HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/29/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
Special Meeting
May 29, 2018
6:00 P.M.
Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen
Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such
materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than
two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented.
NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to
election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which
the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and
activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call
221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Discussion Items
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
● Staff presentation (optional)
● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (three minute limit for each citizen)
● Council questions of staff on the item
● Council motion on the item
● Council discussion
● Final Council comments
● Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
1. Resolution 2018-053 Directing the City Manager or His Designees to Meet with the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District to Negotiate a Potential Agreement Regarding the Northern
Integrated Supply Project. (Staff: Adam Jokerst, Jennifer Shanahan; 20 minute staff presentation;
90 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is twofold: 1) to provide a status update on the Northern Integrated Supply
Project (NISP) in advance of the release of the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), anticipated for late June 2018; and 2) to consider a resolution that would direct the City
Manager and/or his designees to meet with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(Northern Water) to seek to and to engage in negotiations regarding the City’s key remaining
concerns and issues related to NISP.
Some of the City’s key concerns regarding NISP’s impacts, as expressed in previous Council
resolutions, have not been adequately addressed to date. NISP continues to make progress toward
receiving all necessary permits and approvals to ultimately be constructed and operated as currently
proposed. Meanwhile, the City’s ability to influence the project through participation in permitting
processes is diminishing. Negotiating with Northern Water may provide a means to address some of
the City’s remaining concerns. Staff is requesting authorization to negotiate with Northern Water
regarding NISP where mutual interests may be addressed. Any draft agreement(s) would be
presented to Council for its review and approval.
2. Consideration of a Motion Authorizing Release of Records Withheld as Council Work Product.
(Staff: Carrie Daggett; 10 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider a motion authorizing release of records
withheld as Council work product in response to a records request.
• ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 29, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Jennifer Shanahan, Watershed Planner
Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2018-053 Directing the City Manager or His Designees to Meet with the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District to Negotiate a Potential Agreement Regarding the Northern Integrated Supply Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is twofold: 1) to provide a status update on the Northern Integrated Supply Project
(NISP) in advance of the release of the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), anticipated for
late June 2018; and 2) to consider a resolution that would direct the City Manager and/or his designees to
meet with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) to seek to and to engage in
negotiations regarding the City’s key remaining concerns and issues related to NISP.
Some of the City’s key concerns regarding NISP’s impacts, as expressed in previous Council resolutions, have
not been adequately addressed to date. NISP continues to make progress toward receiving all necessary
permits and approvals to ultimately be constructed and operated as currently proposed. Meanwhile, the City’s
ability to influence the project through participation in permitting processes is diminishing. Negotiating with
Northern Water may provide a means to address some of the City’s remaining concerns. Staff is requesting
authorization to negotiate with Northern Water regarding NISP where mutual interests may be addressed. Any
draft agreement(s) would be presented to Council for its review and approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Federal and State Permitting
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 undergoing federal and state permitting for the project for the past 14 years. NISP requires four primary
permits, among other authorizations, listed below.
1. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Permit (404 Permit). This permit is generally considered to be the
key permit for NISP, and its issuance requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NISP appears to be approaching the end of the process for the 404 Permit and NEPA. As
discussed below, the Final EIS is currently scheduled to be released in late June of 2018. There will
be a period of public comment, which is expected to be approximately 45 to 60 days, though Staff
plans on requesting an extension to allow 90 days of comment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1
Packet Pg. 3
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
(Corps) will subsequently issue a record of decision (ROD) on the issuance of the 404 Permit for
NISP, but is unlikely to allow additional public comments past the Final EIS or on the ROD.
2. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan. NISP has received approval from the State of Colorado for NISP’s
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (State Mitigation Plan) under C.R.S. §37-60-122.2.
Adoption of the Mitigation Plan constitutes the State’s “official state position on the mitigation actions
required” of Northern Water for NISP. Staff submitted comments on the then-proposed plan pursuant
to Resolution 2017-073.
3. State Water Quality Certification. NISP needs a water quality certification from the State under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and state regulations. This certification attests that a project will
comply with applicable federal and state water quality regulations, including those regarding
temperature. This process is underway. It is anticipated that the permit application will be released for
public comments in late 2018 or early 2019.
