLIFE COMMISSION AND OTHER AGENCIES THE CITY’S COMMENTS
ON THE FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN
FOR THE NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT AND
DIRECTING TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City has numerous and varied interests in the Cache la Poudre River,
which flows through Fort Collins, and the City has made and intends to continue to make
substantial investments in and along the river and river corridor through Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Northern Water”) is
pursuing the Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”), a water storage and supply project
that would divert significant amounts of water from the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort
Collins and thereby potentially impact Fort Collins, the City, and its interests; and
WHEREAS, to move forward with the necessary federal permitting for NISP, Northern
Water is required by the federal National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to complete an
environmental impact review process, conducted in this case by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (“Corps”) as the permitting agency under the federal Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, as part of the federal review process, on April 30, 2008, the Corps issued a
draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”), and the City timely submitted comments on the
DEIS on September 10, 2008 pursuant to Resolution 2008-082; and
WHEREAS, as part of the federal review process, on May 12, 2015, the Corps issued a
supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDEIS”), and the City timely submitted
comments on the SDEIS on September 2, 2015 pursuant to Resolution 2015-082; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2017-024, City Council authorized and directed the
City Manager and his designees to meet on a regular basis with Northern Water regarding NISP
and to discuss and explore the City’s concerns and interests in order to ascertain whether those
interests can be met, including through potential solutions to address the City’s goals and issues
related to NISP; and
WHEREAS, to move forward with the necessary State of Colorado (“State”) permitting
for NISP, Northern Water is required by Section 37-60-122.2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes to
seek and receive State approval of a plan to mitigate NISP’s impacts on fish and wildlife
resources; and
WHEREAS, Northern Water’s proposed Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement
Plan (Applicant Proposal), dated June 9, 2017 (“Plan”), was submitted to the Colorado Parks
and Wildlife Commission; and
-2-
WHEREAS, City staff, working with the assistance of outside technical experts,
undertook a thorough and detailed technical analysis of the Plan primarily as it pertains to
NISP’s impacts to fish and wildlife resources in Fort Collins and to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to express its support for other communities, including
participants in NISP, in their quest to acquire reliable water supplies without significantly and
adversely affecting other communities and the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the Plan is deficient in various respects,
including in its proposed minimization, mitigation, and enhancement activities concerning
NISP’s impacts to fish and wildlife resources in Fort Collins and to the City, as set forth in the
City’s comments on the Plan, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, some of the City’s comments on the Plan relate to issues that also pertain to
the federal permitting for NISP, and as such, the comments may also be appropriate to submit to
federal agencies such as the Corps; and
WHEREAS, nothing herein shall be construed to affect the City’s position regarding
NISP, as described in Resolution 2015-082 and Resolution 2017-024; and
WHEREAS, in view of the significance of the impacts that NISP would have on the City
and the Fort Collins community, it is in the City’s best interest to comment on the Plan, to
continue to participate in the related federal and State proceedings, and to monitor the responses
to the comments of the City and others.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to submit to the
State, through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, and other federal and State agencies, comments to the Plan that are substantially similar
with those attached hereto in accordance with the deadline for such submissions.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to testify and/or
to designate staff persons to testify on behalf of the City before the Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission and the Colorado Water Conservation Board at their respective public hearings
regarding the City’s comments on the Plan, as it now exists or may be revised in the future, and
further, that Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak is also authorized to provide such testimony in
coordination with the City Manager and his designee(s).
-3-
Passed and adopted at a special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 8th
day of August A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
City Manager’s Office
City Hall
300 LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
August 10, 2017
Dear Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission,
The City of Fort Collins (”Fort Collins”) respectfully submits the following comments on the
proposed Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (Applicant Proposal), dated June
9, 2017 (“Plan”) for Northern Water’s proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”).
Fort Collins appreciates the public comment opportunity provided by the Colorado Parks and
Wildlife Commission (“CPW”) and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”). There
are two parts to this comment letter: Concerns and Key Recommendations, and Technical
Comments.
As early as the turn of the 19
th
century, the Poudre River was known as a “hard working” river.
Now, well into the 21
st
century, pressures on the Poudre have increased dramatically as the
region thrives. In the early 1970’s Fort Collins realized that the Poudre had the potential to be
more than an industrial zone. Since that time, Fort Collins has invested many tens of millions of
dollars in parks, natural areas, river restoration, flood mitigation, and a riverside trail. Fort
Collins owns about 70% of the floodplain within the city’s growth management area. The
Poudre River trail starts west of the City at the CPW Watson Lake facility and with the exception
of a short section yet to be completed near Timnath, runs to Greeley. Throughout the year
visitors throng the river including boaters, tubers, hikers, bikers, and anglers. According to a
2012 CPW report, the highest creel counts on the Poudre are in downtown Fort Collins not, as
one might expect, in the upper reaches of the wild and scenic section.
In short, the 10 miles of the Poudre corridor through Fort Collins have become a defining
feature of the community’s connection to the outdoors, its culture, and its sense of place
1
.
Fort Collins’ Concerns and Key Recommendations
It is Fort Collins’ understanding that CPW collaborated with Northern Water to help create
certain elements of the Plan. CPW and Northern are to be commended for the many positive
elements contained in the Plan. They include the refined conveyance operations that provide
base flows, fish passage on multiple structures, ramping of Hansen Canal deliveries, and the
1 In 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted a position regarding NISP in Resolution No. 2015-
082. The resolution states that NISP would be harmful to Fort Collins and states “City Council
cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed…” While this comment letter
implicitly assumes that NISP will be permitted and constructed by recommending various
changes to NISP and its operations, nothing in this letter should be interpreted to be a change
of Fort Collins’ position regarding NISP.
EXHIBIT A
2
inclusion of monitoring, adaptive management, and – very importantly - peak flow concepts
and strategies.
