Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/11/2018 - PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE NORTHERNDATE: STAFF: September 11, 2018 Jennifer Shanahan, Watershed Planner Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Preliminary review and discussion of the Northern Integrated Supply Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide an opportunity to review and discuss staff’s initial findings and recommendations related to the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have any suggestions, questions, or concerns about the material and staff’s approach? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) is a municipal water supply project designed and sponsored by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) and fifteen participating municipalities and water districts. Among the participants is the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD), a municipal water provider serving a portion of southeast Fort Collins. NISP proposes two off-channel reservoirs as well as a system for conveying water between the reservoirs and to its participants. Glade reservoir, the larger of the two reservoirs, will be located to the north of the Cache la Poudre River (Poudre) near the mouth of the Poudre Canyon. Water needed to fill Glade Reservoir will be diverted from above Fort Collins just below the canyon mouth and will cause a reduction in flows. These changes may result in significant impacts to the Fort Collins community through adverse impacts to the Poudre River habitats and services it provides. Galeton, the second reservoir, is much smaller and is proposed to be located northeast of Ault. The NISP final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was released on July 20, 2018 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for public comment through October 4, 2018. Given the complex nature of NISP and the FEIS, staff have not yet finalized the technical analyses for Council’s consideration. Draft comments for Council’s consideration for submission to the Corps will be presented at the October 2, 2018 regular Council meeting. PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION AND GENERAL APPROACH TO COMMENTS Staff is currently preparing comments on the FEIS. This process has been underway for 14 years, and over this time numerous modifications and improvements have been made to the project in response to the city’s concerns. Staff would like to highlight and thank Northern Water for their extensive efforts in working to improve the project over the past decade, including changes to operations and mitigation planning. Based on previous Council direction, staff is focusing its comments in the following manner: 1. Identification of key concerns and risks related to NISP’s impacts to the City’s Poudre River assets and interests. 2. Adequacy of proposed mitigation. September 11, 2018 Page 2 3. Identification of key concerns that have not been addressed in the FEIS. 4. Proposal of additional mitigation concepts that may address the City’s remaining concerns and a description of how requirements associated with such mitigation could be enforced. Comments will be provided on the following priority focus areas: increased flood risk; water quality impacts and related wastewater discharge permits issues; and impacts to the river ecosystem. Secondary focus areas include: impacts to recreational opportunities; air quality; and trichlorethylene contamination to ground water. THE PERMITTING PROCESS NISP requires four primary permits. These include: x Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Permit (“404 Permit”), x State Water Quality Certification (“401 Certification”), x State of Colorado Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, and x Larimer County 1041 Permit. The State of Colorado Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan was completed in 2017. It is staff’s understanding that Northern Water is working with the County on an agreement in lieu of a 1041 Permit to satisfy this requirement. The 404 Permit is generally considered to be the key permit for NISP. To receive a 404 Permit for a project of this magnitude, the project must meet the procedural requirements of developing an EIS as outlined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 404 Permit is also required to define a mitigation plan based on FEIS findings. According to the FEIS, mitigation activities are intended to fully mitigate an affected resource, and in many cases, enhance environmental resources and ecological functions. NISP also needs 401 Certification, which is a water quality certification from the State under Section  401 of the Clean Water Act and state regulations. This process is underway. It is anticipated that the permit-related documents will be released for public comments in late 2018 or early 2019. The City does not have decision authority with respect to NISP’s permits but as an interested party may comment. Comments to the draft EIS and the supplemental draft EIS were previously provided in 2008 and 2015. Staff believes that those comments were effective at helping to improve NISP and to ameliorate some of its potential impacts to the City. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROCESS With the presentation of the Corps’ final analyses and conclusions regarding environmental impacts in the FEIS, NISP is nearing the end of the process for the 404 Permit (which is under the Clean Water Act and NEPA). After the current public comment period, the Corps will issue a record of decision (ROD) on the issuance of a 404 Permit for NISP. The FEIS is the City’s last opportunity to formally comment to the Corps on the proposed 404 Permit in the federal permitting process given that the Corps is unlikely to allow additional public comments past the FEIS or record of decision (ROD). Summary of Analysis The FEIS provides a description of final project operations, extensive analysis of potential impacts and benefits, and mitigation strategies to address unavoidable impacts. Since the City’s comments in 2008 and 2015, there have been numerous project changes that are intended to minimize NISP’s impacts as well as proposed mitigation and enhancements to the system. Despite these laudable efforts, based on staff’s preliminary review of the FEIS to date, staff remains concerned about inadequacies and omissions in the FEIS that create ambiguity about some of the potential impacts of NISP. This ambiguity, in turn, may be result in an underestimation of negative impacts and therefore insufficient mitigation. September 11, 2018 Page 3 With ongoing uncertainty around the response of the Poudre River system and potential impacts to Fort Collins, staff is developing recommendations for improvements to the proposed mitigation. Mitigation comments fall into three broad categories. The categories are based on whether the City’s concerns have been fully addressed, partially addressed, or not yet addressed. Depending on the resource, mitigation may be proposed for improvement at any of the four stages of mitigation which include avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement. For example, monitoring and adaptive management efforts are expected with the purpose of identifying and adaptively responding to unpredicted impacts or failed mitigation efforts. The provision of additional mitigation recommendations may assist the Corps and Northern Water in their efforts to meet permitting requirements while optimizing the success of proposed mitigation investments. NISP OPERATIONS AND RECENT CHANGES As noted, staff believes that past City comments have positively influenced NISP; the project as designed today is considerably different than the original proposal. For example, there are now proposed operations that maintain more water in the Poudre River at certain times and more detailed and rigorous environmental studies for certain resources. However, for certain other resources based on staff’s preliminary review of the FEIS to date, gaps and inadequacies in environmental studies associated conclusions remain that are a concern for staff. A key mitigation element developed in 2017 is the Peak Flow Operations Plan. This plan partially addresses the City’s long-standing concern that NISP will reduce annual peak flows (also known as “flushing” flows), which are large springtime flows powered by snowmelt and runoff that create habitat, sustain riparian areas, and maintain channel conveyance needed to safely pass flood events. NISP’s Peak Flow Operations Plan proposes tiered operations that will result in some degree of peak flow bypasses in 90% of years, and full 3-day bypass of peak flows in 70% of years. NISP’s Mitigation Plan also includes many measures that, while not directly mitigating NISP’s impacts, do improve conditions on the Poudre River. For example, NISP proposes installation of fish passage structures on numerous diversion structures through Fort Collins. Also, NISP includes a “conveyance refinement” enhancement that will ultimately release up to 18 to 25 cfs of project water back to the Poudre River (depending on participant demands) from near Glade Reservoir above Fort Collins downstream to near Mulberry Street, where the water will be rediverted. Such releases will improve base river flows through much of Fort Collins and represent an improvement to current baseflow conditions to Mulberry Avenue. Details of analysis The following section provides more detail of staff’s analysis including key concerns, FEIS conclusions and City perspective, and the preliminary direction of recommended mitigation actions. The priority topic areas for analysis are presented in 1-6. Because mitigation recommendations are systemic in nature and are designed to positively affect more than one area of concern, the key mitigation recommendations for topics 3-6 are described at the end of topic 6. 1. WATER QUALITY - SOURCE WATER Previous drinking water concerns have been addressed through changes to changes to project configuration and operations, such as the elimination of a proposed pipeline from Glade Reservoir to Horsetooth Reservoir. This priority topic area has been addressed and is no longer a concern. 2. WATER QUALITY - NATURAL ENVIRONMENT and WASTEWATER a. Key City concerns: Staff are concerned NISP may result in changes to Poudre River water quality which would affect the natural environment and the City’s wastewater treatment and operations. b. FEIS conclusions and staff preliminary comments: The FEIS identifies potential increases in temperature and nutrients to the Poudre River including, but not limited to the river reach through Fort Collins to I-25. These predicted changes are due in large part from a decrease in the amount of water available for dilution and changes in upstream water quality. September 11, 2018 Page 4 c. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: Based on staff’s preliminary review of the FEIS to date, these predicted changes may likely result in stricter future discharge permit limits for the City’s water reclamation facilities and may have costly implications to City operations, especially given forthcoming changes to state water quality standards. d. Next steps and/or preliminary proposed additional mitigation: Uncertainty with the accuracy of FEIS predicted changes to water quality raises concerns around the risk the project imposes to the City and the need to creatively minimize this risk. Staff are exploring potential options to mitigate both the water quality and significant financial impacts of these expected changes. 3. RIVER CHANNEL CAPACITY AND FLOOD RISK a. Key City concerns: Reductions in peak flows are known to result in a natural down-sizing of river channels. This happens when vegetation encroaches into the existing river channel. Sediment begins to settle on the river bottom and without sufficient and periodic peak flows, may not be scoured from the river bed. The smaller river channel often (depending on location) results in an overall rise in flood levels. b. FEIS conclusions and staff preliminary comments: The FEIS states sediment transport capacity will be reduced up to 40% and that the duration of channel maintenance flows will be reduced 30-40%. This type of analytical information indicates there is likely to be reduction in the size of the river channel. However, the FEIS concludes there will be no changes on the Poudre River upstream of I-25. Therefore, based on a preliminary review of the FEIS to date, staff disagrees with the FEIS conclusions and remain concerned about potential rising flood levels through Fort Collins. c. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: In the FEIS, NISP includes a Peak Flow Operations Plan, in which Northern Water will allow peak flows to bypass their diversion used to fill Glade Reservoir for three peak days for the purpose of maintaining critical environmental functions which in turn support the ecosystem services such as flood conveyance. However, the trade-off required to recoup lost water and maintain yield, is that the descending limb, (the high flows immediately following the three peak days) will be diverted at greater rates. The details and consequences of this operation are yet unclear and the FEIS expressly states the geomorphic impacts of this alternative are unknown. While three days of peak flows are greatly appreciated, the increased loss of high flows following peak days may trigger a change in the systems physical response and thus could lead to a smaller river channel. As well, the lack of peak flow bypasses during years that follow drought periods remains a priority issue for staff because these years are critical for maintaining (or recovering) river channel capacity. d. Next steps and/or preliminary proposed additional mitigation: Without a longer duration of peak flows, an alternative suggested in the NISP mitigation plan for maintaining the system’s flood capacity is systemic physical manipulation, such as dredging the Poudre River channel. Unfortunately, this is extremely intensive and costly while also highly damaging to the natural habitats. To lessen these concerns, staff recommends a mitigation approach to minimize the impacts from reductions to peak flows (see environmental mitigation recommendations described at the bottom of this section). 4. RIVER ECOSYSTEM- GENERAL a. Key City concerns: Staff are concerned that NISP will have real and long-lasting effects on the Poudre River ecosystem, which would in turn degrade City properties, such as the numerous natural areas located along the river. Furthermore, it is staff’s perspective that NISP might not only exacerbate a presumed downward trajectory of river habitats but could be a root cause of resource degradation. The significant loss of longer duration peak flows each spring will be a significant change to river functions and is likely to affect cottonwood regeneration, fish spawning and growth, settling of silt and sand, and the size of the active (unvegetated) channel. Also, the lack of peak flow bypasses in years following drought periods may have a disproportionate adverse impact on the trajectory of the system as this has been shown to be a critical time for recovery of physical conditions. b. FEIS conclusions and staff preliminary comments: The FEIS uses an assumed future condition of the Poudre River (referred to as the “trajectory of the ecosystem”) throughout the FEIS as a context for framing NISP impacts. The FEIS claims the Poudre River is undergoing inevitable decline within which September 11, 2018 Page 5 NISP impacts will not be measurable. Staff are working to better understand the Corps’ basis for evaluating the project against an assumed future condition. Also, as already stated in the City’s 2015 comments to the draft EIS, staff disagree with this summary assessment of a complicated system which maintains a spectrum of both strengths and weaknesses. c. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: The FEIS identifies multiple possible “minor” adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic and riparian habitats which can synergistically result in disproportional (larger) impacts to habitat quality and wildlife. The FEIS concludes that wildlife will adapt to new conditions, however, an alternative and more likely future is that wildlife will simply abandon degraded habitats. d. Next steps and/or preliminary proposed additional mitigation: Staff are focused on assuring self- sustaining quality habitats long into the Poudre River’s future and provide the mitigation recommendations at the bottom of this section. 