4. Larimer County 1041 Permit. NISP needs a permit (or an agreement in lieu of a permit) from Larimer
County under its Land Use Code (a.k.a. “1041 regulations”). The 1041 regulations have twelve listed
criteria, ranging from public health and safety, to consistency with County plans, to mitigation. It is
staff’s understanding that Northern Water has initiated discussions with Larimer County for an
agreement in lieu of this permit.
The City does not have decision authority with respect to any of NISP’s permits. Past City comments have
resulted in changes to NISP that have addressed some of the City’s concerns. However, the City is expected
to have limited ability to influence the project through the various permitting and approval processes moving
forward. To date, the City has participated in the various permitting processes as a stakeholder. Past actions
include:
1. Providing comments on the Draft EIS in 2008 as provided in Resolution 2008-082, which states: “That
the City Council opposes NISP as it is described and proposed in the [Draft] EIS and also opposes
any variant of NISP that does not address the City’s fundamental concerns about the quality of its
water supply and the effects on the Cache la Poudre River through the City, which are critical to the
City’s quality of life, health, economic development and environment.”
2. Providing comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS in 2015 as provided in Resolution 2015-082,
which states: “That the City Council cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed in
the [Supplemental Draft] EIS, 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…”
3. Providing comments on the State Mitigation Plan in 2017 pursuant to Resolution 2017-073, which
states that nothing in it “shall be construed to affect the City’s position regarding NISP. As described
in Resolution 2015-82 and Resolution 2017-024.” (Resolution 2017-024 is discussed below.)
Currently, the Corps is drafting a Final EIS, which the Corps is expected to release in late June 2018. The
Corps is not required to accept, and commonly does not accept, comments on a Final EIS, but has indicated it
will allow public comments on the NISP Final EIS. Staff intends to prepare comments on the Final EIS for City
Council’s consideration.
Staff intends to focus its technical comments on the Final EIS on impacts to the City and on addressing
remaining gaps and inadequacies in the analyses, conclusions, and mitigation proposed for NISP. Staff
expects some new information will be provided in Final EIS, primarily related to analysis of water quality
impacts and information related to changes and adjustments to the project outlined in the Mitigation Plan.
The Final EIS will be the City’s last formal opportunity to comment on the 404 Permit in the federal permitting
process. The Corps will consider the City’s comments on the Final EIS, but is not required to follow City
recommendations.
1
Packet Pg. 4
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 3
NISP Status and Remaining Concerns
Past City comments have positively influenced NISP; the project as designed today is considerably different
than the version first proposed and the version set forth in detail in the initial Draft EIS in 2008. For example,
City comments have influenced NISP operations as now proposed to maintain more water in the Cache la
Poudre River and have led to stronger mitigation measures. City comments have also resulted in more
detailed and rigorous environmental studies for certain resources. However, for certain other resources, gaps
and inadequacies in environmental studies remain.
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 flushing flows, flows 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 bypasses 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 now proposes installation of fish passage on
numerous diversion structures through Fort Collins. Also, NISP now proposes a “conveyance refinement”
enhancement that will ultimately release up to 18 to 25 cfs of project water back to the Cache la Poudre River
(depending on participant demands). Such releases will improve base river flows through much of the City and
represent an improvement to current baseflow conditions to Mulberry Avenue. The appended table
summarizes key issues raised in past City comments on NISP, identifies whether those issues have
been addressed, and lists remaining concerns. The appended table summarizes extensive City comments
on the 2008 Draft EIS, 2015 Supplemental Draft EIS, and 2017 Mitigation Plan, and thus, greatly simplifies
past City positions.
Despite these improvements, Staff remains concerned that NISP will negatively impact City assets and
interests. Remaining key concerns are provided in the table below. This table also provides Staff
recommendations of potential additional mitigation to offset some of NISP’s impacts. It is Staff’s view that
certain impacts from NISP, such as increased river depletions, are impracticable to avoid and/or mitigate
completely if the project is to be built and still maintain yield. Staff has, however, developed clear suggestions
for the best next steps for better mitigation of impacts from NISP. For example, for impacts related to
reductions in river flows, Staff advocates a full 3-day peak flow bypass every year, adaptive management in
the form of flows, and restoration of river-floodplain connection to reduce increased flood risk.
Key Remaining Issues and Concerns Potential Additional Mitigation
Peak Flows and Flood Risks
NISP will reduce peak flows which will increase
flood risks and decrease river health and function.