Despite these positive elements, Fort Collins remains highly concerned about the negative
impacts on fish and wildlife resources that will result from the system-wide changes that NISP
will cause to the Cache la Poudre River (“Poudre River”). Fort Collins expects various negative
impacts to occur even with implementation of the Plan. Thus, if NISP is permitted and
constructed, Fort Collins urges CPW and the CWCB to revise the Plan as set forth in this
comment letter. The comments are designed to help better mitigate NISP impacts in a manner
that remains economically reasonable and maintains a balance between the development of
the state’s water resources and the protection of the state’s fish and wildlife resources.
In 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted a position regarding NISP in Resolution No. 2015-
082. The resolution states that NISP would be harmful to Fort Collins and states “City Council
cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed…” While this comment letter
implicitly assumes that NISP will be permitted and constructed by recommending various
changes to NISP and its operations, nothing in this letter should be interpreted to be a change of
Fort Collins’ position regarding NISP.
Fort Collins’ key concerns and suggestions for improvement of the Plan center on seven
themes. They are summarized below along with a brief description of Fort Collins’ key
recommendations. Fort Collins looks forward to continuing its dialogue with CPW, the CWCB,
Northern Water, and others interested in bettering the Poudre River and its fish and wildlife
resources.
1. Peak Flows. The Plan proposes a peak flow operations program; however, the program
will not accomplish the goals described by the statute (C.R.S. §37-60-122.2) for three
fundamental reasons. First, while the Plan aspires to support habitat needs for
spawning fish, it does not consider other basic needs for fish and wildlife resources.
Without a peak flow strategy adequate to support the food base of aquatic insects a
diversity of in-channel habitats and shading from a functional riparian zone, the Plan will
fail to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife. Second, the definition presented for
“flushing flows,” to provide for surface cleaning of the riffles, is not applicable to the
Poudre River where gravels are settled within the riverbed matrix, not above it (see
peak flow technical comment #1, below). The proposed flushing flows prescribed in the
Plan to “clean the surface” will be insufficient to flush gravels. Third, the technical
report (Anderson, 2017) uses an unconventional approach for determining an adequate
flushing flow regime (see technical comments, below). Based on these observations,
the peak flow operations program proposed by the Plan will not accomplish the Plan’s
stated objective of providing spawning habitat for fish.
A proposed solution to the shortcomings of the Plan’s peak flow strategy is to adopt and
implement a modified peak flow strategy to ensure at a minimum an annual 3-day peak
flow bypass. That is, the Peak Flow Operations Program would be modified as an annual Tier 1
3
event, which would more closely approximate the current peak flow regime than the proposed
tiered approach. Furthermore, the modified approach would be easier to manage and provide
more predictability than the tiered approach. Associated curtailment and increases of
NISP’s diversions should change the flows no more than 500 cubic feet per second
(”cfs”) over a 24-hour period. This will help ensure public safety and mitigate
desiccation of riparian habitat. Even with this strategy in place, NISP will diminish the
ascending and descending limbs of the hydrograph and negatively affect riverine and
riparian habitat. This approach has several advantages. It more closely approximates
the current flushing flow regime than the tiered approach proposed in the Plan, and it is
relatively easy to manage. While the annual 3-day bypass could affect NISP’s yield, Fort
Collins calculates the impact would be less than 5%, and that could be lowered through
various management actions.
Please note that under separate cover letter, Fort Collins will be providing technical
comments on the Anderson report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CPW, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (all three agencies apparently were consulted in the
process of developing the Plan’s peak flow mitigation strategy).
2. Water Quality. NISP is likely to have impacts to water quality and thus to fish and
wildlife resources. While the Plan proposes some water quality mitigation measures,
the measures were developed in the absence of a quantitative water quality impacts
analysis (the State of Colorado water quality 401 certification currently under
development as a part of the final environmental impact statement (“EIS”). Fort Collins
recommends withholding approval of the Plan until the final EIS and final water quality
impacts analysis are made publicly available so that the Commission can ascertain
whether mitigation measures will adequately prevent water quality impacts to fish and
wildlife.
3. Mitigation, Restoration, Channel Improvements, and Conveyance. The Plan proposes a
number of mitigation and enhancement measures. The mitigation measures are
designed to address the unavoidable impacts of NISP. In general, Fort Collins believes
that these measures are inadequate to mitigate the system-wide extent of NISP’s
impacts and should be substantially improved (such as impacts to the ascending and
descending limbs of the hodograph). While the impacts of NISP will occur throughout
the river corridor from the canyon mouth to the confluence with the South Platte River,
the restoration and proposed channel improvements are limited to short sections of
river. Fort Collins believes that this portion of the Plan could be greatly enhanced by
developing more mitigation projects throughout the river corridor, including specific
locations in and upstream of Fort Collins.
The primary focus for restoration should be on improving river-floodplain connectivity,
which has ecological and flood attenuation benefits (see technical comments below on
channel conveyance). The Plan is confusing in that it proposes restoration elements to
4
mitigate for additional sedimentation and channel contraction, while at the same time
asserting that there will be no additional aggradation upstream of I-25. See Plan at A12.
Upstream mitigation could include reconnection of the river to its floodplain that might
mitigate potential flood conditions in Fort Collins (see comments below on channel
conveyance). The Plan’s proposed budget for mitigation is $2.8 million (page 87). In the
experience of Fort Collins, this will not be enough to achieve the Plan’s objectives or
enhancements to those objectives. Based on Poudre restoration projects the City has
undertaking or is contemplating, a more reasonable number would be in the
neighborhood of $12 million.
Fort Collins also recommends that the enhancement budget increase from $5 million to
$10 million. Again, this is based on the Poudre River restoration experience of Fort
Collins; in short, to work at scale, a more robust budget will be needed.
The ability of the Poudre River to convey flood flows from its watershed is not a topic
directly considered by the Plan. Nevertheless, a river that is able to convey flood flows
and minimize risk to human health and safety is a river that also protects the integrity of
fish and wildlife habitat. The devastating human and wildlife impacts of the 2013 floods
on Front Range rivers are instructive examples. Fort Collins has numerous foundational
concerns about the definitions and analytical approach under which flushing flows were
developed.