5. FISH a. Key City concerns: Managing the fishery in an ecological transition zone, where the river transitions from cool mountain river to a warm plains river, is inherently complex. While peak flows drive critical functions and serve to maintain quality habitat and food sources, they can also cause fish, especially the small native plains fish, to get washed downstream. Sufficient low flows are essential for daily survival and the ability to thrive and may primarily affect the opportunity for trout to thrive. NISP will affect high (peak) flow functions as well as low flows. b. FEIS conclusions and staff preliminary comments: The FEIS conclude NISP’s impacts to fish will range from minor to positive. In 2015 the City submitted comments to the Corps in response to the draft EIS lack of data transparency and non-standard data interpretation for the fish analyses. The FEIS presents the same approach, so staff continue to try to understand the impact of the non-standard methods on FEIS outcomes and conclusions. c. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: The City is excited about the improvement opportunities presented by NISP Conveyance Plan, which will bring more water during low flow months down to Mulberry Avenue. Staff also values NISP plans to install fish passage on four diversion structures which will improve today’s severely fragmented habitat conditions. However, staff continue to have significant concerns on the long-term health of the fishery specifically regarding the degradation of the physical habitat and food source (aquatic insects), identified changes to water quality from Mulberry to I-25, and the abrupt loss of the descending limb flows on the fishery. d. Next steps and/or preliminary proposed additional mitigation: The environmental mitigation recommendations presented below (after the Riparian section) will both positively and synergistically influence the health of fish communities. 6. RIPARIAN VEGETATION/WETLANDS a. Key City concerns: Staff continues to be concerned that NISP may cause declines in ground water elevations and surface flooding of dependent habitats, narrowing of riparian habitats, the loss of wetlands and wetland functions, and loss of the forest regenerative capacity. b. FEIS conclusions and staff preliminary comments: The current preferred alternative includes beneficial modifications (to previous iterations of the preferred alternative) to the operational flow regime of the Poudre River, insofar as improving peak flow characteristics that will provide short duration higher flows to benefit the riparian vegetation. But these peak flow improvements seem to come at the cost of impacts to other important aspects of the flow regime, particularly during the weeks immediately following the peak of spring flows (referred to as the “descending limb”). Flows during the descending limb perform many functions in the riparian forests and wetlands, such as enhancing the survival of freshly established cottonwood seedlings. Characterization of the impacts of the final proposed operational impacts to the flow regime were not included in the FEIS analyses and so the disproportionate loss of the springtime descending limb flows remains a substantial point of risk and uncertainty for not just City-owned riparian September 11, 2018 Page 6 habitats, but also for the viability of mitigation concepts proposed by Northern Water (such as river- floodplain restoration). c. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: The FEIS’s conceptual mitigation plan does not appear to include compensatory mitigation for Poudre River aquatic habitat impacts, even those described in the FEIS. d. Next steps and/or preliminary proposed additional mitigation and enforcement: staff are exploring the FEIS statements about functional loss to wetlands and lack of associated mitigation. Additionally, staff are working to understand how functional losses to streams are quantified and how they could be mitigated and measured. Preliminary proposed mitigation of environmental and flood concerns. This section describes staff preliminary recommendations for potential additional mitigation to offset some of NISP’s impacts to the Poudre River and associated ecosystem services associated with headings 3-6 above. It is staff’s view that certain impacts from NISP, such as increased river depletions are impracticable to avoid and/or mitigate completely. Staff are nonetheless developing recommendations for better mitigation to ameliorate many of the concerns with flooding, stream and riparian health as described above. For impacts related to reductions in river flows, staff continues to advocate for: x a full 3-day peak flow bypass every year; x flows that mimic a more natural “descending limb” possibly achieved through development of an environmental pool in Glade Reservoir; x and extensive restoration of river-floodplain connection; and x an adaptive management program whereby additional flows are the primary response mechanism. In combination these mitigation efforts would considerably reduce Staff’s concerns over both flooding and ecological health. Additional mitigation recommendations are being considered and developed as well. For example, sufficient funding, an explicit and actionable adaptive management framework, and enforceable structures for implementing mitigation measures are all essential elements to be considered to be included in the permit. More detailed recommended improvements to mitigation will be provided in the draft comments. 7. AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE CHANGE a. Key City concerns: Staff are evaluating potential air quality impacts from NISP with a primary focus on impacts to ozone levels and particulate matter. b. FEIS conclusions and staff preliminary thoughts: There is a concern that the project is being evaluated under current standards, being the 2008 ozone compliance standard. However, in the near future, the State of Colorado will be implementing plans for stricter standards. Based on staff’s preliminary review of the FEIS to date, it is not clear that the FEIS demonstrates how the project could meet these stricter standards which may be in effect when the project is being constructed and operated. c. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: Mitigation proposed is in line with current State standards, which include fugitive dust controls, and conformity requirements for the 2008 ozone compliance standard. Staff remains concerned about NISP’s impacts to ozone, under the new standards, given this area has been identified to be in non-attainment for ozone. d. Next steps and/or preliminary mitigation and enforcement thoughts: Based on staff’s preliminary consideration of mitigation strategies, one helpful mitigation strategy may be to install an air quality monitoring station near the mouth of the canyon below Glade Reservoir to ensure effective monitoring and adaptive management. 8. RECREATION September 11, 2018 Page 7 a. Key City concerns: With extensive City investments in and along the Poudre River, the City is committed to providing the community with a variety of Poudre River-based recreational opportunities. The potential recreation impacts of NISP to the Poudre River may be both positive and negative. Staff is evaluating NISP’s potential impacts on recreational opportunities generally through the lens of changes to the habitat and specifically for river recreation such as boating, tubing, and fishing. b. FEIS conclusions and staff preliminary thoughts: The FEIS notes that there may be slight positive impacts to fishing opportunities due to NISP’s conveyance refinement (addition of 18-25 cfs during low flow months). Based on staff’s preliminary review of the FEIS to date, staff partially agrees with this assessment (see section 5 on Fish above). With regard to boating (tubing and kayaking), staff has not completed its analysis, but based on the review to date, it appears that the FEIS may underestimate the reduction of tubing days and possibly boating days. c. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: The key reason for the potential underestimation of tubing impacts in the FEIS appears to be an assumption that that tubing can occur at flows as low as 50 CFS, which appears to be based on the wave design for the City’s kayak park. However, the wave design is intended to concentrate flows to make it possible to tube at 50 CFS. For the most popular tubing reach of the Poudre River, from Shields Street to Lee Martinez Park, it is not possible to tube at 50 CFS because one is forced to stand and walk numerous sections. d. Next steps and/or preliminary mitigation and enforcement thoughts: Staff plans to analyze several different flow ranges and the potential impacts to tubing and boating and will provide that information to Council in the City’s final comments on the FEIS. 9. POUDRE RIVER WATER CONTAMINATION a. Key City concerns: A former missile site located at the Glade Reservoir forebay left an underground plume of a contaminant called Trichlorethylene. A possible concern is that this underground plume could, under the extra pressure of Glade reservoir, migrate more quickly towards the river. b. Remaining concerns and adequacy of proposed mitigation: As per City’s review of the 2015 supplemental draft EIS, it appears the plume is not a threat to contaminating ground water, but only with monitoring is this assured. Public Engagement Staff is focusing public engagement opportunities with three advisory boards that have long been interested in NISP and through an online public comment opportunity to the City’s draft comments. Public engagement Timeframe Purpose and Process Joint advisory board meeting with: Water Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board and the Energy Board. August 22 Provide boards opportunity to understand NISP final operations and provide opportunity for a group discussion on priorities and key concerns. Individual board meetings: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Water Board. September 12 September 19 September 20 Provide advisory boards opportunity to hear more detail on technical findings, thus presenting the boards and opportunity to provide Council a recommendation. Public opportunity to comment on draft comments here: www.fcgov.com/nispreview September 19-26 September 11, 2018 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS 1. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) 1 Northern Integrated Supply Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ATTACHMENT 1 Outline 1. City goals 2. Project overview and modifications 3. Regulatory process 4. City approach 5. General findings and recommendation thus far 6. Discussion ATTACHMENT 1 Discussion Question Does Council have any suggestions, questions, or concerns about the material and Staff’s approach? ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 City goals What we are working towards 1. Protect City assets and interests 2. Reduce risk and costs to the City 3. Ensure long-term resilience and sustainability 4. Maintain and build regional relationships ATTACHMENT 1 Managing for a Healthy River Resilient and Sustainable 1. Type of river 2. Predictable natural wet and dry cycles 3. You can resize the river, but you can’t resize the watershed ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Regulatory process Federal • Clean Water Act 404 Permit & National Environmental Policy Act • Clean Water Action 401 Certification State • Colorado Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Plan County • Larimer County 1041 Approval City • No regulatory authority, stakeholder, agreements ATTACHMENT 1 NISP process timeline 2004 2008 Final EIS 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 Record of Decision 401 Certification Permitting begins Draft EIS Supplemental draft EIS Wildlife mitigation ATTACHMENT 1 Twokeychangestooperations 1. PeakflowbyͲpasses 2. Baseflowconveyanceplan ATTACHMENT 1 Mostly Addressed Partially NISP Addressed Changes and Still City Evaluating Concerns in FEIS • Source Water • Habitat loss from inundation • Ground Water Contamination • Flood risks • Riparian areas & wildlife • Fish & aquatic life • Recreation & river experience • Water quality & wastewater treatment • Air quality • Climate change • Flow operations (“descending limb”) • Adaptive management and sufficiency of mitigation ATTACHMENT 1 General Approach to FEIS 1. Key concerns and risks to City assets and investments. 2. Adequacy of proposed mitigation. 3. Concerns not addressed in the FEIS. 4. Proposal of additional mitigation concepts, including adaptive management and enforcement. ATTACHMENT 1 Key Focus Areas How NISP reductions in streamflow influence… 1. Water quality- source water 2. Water quality- natural environment and wastewater 3. River channel size and flood levels 4. River ecosystem- general 5. Fish 6. Riparian vegetation/wetlands 7. Recreation 8. Groundwater contamination Poudre River ATTACHMENT 1 NISP impacts to flows NISP’s impacts on flows is highly dependent on location and season Greatest reductions in May/June. The most affected reach in the springtime is form the canyon mouth to just above Shields Street. Average reduction from today’s flows is 20% High and low flows are impacted below Lemay, vulnerable reach. ATTACHMENT 1 1. Water Quality- Source Water NISP modification have largely alleviated concerns regarding source (drinking) water. ATTACHMENT 1 2. Water Quality- River and Wastewater Concerns: Poor water quality many affects many parts of the ecosystem and lead to: • More restrictive discharge permit conditions, • Increased treatment costs, and • Increased risk of permit violations. FEIS: Quality analyses. Nutrient and temperature changes to river water. Recommended mitigation: Monitoring, issue specific mitigation, new solutions, cost sharing ATTACHMENT 1 3. River Channel Size and Flood Risk Concerns: Rise in flood levels due to shrinking river FEIS: Minor impact upstream of I-25. No vegetation encroachment. Geomorphic impacts of preferred alternative are unknown with recent changes to operations (for peak flow mitigation). A lot of analysis, widely variable results, discrepancies with conclusions. ATTACHMENT 1 4. River Ecology - General Concerns: Real and long term impacts to sustainability of Poudre River habitats FEIS: “Trajectory of inevitable decline”- evaluating NISP against a speculated future condition. Ecological relationships and synergistic impacts of many minor impacts • Channel condition, water quality, fish and insects • Narrowing riparian habitats and decrease in stream functions FEIS did not analyze ecological implications of possible greater reductions to “descending limb.” ATTACHMENT 1 5. Fish Concerns: Impacts to habitats and food sources FEIS: Concludes minor to beneficial impacts. Staff agree base flow enhancements will benefit fish communities, but remains concerned about low flow conditions downstream of Mulberry Potentially critical impacts to habitat and food sources ATTACHMENT 1 6. Riparian Vegetation and Wetlands Concerns: Narrowing of riparian zone, decline in wetland quality, FEIS: Concludes negligible to minor impacts Potential analytical inadequacies, discrepancies within FEIS. ATTACHMENT 1 Mitigation: Environment and Flood Risk 1. A full 3-day peak flow bypass every year; 2. Flows that mimic a more natural “descending limb;” 3. Extensive restoration of river-floodplain connection; and 4. An adaptive management program includes additional flow management as the primary response mechanism. a conceptual image of future flows with NISP compared to today’s flows ATTACHMENT 1 7. Air Quality FEIS: Demonstrates conformity to 2008 ozone standards. Comments: How will NISP demonstrate conformity to stricter 2015 standards? Recommend mitigation: Install air quality monitoring station near Glade. ATTACHMENT 1 8. Recreation 24 Concerns: Impacts to community enjoyment and recreation FEIS: No impacts or improvements at low flow levels. Slight reductions at higher difficulty kayaking levels Staff may disagree with identified flow levels for tubing and boating ATTACHMENT 1 9. Groundwater Contamination Overall: Additional analysis has reduced concerns Mitigation: Long term monitoring ATTACHMENT 1 Public Engagement • Joint board meeting August 22 • Water Board, Natural Resources Board, and Land Conservation and Stewardship Board September • Draft comments posted online for public feedback September 19-26 ATTACHMENT 1 Discussion Does Council have any suggestions, questions, or concerns about the material and Staff’s approach? ATTACHMENT 1 Staff will provide Council a summary of the public feedback and consider public comments in final draft comments presented to Council on October 2nd.