• Three-day peak flow bypasses every year
• River-floodplain reconnection projects to reduce
flood risks
• More robust adaptive management plan that
uses flows as the primary management
response
Base Flows
NISP will increase base flows to Mulberry Ave.,
but full benefits may not be realized until build-out.
• Operate full conveyance refinement at project
startup
• Base flow provisions dependent on NISP
diversions rather than participants’ demands
Water Quality
NISP’s impacts to Poudre River water quality and
wastewater dilution requirements are unknown.
• Mitigation requirements depend on impacts
determined in Final EIS water quality studies
1
Packet Pg. 5
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 4
Key Remaining Issues and Concerns Potential Additional Mitigation
Adaptive Management
Current adaptive management plan and process
not clearly defined and inadequately funded.
• City involved in implementation
• Third-party monitoring and verification
• Defined, physical-based performance metrics
• Enforce changes to future NISP operations
Mitigation Funding
Mitigation/enhancement funds should match the
scope of NISP’s impacts.
• Increased funding for channel improvements
• Increased funding for enhancement projects.
• Increase amount and duration of adaptive
management monitoring funding
Potential Negotiations
The City’s previous comments and participation in the federal permitting process has resulted in changes to
NISP that have addressed some of the City’s concerns, as discussed above. However, the City is expected to
have limited ability to influence the project through the various permitting and approval processes moving
forward. This is due to several reasons (several of which are discussed further below): the federal permitting
process is coming to an end and there is only one main formal opportunity to participate in the federal
permitting process; NISP has been vetted for numerous years resulting in the project as currently proposed;
and indications from the Corps and Northern Water are that no major changes will result from this process.
Staff thus recommends engaging in direct negotiations with NISP. Negotiations would commence with the
goal of meeting mutual interests between the City and Northern Water. In part due to the City’s and Northern
Water’s multi-faceted interests and various points of interaction, Staff believes there is the potential for mutual
benefit to result from such negotiations. For example, negotiations could lead to cooperative river projects that
benefit both the City’s long-term interest in improving the health of the Cache la Poudre River and Northern
Water’s interest in mitigating NISP impacts. Negotiations could improve upon the status quo and current
trajectory of the Cache la Poudre River, but that can only be known through exploring negotiations. It should
be noted that it is unclear at this point if Northern Water desires to negotiate, though Staff anticipates that
Northern Water will be willing to explore this option.
Council has previously considered a similar request. At a February 21, 2017 City Council meeting, Staff sought
a resolution to, among other things, be authorized to negotiate and prepare draft agreements with Northern
Water that would be presented to City Council for its review and possible approval. After a lengthy
consideration of this discussion item, City Council removed all references to negotiation from the proposed
resolution.
The resulting Resolution No. 2017-024 instead authorizes Staff “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.” Staff has thus not historically negotiated with Northern Water on NISP, but has held
regular meetings to discuss project status and the City’s concerns. Staff believes that, compared to
negotiations, such discussions are less beneficial to the City’s interests.
Certain events have transpired that have lead Staff to again recommend the City undertake direct negotiations:
1. NISP continues to make progress towards acquiring all permits. Based on input from permitting
experts and observations of other water supply permitting projects, Staff increasingly believes that
NISP will ultimately be issued all such permits and will be constructed as currently proposed.
2. The Final EIS is the last of three rounds of public comment on the 404 Permit. Thus, Staff does not
believe that the Corps will make many, if any, substantive changes to the configuration and operation
of NISP based on comments received on the Final EIS. It is unlikely that City comments on the Final
1
Packet Pg. 6
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 5
EIS will significantly alter NISP or that the City’s remaining concerns can be addressed simply by its
stakeholder role in the various permitting processes.
3. The Corps and City are relying on complex science and computer models in evaluating NISP’s
impacts. It has become increasing clear that for certain issues, there often is not a clear, black-and-
white answer on what the impacts will be and what mitigation is required. This uncertainty decreases
the City’s ability to effectively influence the project through public comments, and will make it difficult to
challenge the Corps’ findings.
4. Staff believes little, if any, changes to NISP’s Mitigation Plan will occur because of comments made on
the Final EIS. The State’s approval of NISP’s Mitigation Plan in 2017 is a strong indication that
additional comments will not achieve significant changes to NISP’s mitigation package.
5. While past discussions with Northern Water have been productive, the value of continued discussions,
short of direct negotiations, is limited. Northern Water likely sees little value in addressing the City’s
concerns unless the City is willing to offer something in return.