The Plan notes that channel maintenance flows – which are relevant to flood mitigation
– are not an objective. Fort Collins is concerned that long-term channel capacity, and
thus flood flow conveyance capacity, will be reduced through aggradation of sediment
within the channel and vegetation encroachment into the existing channel. The
alternative 3-day annual bypass flow proposed by Fort Collins would address some of
these concerns. The adaptive management and monitoring program could then analyze
long-term channel conveyance impacts with the 3-day annual bypass in place.
4. Adaptive Management and Long-Term Monitoring. Fort Collins welcomes the adaptive
management concept included in the Enhancement portion of the Plan, as it will provide
opportunities to monitor various fish and wildlife mitigation actions and to adjust them
over time. Even though NISP is designed to provide water in perpetuity, the Plan
proposes that CPW and Northern lead the adaptive management committee and fund
its activities for a mere 20 years. Fort Collins recommends that an independent and
collaborative monitoring program be established that includes local stakeholders and
further recommends that funding for adaptive management be extended from 20 years
to at least a 50-year period (which aligns with the water planning and supply framework
of NISP).
5
Furthermore, Fort Collins recommends that the adaptive management plan include
specific performance standards and associated “triggers” for action to ensure river
health. The State of the Poudre (Fort Collins, 2017) provides both a framework and
underlying details for developing performance thresholds and triggers that are based on
a comprehensive and functional approach to sustaining river health. Fort Collins would
welcome the opportunity to discuss and develop this approach with Northern Water.
Lastly, Fort Collins recommends that the adaptive management and monitoring program
be funded at $100,000 a year instead of $50,000. In the experience of Fort Collins,
$50,000 will not be adequate to the broad set of monitoring tasks.
5. Uncertainties Regarding Agreements. Agreements with various third-party entities and
persons need to be completed for the Plan to operate as contemplated to mitigate
NISP’s impacts on fish and wildlife resources. However, the Plan fails to identify
completed and certain agreements, and there are numerous assumptions throughout
the Plan concerning agreements with third parties. It is unclear whether these
agreements can realistically be completed due to various uncertainties, such as whether
third parties are willing, whether the costs for such needed agreements can be met by
Northern Water, and whether the legal and regulatory challenges can be adequately
addressed for Northern Water and the third parties. Fort Collins appreciates that
Northern Water and CPW have good intentions. CPW should withhold approval of the
Plan until crucial agreements are completed (for example bypass agreements with ditch
companies for the conveyance refinement).
6. Mitigation and Enhancement Costs. Fort Collins recommends increased spending on
mitigation, enhancement, and monitoring provisions by no less than $18.2 million (an
additional $9.2 million for mitigation; $5 million for enhancements; $4 million for
monitoring). The original NISP budget is $857 million (page 9 of the Plan). Though the
mitigation and enhancement costs are represented in several different ways in the Plan,
the overall mitigation and enhancement costs are described as $53 million (please note
that Fort Collins would not describe some of the items in the Plan as mitigation or
enhancement, for example the multiple outlet release structure at Glade Reservoir). An
extra $18.2 million would be sum of $77.2 million and would represent ~8.3% of the
original NISP budget.
The proposal to increase the budget for these items is reasonable, practicable, and
achievable for a project with the scale and impact of NISP and commensurate with the
cost of mitigation on other major Front Range water projects (e.g., the Gross Reservoir
Expansion Project and the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project). The total cost of
each NISP acre-foot of water at full build out would be negligibly affected and each NISP
acre-foot of water would still only be approximately one-half the current cost of an
acre-foot of firm yield from the Colorado Big Thompson Project.
6
7. Big Game Habitat. While these comments generally are restricted to those elements of
the Plan that directly pertain to Fort Collins and its boundaries, Fort Collins wishes to
express its support for additional big game habitat protection on the west side of the
proposed Glade Reservoir. An approximately 5,000-acre State Land Board (“SLB”) parcel
will adjoin the west side of Glade; to the west, the SLB parcel is bounded by Gateway
Natural Area, owned and managed by Fort Collins, as well as water and land managed
by the City of Greeley, and then United States Forest Service property. The SLB parcel
currently is leased by CPW for hunting and fishing access and it provides a crucial buffer
to federal lands to the west as well as providing high quality big game winter range. This
range will be even more important should Glade Reservoir be constructed and fragment
big game habitat, especially critical winter range. Fort Collins recommends a
partnership – that could include Fort Collins – to conserve the SLB parcel in perpetuity
for it wildlife and associated recreation values.
The essence of the concerns and recommendations Fort Collins’ presents in this comment letter
can be distilled to the observation that the Poudre River post-NISP, even with the Plan, will not
have adequate flows to ensure the long-term health of fish and wildlife resources nor channel
maintenance and flood conveyance.
The State of the River Report (SOPR, Fort Collins, 2017), a recently completed integrated river
health assessment found that the Poudre warranted an overall grade of “C” for the study reach
from approximately Gateway Natural Area to I-25 (http://www.fcgov.com/poudrereportcard/).
Fort Collins’ goal, which supports the fish and wildlife goals of the State, is to improve the
current grade; however, without implementing at a minimum the provisions recommended in
this letter, it is not likely the Poudre River will be able to maintain or improve the grade.