For these reasons, Staff recommends that the City enter direct negotiations with Northern Water outside of the
various permitting processes. Under this approach, the City would seek to pursue a negotiated agreement
with Northern Water to address NISP’s impacts and achieve greater mitigation. A preliminary list of items the
City could seek in negotiations is above.
A negotiated agreement with Northern Water may further benefit the City by providing a mechanism for the
City to enforce future mitigation measures related to NISP. Outside of an agreement, the City would rely on
federal and state agencies to enforce NISP mitigation.
Staff believes such negotiations may benefit the City. However, any such agreement would entail tradeoffs.
Until negotiations begin, it is unknown what Northern Water would seek from the City. It is possible Northern
Water could seek assurances from the City to expediate remaining permitting or facilitate mitigation
implementation, among other actions. As with any such discussions regarding complex matters and potential
agreements, there are no guarantees of success. Furthermore, the approach will depend on Northern Water’s
willingness to participate.
Staff sees no substantive downsides in engaging in negotiations with Northern Water. A negotiated
agreement, if reached, would need to be brought to City Council for review and possible approval. Staff will
also provide City Council regular updates concerning negotiation status.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
N/A
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff consulted three City advisory boards prior to the February 21, 2017, City Council meeting regarding NISP
negotiations. On January 11, 2017, and January 18, 2017, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board and
the Natural Resources Advisory Board, respectively, voted unanimously to oppose Staff’s recommendation to
pursue negotiations with Northern Water. On January 19, 2017, the Water Board voted 7 to 1 to support Staff’s
recommendation to pursue negotiations.
Subsequently, in 2017 the Water Board held three Work Sessions to discuss NISP in detail. Water Board
provided it findings and recommendations to City Council by letter dated December 12, 2017 (attached).
1
Packet Pg. 7
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 6
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff provided public outreach prior to the February 21, 2017 City Council meeting. Presentations were made
to three Council advisory boards (see above) and to City Council on January 24, 2017. An open house was
held on February 13, 2017. Comments from the open house are attached. Staff also participated in three
Water Board Work Sessions on NISP in 2017. Staff has developed a public engagement plan for the City's
response to the Final EIS which is attached.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Key Issues in past City Comments, NISP Revisions and Mitigation Measures, and Remaining Concerns
(PDF)
2. Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (PDF)
3. Frequently Asked Questions (PDF)
4. Public Engagement Summary (PDF)
5. Power Point Presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 8
Key Issues in past City Comments, NISP Revisions and Mitigation Measures, and Remaining Concerns
Key Issues Past City Comments
1
Project Revisions and Mitigation
Measures
2
Remaining Concerns
Water Quality Issues
Source Water
Quality
• Proposed Glade to Horsetooth
pipeline, potential use of Pleasant
Valley Pipeline (PVP), and/or
increased residence time in Horsetooth
Reservoir could degrade quality of
City’s drinking water supply
• Water quality studies insufficient
• Removed Glade to Horsetooth
pipeline
• Residence time no longer a concern;
NISP water no longer delivered
through Horsetooth exchanges
• Use of PVP requires City permission
• PVP concerns remain but can be
addressed outside of permitting
process
Poudre River
Quality and
Wastewater
Treatment
• Increased treatment and cost to stay
compliant with City’s discharge
permits
• Water quality degradation and
potential regulatory standards
exceedances
• Conveyance refinement may lessen
water quality impacts above Mulberry
Ave.
• Multi-level outlet tower and release
aeration
• Water quality monitoring
• Impacts to wastewater treatment and
cost not addressed
• Conveyance refinement does not
address water quality impairments
below Mulberry Ave.
• Conveyance refinement needed as
soon as NISP impacts begin
• Water quality studies needed
(anticipated in Final EIS)
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Groundwater
Contamination
• TCE contaminated groundwater from
abandoned missile site could migrate
to Poudre River
• Additional study needed
• Additional monitoring and analysis by
Key Issues Past City Comments
1
Project Revisions and Mitigation
Measures
2
Remaining Concerns
Poudre River
Aquatic Habitat
and Life
• Degradation of spawning habitat and
food source due to reductions in peak
flows.
• Reduced river flows will impair water
quality and harm aquatic life
• Insufficient study data and methods
• Peak Flow Operations Plan lessens
concerns
• Conveyance refinement may improve
base flows and habitat availability and
lessen water quality impacts above
Mulberry Ave.
• Diversion structure retrofits
• $1M for stream channel and habitat
improvement plan
• Stream channel and habitat projects
(upstream of City)
• Additional study provided
• Peak Flow Operations Plan is
insufficient, particularly by omitting
peak flows following drought years
• Conveyance refinement does not
address water quality impairments
below Mulberry Ave
• Conveyance refinement needed as
soon as NISP impacts begin
• Insufficient funding of stream channel
and habitat improvements
Terrestrial
Wildlife
• Loss of wildlife in riparian areas
• Impacts to big game habitat near
City’s Gateway Natural Area
• Insufficient study
• Increased commitment to conserve
lands near Glade Reservoir
• Hwy 287 fencing and underpass
• Additional study provided
• Proposed Peak Flow Operations Plan
is insufficient
• Longer duration peak flows needed to
maintain wetlands and riparian areas
Water Management Issues
Flood Risks
• Reduced peak flows may lead to
sediment accumulation and reduced
channel capacity for conveyance of
flood flows, increasing City’s flood
risk
• Peak Flow Operations Plan lessens
concerns
Key Issues Past City Comments
1
Project Revisions and Mitigation
Measures
2
Remaining Concerns
Other Issues
Socioeconomics,
Recreation, and
Aesthetics
• Changes to river health would
adversely affect recreation, visitor
experiences, and associated economic
benefits in Fort Collins.
• Mitigation funding
• Recreation on Glade Reservoir and
Poudre River parking area
• Potential to increase flows for rafting
in lower canyon
• $1M for stream channel and habitat
improvement plan
• Recreation mitigation primarily
focuses on areas outside of Fort
Collins
• Adverse effects to river health in City
not adequately addressed
• Insufficient funding of stream channel
and habitat improvements
Climate Change
• Climate change not properly
considered
• Large pumping requirements would
increase region’s greenhouse gas
emissions
• Additional climate change study
provided
• Allowances for hydropower generation
at Glade Reservoir
• Increased greenhouse gas emissions
not addressed
Air Quality
• Air pollution negatively impacted by
construction and motorized boating on
Glade Reservoir
• Insufficient study
• Construction BMPs to address some
air pollution
• Additional study provided
• Air quality impacts, particularly from
construction traffic, not addressed
Mitigation
Funding
• Mitigation funding should be
increased
• $53.3 million proposed for mitigation
and enhancements
• Mitigation funding is insufficient and
should match the scope of NISP’s
impacts
1.1
Utilities – Water Board
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6702
970.416.2208 - fax
fcgov.com
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 12, 2017
TO: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers
FROM: Water Board
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP
Background and Purpose
In May, the Water Board decided that it would dedicate a set of Water Board work sessions to digging
into important water issues facing Fort Collins Utilities and the City, hereafter generally referred to as the
City in this memorandum. The Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) was selected as one of the most
important and controversial water issues facing the City in the near term. Over a series of three work
sessions in June, August, and October, the Water Board discussed various aspects of NISP and the City’s
relationship with the project, now and into the future. Our original goals of this effort were:
(1) To become more informed about NISP, by building a basic knowledge foundation in order to
better deliberate and act on NISP-related items that will likely come before the Water Board in
2018 and beyond.
(2) To better understand the options available to the City in opposing and/or addressing aspects of
NISP that cause negative impacts to the City’s water management and Poudre River function.
This memorandum provides a summary of the Water Board’s discussion on NISP. It is organized by the
discussion topics of the three Water Board work sessions. We hope that City Council finds this
information useful when making future decisions related to NISP. Attached to this memo is a table
summarizing the key concerns of the City, mitigation of those concerns that the City has previously
sought, and the mitigation that was recently approved by the state under the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
and Enhancement Plan. The table also provides emerging ideas on how the City can take a proactive role
in mitigating impacts of NISP using its own resources.
It is important to note that several activities related to NISP have occurred in parallel with the Water
Board work sessions. First and foremost, the City has continued to have a dialogue with Northern Water
about the project with the end goal of minimizing negative impacts to the City’s natural resources and
water system. A total of six meetings have taken place with Northern Water, following City Council’s
support for starting these discussions in February 2017. In addition, a draft NISP Fish and Wildlife
Mitigation and Enhancement Plan was released for comment in June 2017 and City staff made significant
comments to enhance mitigation activities. The Mitigation Plan was approved by Colorado Parks and
Wildlife and by the Colorado Water Conservation Board in September 2017. Since the Water Board
work sessions started, additional information has developed about how the project will be operated and
the extent of impact on the Poudre River. A clearer picture of NISP exists today compared with six
months prior.