Sincerely,
Darin Atteberry
City Manager
City of Fort Collins
7
Technical Comments of the City of Fort Collins on the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan (Applicant Proposal), dated June 9, 2017 for Northern Water’s proposed
Northern Integrated Supply Project
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING PEAK FLOWS
Peak Flows Technical Comment 1:
Anderson Report Statement: Flushing Flows: Flows that flush or move sediments (sands and
gravels) resting on top of the coarse bed material matrix (or armor layer) in riffles. Flushing
flows allow for surface cleaning of riffles necessary to support ecological function of the river
channel. The objective of the flushing flows is to maintain spawning habitat for fish. (Anderson
2017 page 1)
Note that flushing flows defined above and evaluated in this report are different from threshold
flows identified and discussed in the NISP Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(SDEIS) Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Baseline Report (Baseline Report) (ACE
2013). The Baseline Report includes an assessment of two threshold flows that involve
movement of the coarse bed material matrix (or armor layer) comprised of very coarse gravels
and cobbles. The first threshold flow indicates when there is slight movement or vibration of the
coarse armor layer material allowing for finer sediments to be released from the interstices of
matrix. These flows are referred to as ‘Flushing Flows’ in the Baseline Report … but have
subsequently been re-labeled and are now referred to as ‘Channel Maintenance Flows’ for all
future work. (Anderson 2017 page 1)
Spawning gravels for brown trout range in size from 3 mm to 100 mm…”Class A” spawning
gravels, which are most optimal, range in size from 10mm to 70mm… (Anderson 2017 page 8)
Comment: The new definition for flushing flows is not applicable to the Poudre River. A flow
prescription based on this definition and its supporting analyses will be ineffective at achieving
the objective of maintaining spawning habitat for fish.
In the vast majority of riffles along the Poudre River, gravels up to 64mm do not sit on top of a
coarse armor layer. Rather, the smaller gravels sit among and within the larger bed material
and help make-up the bed material matrix. The newly-proposed definition of “flushing flows” is
thus incompatible with the Poudre River bed.
The following photos show the riverbed above, in, and downstream of downtown Fort Collins.
The river bottom is a matrix of grain sizes and gravels sitting within the armor layer matrix, not
above it.
8
Figure 1 - Riffle downstream of the Greeley Filter Plant.
Figure 2 - Riffle just upstream of Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant
Figure 3 - Riffle Downstream of Timberline Road
To be effective in meeting the agencies’ objective, the bed material matrix must be mobilized to
flush the finer sediments that have settled in and behind the larger materials, as defined above.
The standard approach within the discipline of geomorphology is to calculate and work to
9
mobilize the median-sized riverbed material, referred to as the “d50” (ASCE, 1992; Milhous,
2000, 2003). Mobilization of the d50 accomplishes numerous functions including: algae
scour/disturbance, sand/fine sediment flushing, limiting encroaching vegetation and armor
breakup/full transport of bedload” (Shanahan et al., 2014).
To summarize, the newly-assigned term “channel maintenance flows” – and not the newly-
defined “flushing flows” – defines the flows necessary to move the bed material matrix and
release finer material from the matrix. This is the function needed to maintain spawning
habitat on the Poudre River and should be calculated with the d50.
Recommendation: To meet CPW’s goal of flushing gravels for spawning habitat on the Poudre
River, Fort Collins recommends that the agencies use the original definition of “flushing flows” –
not the new definition in Anderson 2017 – and then develop mitigation strategies to achieve
this objective (such as the flow bypass proposal outlined in comment 1d).
Peak Flows Technical Comment 2:
Anderson Report Statement: Flushing Flows: Flows that flush or move sediments (sands and
gravels) resting on top of the coarse bed material matrix (or armor layer) in riffles. Flushing
flows allow for surface cleaning of riffles necessary to support ecological function of the river
channel. The objective of the flushing flows is to maintain spawning habitat for fish. (Anderson
2017 page 1)
Comment: The objective of supporting ecological function of the river channel is a broad goal
and Fort Collins agrees that it is within the scope of C.R.S. §37-60-122.2 and the mandate to
protect fish and wildlife resources. However, the statement that flushing flows is limited to the
needs for spawning fish instead suggests that the Plan’s proposed scope is much narrower.
Fort Collins does not understand why this Plan, which is intended to support fish and wildlife
resources, has presented an overly narrow objective. To meet the Plan’s goal of sustaining a
healthy fishery, three other objectives must be included:
1. The food base for fishes (aquatic insects) requires clean interstitial spaces.
2. A diversity of in-channel habitats (pools, riffles, runs) requires full mobility of the
riverbed.
3. A self-sustaining and functional riparian zone provides shading critical additions to the
food base form terrestrial inputs and requires hydrology appropriate to support riparian
process.
In addition, to meet the objective to protect fish and wildlife resources set forth in C.R.S. §37-
60-122.2, a mosaic of healthy riparian habitats is needed which is met through management of
both the volume and duration of peak flows. Other mitigation measures proposed in the Plan,
such as the proposal to retrofit diversion dams with fish passage, have little value if these
baseline ecological objectives are not achieved.
10
Recommendation: Set objectives around the full suite of needs for fish and the habitat needs
for obligate riparian wildlife. Develop mitigation strategies that support an ecologically
functional riverbed and functional self-sustaining riparian zone (such as the flow by pass
proposal outlined in comment 1d).
Peak Flows Technical Comment 3:
Anderson Report Statement: Very coarse gravels (64mm) show a flushing flow range of 1,667
cfs to 2,873 cfs in the Laporte reaches and 3,729 cfs to 6,817 cfs within the Fort Collins and
Timnath reaches. It should be noted that the d16 of the coarse armor layer in the Fort Collins
and Timnath reaches, from the Larimer and Weld Canal to I-25, includes both coarse gravel and
very coarse gravel. (Anderson report page 8)
Based on the results of the initiation of motion analysis, the agency representatives agreed that
the flows to flush coarse and very coarse gravels, having a maximum flow magnitude of 2,800
cfs, would optimize benefit to aquatic species in the study area….. (Anderson report page 45)
Comment: The conclusion of the agency representatives appears to not be supported by the
Anderson report or independent analysis. According to the Anderson report, flushing of coarse
gravel (32mm) and very coarse gravel (64mm) through Fort Collins occurs at flows between
3,729 cfs - 6,817 cfs. However, these higher flow values are disregarded though the adoption
of the recommended 2,800 cfs flow rate, even though the report clearly defines Class A
spawning gravels as 10-70mm.