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (6813 : NISP)
Meeting #1: Impacts of NISP
June Water Board work session
The first Water Board work session was devoted to better defining both the positive and negative impacts
of NISP to the City. Much of the discussion on NISP in Fort Collins has centered on the detrimental
effects of reduced streamflows on the health and function of the Poudre River. It is also important to
recognize that a portion of the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) will be served by the project by
providing raw water supply to the Fort Collins Loveland Water District. The following points summarize
our discussion of NISP impacts to the City.
Positive Impacts
x Increases in winter-time streamflows in the Poudre River through the City corridor, with possible
river flow during historical “dry-up” reaches of the river in the winter. This should benefit fish
and aquatic species, and could benefit water quality of the Poudre River below the effluent
discharge points for City’s two water treatment (reclamation) facilities.
x Additional water supply to the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which currently services
approximately 15% of Fort Collins households. The District has subscribed for 3,000 acre-feet of
yield from the project, which should help to meet its projected District-wide demands for roughly
a decade. It should be noted that most of the demand growth in the District service area is
expected to fall outside of the Fort Collins GMA.
x Recreational opportunities are proposed to be available in Glade Reservoir.
x Additional water storage capacity will not benefit Fort Collins Utilities, but it is considered a
benefit to the Northern Colorado region. Additional storage is intended to help meet the water
demands of regional population growth and is anticipated to provide flexibility in managing water
resources in light of climate change uncertainty. As a related benefit, NISP may help to preserve
water rights in the agricultural sector by providing a major water supply source for many fast
growing communities, as an alternative to “buy and dry” of farmland.
Negative Impacts
x Reduce the ability for the Poudre River channel to convey flood flows, due to the lack of large
scouring flows and the aggradation of sediment in certain river reaches within the City. This
reduced flood conveyance capacity could result in a widening of the floodplain, an increase in
flood frequency, and/or an increase in flood severity, in some reaches. Sediment aggradation
around canal head gates may impact their operation. Sedimentation also may result in the need to
raise bridges.
x The project involves extensive pumping of water up into Glade Reservoir, with associated energy
requirements, demands on local power sources, and corresponding carbon emissions impacts. For
perspective, NISP annual pumping power requirements are estimated to be approximately 2% to
4% of the City’s total annual electric demand.
x Summer river flow levels are likely to be decreased, which could impact current recreational uses
of the river in the City and associated visitors to the City reaches of the river.
x At times of reduced flow levels, there will be less flow to dilute the City’s wastewater effluent
and could cause problems for the City meeting water quality standards at its discharge point.
x A reduction in both peak flows and summer-time flows will likely impact aquatic species and
riparian habitat within the City.
x Raw water quality available to the City for its treatment and use may be affected by longer water
retention times in Horsetooth Reservoir, specifically an increase in total organic carbon.
x The Glade Reservoir dam site is located in close proximity to an abandoned missile silo site,
which is known to have groundwater contamination concerns. There are questions on how the
construction and operation of Glade Reservoir might interact with this legacy site.
A quick review of these impacts shows a familiar story. Water development activities to help service new
municipal water demands will have negative impacts on the river and riparian environment. The impacts
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (6813 : NISP)
on the river are bifurcated by season, with some winter-time benefits and some summer-time detriments.
On the whole, the project is considered to be a net loss to the City’s river environment. Considering the
continued population and economic growth that the Northern Colorado region will see, the project clearly
provides a benefit as a major water supply source for the region.
Meeting #2: Alternatives
August Water Board work session
The second Water Board work session was a discussion of alternatives. The Board discussed what
options the City could take in responding to and challenging NISP. We defined the following potential
options:
1. Negotiate with Northern Water on better mitigating negative impacts of the project. This option
is the one currently being pursued by the City, following the City Council vote in February 2017
to pursue a discussion with Northern Water. City Council did not refer to these discussions as a
negotiation. City staff have defined a set of target mitigation goals that they seek to achieve as
part of these discussions. A list of these goals is provided later in this memo. At the present time,
and specifically with the recent approval of the NISP Mitigation Plan, it is not clear how this
dialogue between Northern Water and the City should continue.
2. Challenge the NISP Record of Decision in court. The City could file a lawsuit against the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers stating that the decision to allow construction of NISP was “arbitrary
and capricious” and did not take into account the full suite of information. In a sense, the City
would have to challenge certain aspects of the NISP project. The City would not want to
challenge all technical aspects, because the City shares many datasets and assumptions in
developing its own Halligan Reservoir Expansion EIS document. The City might seek to
challenge two aspects of NISP: (1) Purpose & Need, developing information to support the idea
that the project participants do not actually need this new water supply, or (2) Alternatives,
arguing that the Corps of Engineers did not consider all of the viable water supply alternatives in
the environmental permitting process, particularly if there exist alternatives that are less-
damaging to the environment. There are several roadblocks to the City challenging NISP simply
on the basis of river impacts within the City. First and foremost, the project seeks to develop a
valid water right which has been decreed in water court. Colorado’s system of water laws do not
inherently protect river conditions outside of specific (often junior-priority) appropriations for
environmental flows. Second, some of the anticipated impacts to the City are not well-aligned
with the Federal or State permitting requirements. Even if the City were successful in challenging
the Record of Decision, the court would likely ask that the Corps revisit its decision, and thus
delay but not defeat the project. So long as the project participants have an appetite to continue
funding the development of NISP, a lawsuit is not likely to be a final decision on the project.
Finally, the City should consider how its actions on NISP, particularly a lawsuit, might impact the
comments received on the Halligan EIS and the overall pursuit of additional storage capacity in
Halligan Reservoir.
3. Petition the Environmental Protection Agency to veto the project. Following a Record of
Decision, assuming that the ROD is favorable to continued development of NISP, the City could
petition (or request) that the EPA exercise its authority to veto a project if it presents irreparable
harm to the environment. This EPA veto action is what halted the development of the Two Forks
Dam project in the 1980s. The EPA has exercised this veto authority about 20 times in history
(which represents less than 1% of all Federal water projects), all of which were tied to large-scale
projects that had significant opposition. The probability that the EPA, and certainly the current
EPA administration, would veto the project is considered low.
4. Lobby Congressional delegation for mitigation improvements. Switching branches of
government, Fort Collins could pressure its representatives in Congress to develop required
1.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (6813 : NISP)
mitigation conditions to offset the negative impacts of the project. However, NISP does not
require Federal funding, and therefore Congress would have limited ability to influence the
project. Elected officials representing Northern Colorado may not want to challenge the project,
as it benefits their constituents as well.
5. City would develop its own mitigation. A final option is for the City to develop its own
mitigation efforts and projects to offset the negative impacts of NISP. This option would mean
that staff and financial resources are focused on projects that the City can pursue while the NISP
project continues to be developed. The City would utilize its assets and resources to build its own
mitigation plan for NISP. Ideas for a City mitigation plan are presented as a table attached to this
memorandum. One aspect of City mitigation which was discussed at the meeting is the concept of
the City using a portion of its currently unused water rights portfolio to provide strategic
environmental flows in the Poudre River. First, it was concluded that dedicated storage releases
from an expanded Halligan Reservoir (which the City is currently pursuing) are unlikely to
significantly benefit the Poudre River through the City and offset the impact from NISP. The
reason is because Halligan is a relatively small storage reservoir, and the small release volumes
are likely to primarily benefit streamflows in the North Fork of the Poudre River. Second, the
City owns several agricultural ditch rights which it has not yet converted for municipal use and
could be applied to environmental uses. In addition, the City’s water rights portfolio in the Poudre
River has some excess supply in average and wet years. Available modeling suggests that Glade
Reservoir storage levels will be much less than full capacity in most years, providing a storage
void into which the City could put its unused direct-flow water rights. City staff have not
analyzed this possibility in detail, but conceptually this could provide significant benefit if the
City were to make peak flow releases from its stored water in Glade Reservoir. There are many
aspects that would need to be considered, but perhaps most important would be the creation of an
environmental storage pool in Glade Reservoir as part of the Record of Decision, allowing third-
parties (non-participants in the project) to store water in Glade Reservoir.