It also appears that the Anderson report relies on unestablished assumptions regarding gravel
size. It appears that the “coarse armor layer” (which is not part of the flushing analysis) is
defined in the Anderson report as anything equal to or greater than the d16 grain size at each
riffle. The term “d16” refers to the particle size that is larger than 16 percent of the total
distribution of grain sizes. It does not indicate a specific grain size and could range widely
depending on the type of river and specific location. Fort Collins is unaware of any basis for
defining the coarse armor layer based on this threshold of d16. Further explanation with
references from peer-reviewed journal articles is needed to back up this approach whereby all
grain sizes greater than the d16 are dismissed.
The peak flow strategy at the mouth of the canyon calls for 2800 cfs at Tier 2 (20% of the time)
and no bypass for Tier 3 (38% of the time). Neither Tier would flush gravels through Fort Collins
because flows downstream in Fort Collins are equal at best and lower most days for
downstream reaches and Tier 3 occurs at lower flows in any case. Tiers 2 and 3 occur 58% of
the time and would not achieve flushing flows to flush gravels to maintain spawning habitat
through Fort Collins according to the initiation of motion analysis presented in the Anderson
report.
11
Fort Collins independently studied the flows needed to mobilize the riverbed near College
Avenue (City of Fort Collins, 2014). This effort concluded that a flow of 3,300 cfs is needed for a
duration of three days and optimally would need to occur on average every three years to
support life cycle needs for spawning fish. Under today’s pre-NISP conditions (based on the full
record of Lincoln gage data), this flow is occurring every 4.6 years. While this value is based on
a single study reach (between Shields and College Avenue), it was developed to mobilize the
d50.
Recommendation: To meet CPW’s goal of flushing gravels for spawning habitat on the Poudre
River, Fort Collins recommends mitigation strategies that achieve flows that the incipient
motion analyses indicates are necessary (such as the flow bypass proposal outlined in the
following Peak Flows Technical Comment 4).
Peak Flows Technical Comment 4:
Plan Statement: Simulated peak flow operations show that the program would substantially
improve peak flow characteristics at the Canyon Gage (Colorado Division of Water Resources ID
CLAFTCCO) from unmitigated NISP operations. (Page 47)
Comment: Fort Collins applauds the Plan’s efforts to reduce NISP’s significant adverse impacts
to peak flows on the Poudre River. Although the peak flow operations program represents an
improvement over past NISP proposals, as noted in the previous three technical comments, it
does not achieve CPW’s stated goal of supporting ecological function of the river channel and
maintaining fish spawning habitat.
Recommendation: Fort Collins recommends that the Plan be revised and eliminate the tier-
based system for peak flows and be restructured to curtail all diversions for a minimum period
of 3 days (72 hours) every year coinciding with the peak flow period.
Full curtailment is the only method that increases the likelihood of achieving the volumetric
range of flows with optimal frequency that is needed to support spawning fish populations. It
reduces the burden on Northern Water to provide and administer channel maintenance flows
on a specific frequency at specific locations. It also eliminates the expectation that Northern
Water could control other factors (such as interannual climate variability). Essentially, for a
minimum of three days, current peak flow conditions would persist regardless of NISP’s
operations or Glade Reservoir’s storage level.
Fort Collins acknowledges that a full, annual bypass may reduce the NISP’s yield. However, Fort
Collins predicts this yield reduction will be small (less than 5%), and could be further reduced
through various water sharing operations or cooperative agreements. Fort Collins encourages
further conversations on these options.
12
Peak Flows Technical Comment 5:
Plan Statement: The operations described for this program would apply once Glade Reservoir
has been filled and is no longer under any type of initial fill conditions (which limit the rate at
which the reservoir can be initially filled). For the interim period, it is likely that NISP effects on
peak flows will be minimal as the rate of fill will be substantially reduced from maximum project
operations. (Page 50)
Comment: Fort Collins is concerned about changes and impacts during the filling period yet
there is no flow analysis for this period in the Plan. The impacts of a filling period as described
could potentially follow or be followed by a multi-year drought. This flow pattern could
permanently alter the trajectory and functionality of the system due to an extensive (decadal)
period during which flushing flow needs are not met which in turn will increase the armoring
(by increasing the D50) and raise future flow values required to move the bed.
Recommendation: The Plan should specify the maximum diversion and duration rate during the
initial fill period so that impacts during this interim period can be ascertained. Flushing flow
commitment, such as a peak flow by-pass should be implemented during the filling period.
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Technical Comment 1:
Comment: NISP is likely to have impacts to water quality and thus to fish and wildlife resources.
While the Plan proposes some water quality mitigation measures, the measures were
developed in the absence of a quantitative water quality impacts analysis (the State of Colorado
water quality 401 certification currently under development as a part of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement).
Recommendation: Fort Collins’ recommends not finalizing the Plan until the Final EIS and final
water quantitative water quality model and impacts analysis are available.
Water Quality Technical Comment 2:
Comment: The Plan describes monitoring and adaptive management as the tools/strategies to
address water quality impacts. Fort Collins finds this overly general approach troubling given
that no quantitative information about the water quality impacts has been made available for
evaluation.
Fort Collins believes that in order to evaluate the efficacy of an adaptive management program
to protect against the many potential water quality impacts, three concepts are critical:
1) Ability to identify expected impacts
2) Establishment of clearly defined triggers for actionable items
13
3) Adequate program funding
The first two criteria are not met by this proposed Plan based on the lack of the analysis
associated with the 401-water quality certification, and the third should be determined based
on the likelihood of the impacts that qualify for action.
Recommendation: Fort Collins recommends, that this mitigation plan not be approved until the
401 analysis is released and the information can be used to better define expected impacts and
defined related thresholds for action.
Water Quality Technical Comment 3:
FWMEP Statement: The [Munroe] exchange …..has been replaced with a new pipeline directly
from Glade to PV Pipeline (for FCLWD) and new pipeline from Glade to SCFP (for Eaton,
Severance and Windsor). This avoids streamflow depletions in Poudre River streamflow between
Munroe Canal diversion and the Glade Reservoir release point. (Page 36)
Comment: The proposed operation of Glade Reservoir to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (“PVP”)
for the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District deliveries presents the possibility of degraded water
quality being delivered to the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility. Such degraded water
quality require additional expenditures for treatment that may be unacceptable to Fort Collins.
This concern was addressed in the Fort Collins’ comments submitted for the SDEIS.
Fort Collins maintains the right to exercise the terms of Paragraph 3.a of the Allotment Contract
for Capacity in the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, dated February 28, 2003, which provides that Fort
Collins (and others) must each give their specific approval allow the PVP to be used to deliver
water from Glade Reservoir in the PVP. Therefore, the proposed pipeline and mitigation of low
flows in the river is not a certain avoidance measure, but rather represents a proposed
avoidance strategy for streamflow depletion impacts, and should be identified and addressed
as such.
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING MITIGATION, RESTORATION, CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS, AND CONVEYANCE (“CORRIDOR”)
Corridor Technical Comment 1:
Comment: Concerns and goals for riparian dependent wildlife and increased flood risk to the
Fort Collins are closely related and addressed together in this section of the technical
comments. Fort Collins’ primary observation on these sections of the Plan (5.3.1.1 -5.3.1.3) is
that the piecemeal and spatially limited proposals for restoration and in-channel improvements
are inadequate for the type and scale of impacts from NISP.
14
Fort Collins owns more than two-thirds of the floodplain within the city limits. Fort Collins’
landscape level goal for riparian wildlife is to support a continuous mosaic of self-sustaining
habitats along the Poudre River.
The interplay between flows and geomorphology (topography specifically) drives the potential
for this desired habitat complexity. Flows that spill beyond the bank (i.e. above “bankfull”) are
the primary driver for riparian habitats. Bankfull flows will be reduced with NISP. The Plan, and
in particular the Peak Flow Bypass Program, does not mitigate this loss.
Attenuating and safely conveying floodwaters is a high priority for Fort Collins. Regardless of
whether NISP is built, the Poudre River will continue to see extreme flood events. Flushing and
channel maintenance flows (as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the SDEIS, not
the recent Anderson report) influence conveyance capacity by mobilizing and scouring the
riverbed and undercutting encroaching vegetation. The failure to mitigate the loss of these
channel maintenance flows in the Plan will lead over time to a natural adjustment (downsizing)
by the river. This will displace flows normally in the channel to the floodplain and increase
flood risk.
The Plan does not mitigate the NISP-associated reduction in the 5-year flows. Without peak
flow mitigation there will be a 20 to 30% reduction in the width of the 5-year floodplain (Fort
Collins’ comments on the 2015 SDEIS). A site-specific example would occur just downstream of
Lemay Avenue where the 5-year floodplain currently extends far into the riparian zone. With
NISP, the 5-year flow will not overbank at all in this location. Discrete and far-flung site-based
restoration is not sufficient to mitigate system-wide loss of riparian habitats.
Two flow-based strategies can help mitigate both impacts to riparian habitats and channel
conveyance. First, a complete 3-day bypass, as previously described, would provide the system
with a range of peak flows. The frequency and magnitude of channel maintenance, flushing,
and 5-year flows would all remain the same as today. Second, consideration must be given to
mitigating the ascending and descending limbs. The magnitude and duration of the limbs, or
“the area under the curve” directly influences the probability the river will receive flows that
are effective at sustaining flushing and channel maintenance functions and sustain a mosaic of
riparian and wetlands habitats for wildlife.
If NISP is to be built without mitigation for channel maintenance flows and without longer
duration flows (without mitigation of the ascending and descending limbs), the proper type of
and necessary mitigation would be large-scale improvements to floodplain connectivity. This
would enable future higher and extreme flow events to spill onto the floodplain to drop
sediment and slow and attenuate (absorb) floodwaters. This would mitigate the increased
flood risk NISP poses to Fort Collins. Large-scale restoration of river- floodplain connectivity
also would provide underlying processes necessary for riparian habitats to sustain and
regenerate wildlife habitat.
15
Recommendation: To mitigate for the narrowing of riparian habitats and increased flood-risk
risk Fort Collins recommends the following:
1. A 3-day peak bypass that provides the current range of channel maintenance and
flushing flows;
2. Initiate a discussion with Fort Collins, Northern Water; and CPW to discuss mitigation
solutions/strategies with Northern Water and CPW to address the flow reductions
associated with the ascending and descending limbs; and
3. Implement projects to reconnect the river to its floodplain on a large scale.
Like the Plan, the State of the Poudre (SOPR, Fort Collins, 2017) identifies river reaches and
identifies those reaches with the greatest need for increased for restoration of floodplain
connectivity. Fort Collins recommends that the Plan focus its floodplain restoration efforts in
these areas.
The following Poudre River reaches were identified in the SOPR as receiving grades of D or F:
5. County Road 54 to Rist Canyon Road
7. Just below Overland Trail to Larimer Weld Canal
8. Larimer Weld Canal to Shields Street
15. Prospect Road to Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Diversion
The following Poudre River reaches were identified in the SOPR as receiving grades of C-:
4. Greeley Diversion to County Road 54
13. Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal to Timberline Road
18. Rail Road Bridge to Interstate-25
Corridor Technical Comment 2:
Plan Statement: As part of compensatory mitigation for resource effects throughout the Poudre
River, Northern Water would implement improvements in the stream channel at two locations
of slightly more than one mile each in affected reaches of the Poudre River. Initially, Northern
Water has identified the following reaches for these improvements
Approximately 1.2 miles within a 2.1-mile reach of the Poudre between PVC and the
Hansen Supply Canal inflows (Figure 20)
Approximately 1.2 miles of stream in the Watson Lake area (Figure 21)
Zone
Reach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Floodplain Extent 78 82 85 74 65 85 62 61 87 50 67 73 70 77 50 98 82 71
Canyon Rural Urban Plains
16
Key components of a stream habitat improvement project would likely include constructing in-
channel structures made of natural materials to create riffles and pools with a defined low-flow
channel which would increase channel depth, especially during low-flows; reconnecting the
channel to the floodplain and old oxbows; encouraging regeneration of native vegetation; and,
removing areas of non-native vegetation. (Page 57)
Improvements in existing riparian vegetation would be incorporated as part of the stream
channel habitat and improvement reaches that are described above. Additionally, Northern
Water has identified additional areas in which to improve existing riparian vegetation. Riparian
vegetation improvements would directly mitigate impacts on riparian vegetation resources,
impacts of reduced peak flows, and would also mitigate effects on water temperature in certain
reaches. Areas under consideration include the following:
• City of Fort Collins (10 acres)
• Frank State Wildlife Area (34 acres)
• Eastman Park Area (14 acres)
• Adjacent to all channel improvement reaches (54 acres)
Riparian vegetation mitigation through Fort Collins will be coordinated with current planning
efforts by the City, including its Poudre River Downtown Master Plan. The Poudre River
Downtown Master Plan includes much of the nearly 5-mile reach of Segment B, in which
approximately 10 acres of riparian vegetation may be affected by NISP. (Page 60)
Comment: In addition to the overview comment presented above, Fort Collins has four specific
and separate comments on these statements from the Plan:
1. The Plan does not provide any quantitative foundation for the proposal to conduct 2.4 miles
of stream channel improvements as the appropriate scale for the magnitude of impacts
from NISP flow reductions. A possible approach is to mitigate at a minimum of a 1/10 ratio.
Since the impacts occur on approximately 50 river miles, 5 miles of stream would need to
be improved.
2. It is unclear if “areas under consideration” implies a firm commitment. The relationship
between 54 acres adjacent to all channel improvement reaches and the 2.4 miles of
proposed channel improvements is not clear.
3. The Plan states there will be 10 acres of riparian vegetation affected by NISP. The NISP
SDEIS states there will be 10 acres of wetlands affected in reach B. There is a major
difference between wetlands and riparian areas and the scale of impacts to riparian areas
will be much greater.
4. Fort Collins agrees with many of the objectives listed for these projects, however many may
not be possible or needed in the two identified. For example reconnecting the channel to
the floodplain and old oxbows is not possible in the Watson lake reach, and is not needed
for the sub-reach from Pleasant Valley Canal to the Greeley diversion. According to the
State of the Poudre results, the floodplain extent score for the sub-reach from the Pleasant
Valley Canal to the Greeley diversion is an 85 (B). Similarly, within the proposed upstream
reach there are many areas (polygons) where the “Vegetation Structure” score is already a
17
B or A grade. From the Greeley diversion downstream for a half mile the “River Form” score
also is a “B.” The bottom line is that more rigorous site selection would help ensure that
the Plan’s restoration objectives are met.
Corridor Technical Comment 3:
Plan Statement: With additional depletions from NISP within this reach, it is possible that there
would be increased temperature standard excursions. Downstream of the Hansen Supply Canal
inflows, temperature standard excursions are less problematic because Hansen Supply Canal
inflows cool downstream river water. Channel improvements in this reach would seek to narrow
and deepen the current channel to be more consistent with current and future low-flow
conditions and increase riparian vegetation, including larger plains cottonwoods that would
shade the river channel. The effectiveness of these proposed improvements to cool water
temperature would be assessed during the detailed water quality modeling. (Pages 59-60)
Comment: Changes to stream temperature from NISP will be immediate. While cottonwoods
can provide shading, an immediate strategy will be necessary since large cottonwoods take a
minimum of 30 years to develop into “large cottonwoods for shading.”
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN, ASSOCIATED ROLES, AND DECISION SPACE (“MANAGEMENT”)
Management Technical Comment 1:
FWMEP Statement: Northern Water and CPW will jointly lead the Poudre River Adaptive
Management Program committee. It is envisioned that Northern Water and CPW will develop
an MOU… As the lead agencies, Northern Water and CPW would provide final concurrence on
any actions to be implemented under the program. (Page 90)
Comment: As a natural resource, the health of the Poudre River primarily affects local
communities and agencies. Thus, the adaptive management and monitoring programs
described in the Plan should be co-led by local government agencies, coalitions, and academic
institutions, not just CPW and Northern Water. In addition, concurrence must not be under the
sole control of Northern Water and CPW. The monitoring process should entail at least some
level of independence from Northern Water. Otherwise, Northern Water will be in the
untenable position of policing itself with respect to potential long-term impacts that affect local
communities.
Management Technical Comment 2:
Plan Statement: Development and implementation of the plan would require data collection,
which has already begun through the EIS process, and would continue by Northern Water
through the duration of the program. (Page 91)
18
Goals of the stream channel and habitat improvement plan would include:
• Collect additional data, perform a river corridor inventory, and document current conditions.
• Develop baseline geomorphic conditions for use in the Adaptive Management Plan.
• Develop a river-wide master plan and prioritization for maintaining and improving the
following river functions:
o Irrigation and municipal water supply diversions;
o Channel and overbank capacity and connectivity;
o Aquatic habitat and species;
o Riparian habitat and wildlife species;
o Flood risk to land and infrastructure;
o Recreation.
• Develop a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan. (Channel Improvement Plan, page
96)
Comment: Fort Collins recommends that the Channel Improvement Plan and the Adaptive
Management Plan be developed within existing monitoring and assessment frameworks.
Projects such as The State of the Poudre Assessment (2017), the Coalition for the Poudre River
Watershed’s Watershed Resilience Plan (2016), the Lower Poudre Monitoring Alliance, and the
forthcoming Lower Poudre Sediment & Master Plan all take an integrated and functions-based
approach to Poudre River health.
Management Technical Comment 3:
Comment: According to guidance produced by the Department of the Interior Monitoring
adaptive management program
(https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/ppa/upload/Chapter1.pdf):
Management of problems … increasingly involves a systems approach with explicit and
agreed upon objectives, management alternatives, and analytical approaches that can
identify the most appropriate management strategies (page 3). Adaptive management is
a structured approach to decision making that emphasizes accountability and
explicitness in decision making (chapter 1, page 4).
The Plan has postponed the development of well-defined, measureable project objectives,
accountability and adaptive management triggers. The simple action of including a proposal for
adaptive management does not assure the generic goals set forth in the Plan will be met.
When initial objectives are not established, an adaptive management plan cannot provide
direction on how best to re-direct efforts to meet the objective in question. Both monitoring
and adaptive management should be grounded in best available science appropriate to meet
monitoring objectives and define objectives through thresholds and measureable outcomes.
Thus, prior to acceptance of this Plan (and the Record of Decision for the 404 permit) explicit
flood conveyance, water quality and ecosystem based objectives and a structure for decision-
making should be determined.
19
Management Technical Comment 4:
Plan Statement: The Poudre River Adaptive Management Program will run for a period of 20
years following the initiation of filling Glade Reservoir, 10 years following full buildout
operations (defined as the consistent delivery of full or nearly full NISP yield to a majority of the
NISP participants for a period of 5 years), or until the funds set aside for the program are
exhausted, whichever comes first. (Page 92)
Comment: NISP impacts will occur in perpetuity yet the adaptive management program as
proposed will stop in 20 years following the initial fill period. This is a very short time frame
from the perspective of various geomorphic and ecological cycles. Fort Collins recommends
that a collaborative, independent monitoring program be established that includes local
stakeholders and further recommends that funding for adaptive management be extended to
at least a 50-year period.
Management Technical Comment 5:
Plan Statement: Mitigation and enhancement measures enacted through this program may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Accelerate establishment of channel forming by managing in-channel or riparian
vegetation;
- Place structures to direct sediment to selected aggradation zones;
- Install check structures or weirs to control the inundation of riparian vegetation;
- Dredge or otherwise remove sediment from the channel mechanically; (page 91)
Comment: Some adaptive management strategies and actions outlined in Plan are unclear
and/or would potentially have negative impacts on river health, function, and resiliency. As
noted above, there is no description provided as to how the proposed actions will have a
positive impact on watershed-scale disturbance.
- Accelerate establishment of channel forming by managing in-channel or riparian vegetation;
Further clarification is needed to be able to understand this proposal.
- Place structures to direct sediment to selected aggradation zones;
This concept is unclear and as Fort Collins interprets it, it is not a common practice. It is unclear
how the location of these zones will be selected since depositional zones are not static. Also,
according to the Plan deposition will not increase under NISP, so theoretically, managing
sediment is not necessary.
-Install check structures or weirs to control the inundation of riparian vegetation;
It is unclear if the objective here is to create backwater areas to drown out encroaching
vegetation or to inundate and therefore maintain necessary wetted pattern to support the
20
existing riparian zone. The use of weirs or check structures creates hard-points in the river
which reduces the river’s ability to adjust and recover from larger flood events. The costly
vulnerability of these types of structures to large floods was evident after the floods of 2013.
The State of the Poudre revealed the lowest (failing) scores for geomorphology metrics for
reaches immediately upstream of diversion structures, indicating there are very poor habitat
conditions for aquatic insects and spawning fish because the riverbed is clogged with fine
sediment. So this proposal is undesirable as it would create in uniform glide habitat, decreased
habitat complexity for fish, and continuous sediment deposition for the affected local area
upstream.
- Dredge or otherwise remove sediment from the channel mechanically;
Dredging sediment mechanically from the river is not a preferred mitigation approach, as it will
result in considerable harm to fish and wildlife resources. The SDEIS asserts there will be no
additional aggradation upstream of I-25 despite the underlying data showing there will be (see
Fort Collins’s 2015 comments to the SDEIS). To propose dredging sediment is necessary implies
a significant departure from the representation of impacts between the SDEIS and the Plan.
This particular issue is very important to Fort Collins and it would be helpful to see greater
consistency between underlying data and conclusions on impacts in both this Plan and the final
EIS.
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING UNCERTAINTIES REGARDING
AGREEMENTS (“AGREEMENTS”)
Agreements Technical Comment 1:
Plan Statement: If during actual operations, administration of water rights on the river results in
the flow commitments not reaching the targeted flows or reaches (i.e. operations by others
result in the bypassed or released flows not remaining in the river through the intended reach),
Northern Water would cease operation of the flow commitment and seek administrative and
legal solutions to ensure that these operations would result in the intended flows being met.
(Page 35).
Bypassed flow will not be diverted by another upstream or downstream water right…Bypassed
flow will not count against Glade fill. (Table 6, Page 46)
Comment: The Plan acknowledges that flows that are intended to be bypassed or released to
achieve low flow enhancements or peaking flows may not be able to achieve their intended
goals.
Recommendation: The Plan should describe how bypassed flows will be protected from
subsequent diversion by other water right holders and how bypassed flows will be accounted.
Without this information, the future viability and operation of the program is uncertain and
there is no guarantee that bypassed flows will be maintained in the river.
21
REFERENCES FOR FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS
American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) (1992). Sediment and aquatic habitat in river
systems. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 118(5):669–687.
Shanahan J.O., D.W. Baker, B.P. Bledsoe, N.L. Poff, D.M. Merritt, K.R. Bestgen, G.T. Auble, B.C.
Kondratieff, J.G. Stokes, M. Lorie and J.S. Sanderson (2014). An Ecological Response Model for
the Cache la Poudre River through Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department,
Fort Collins, CO. 93 pp + appendices.
Milhous, R. T. (2000). Numerical modeling of flushing flows in gravel-bed rivers. In: P. C.
Klingeman, R. L. Beschta, P. D. Komar, and J. B. Bradley (Eds.), Gravel-bed Rivers in the
Environment, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, pp. 579–608.
Milhous, R.T. (2003). Reconnaissance-level application of physical habitat simulation in the
evaluation of physical habitat limits in the Animas Basin, Colorado. U. S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 03222, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, 16 pp.
City of Fort Collins (2017). State of the Poudre: A River Health Assessment. Retrieved from:
http://www.fcgov.com/poudrereportcard/pdf/reportcard.pdf
City of Fort Collins (2015). City of Fort Collins Comments on the NISP Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/pdf/2015nisp-comments.pdf?1442010471