In defining these options, we considered that City staff are likely to continue to draft substantive
comments during the permitting process for NISP. Most of the comment period has passed, with a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for NISP due in January 2018. The Corps of Engineers is not
required to consider comments on the Final EIS when issuing the Record of Decision, but City comments
are important to provide information to the Corps as it defines mitigation conditions in the Record of
Decision. The City will also provide comments on other State agency permit documents, but should
consider how these efforts will alter the project from its current form.
The other aspect of our Alternatives discussion was what alternatives existed for the NISP project
participants, and in particular the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District, if NISP were not permitted and
not constructed. In the EIS process, the “No Action” alternative was presented as another regional storage
project named Cactus Hill Reservoir, located east of Fort Collins. This alternative is not desired by the
project participants and the EIS does not find it to be less environmentally damaging. The Board
discussed some flaws of the EIS process and study documents. The Corps made a seemingly arbitrary
decision to mandate that any alternative in the EIS process must be a regional water project.
For the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District, future water supply development besides NISP will likely
include development of water storage from former gravel pits, continued acquisition of CBT units in the
short term, and additional acquisition of agricultural ditch rights which divert from the Poudre River in
the longer term. The possibility of a wholesale water purchase from Fort Collins Utilities was previously
explored for several Southside Ditch rights, but use limitations expressed on the Utilities water right
decrees prevented their use beyond the Utility service area.
1.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (6813 : NISP)
Meeting #3: Mitigation & Moving Forward
October Water Board work session
The third and final Water Board work session was focused on how the City might seek mitigation for the
negative impacts caused by NISP, and ideas about how the City might continue to move forward. The
purpose of the meeting was influenced by the recent approval of the Mitigation Plan by Colorado
agencies in September 2017. The City’s ability to influence required mitigation, at least those aspects
regulated by the state, is limited given the approval of the Mitigation Plan. Therefore, the mitigation
discussion was kept rather brief, and we focused on moving forward. Additional mitigation will be
defined in the Record of Decision, with the term “mitigation” focused on impacts to wetlands, stream
reaches, and conveyance capacity of the river channel. City staff’s comments on the Draft EIS and Final
EIS will hopefully influence the quality of mitigation defined in the Record of Decision. In the near
future, the City will also be commenting on the State water quality 401 permit decision. Most Water
Board members believe that there will likely be a gap between the City’s desired mitigation and the type
and level of mitigation that will be required for NISP under Federal and State permits. Part of our
discussion on moving forward focused on how the City should best address this gap.
The Water Board focused its final discussion piece on how the City should move forward with respect to
advancing its concerns with NISP. No detailed position was developed by the Water Board, but Board
members expressed the following points as considerations and recommendations for future actions of City
Council with regard to NISP:
x The City has spent considerable resources (staff time and consultant funding) in analyzing and
challenging NISP with the goal of minimizing impacts on the City, particularly with regard to
Poudre River health and function. A team of 12 outside consultants have previously been engaged
by the City to help develop comments in the EIS process. This resource expenditure has resulted
in some significant changes to the NISP project. Specifically, the inclusion of a bypass flow
through the City and the changes in project operations defined in the approved Mitigation Plan.
From here, these resources can and should be leveraged to help develop a City mitigation plan for
NISP. Several Water Board members believe that the City should start to develop its own
mitigation plan and not rely on Federal and State agencies to get mitigation right for the City. The
attached table provides specific ideas on how the City might develop its own mitigation. Time is
of the essence in starting to build this plan if that is what City leaders want to do.
x A legal challenge to the Corps’ Record of Decision on NISP would be costly and highly
uncertain. It is not an exaggeration to say that the City would have to spend millions of dollars to
successfully challenge the Corps decision. Several Water Board members feel that developing a
City mitigation plan could represent a fraction of the cost of a legal challenge and/or provide a far
more certain outcome.
x The NISP project represents a piece of a much broader water management discussion for
Northern Colorado, and there are other issues which might actually be more important than NISP
moving forward. These issues include: land use planning at both local and regional levels,
irrigation ditch company planning, and advances in water conservation. The City might have
more of a long-term impact leading on these issues than it would in standing opposed to NISP.
Some Water Board members feel that as long as there is unappropriated streamflow in the Poudre
River system, there will be some interest in developing a project to utilize the water supply. In
other words, even if NISP does not become a reality, there will be others waiting to develop a
similar project.
x At least one Water Board member felt that the City should make a commitment on where it
stands related to NISP. Historically, the City has been simultaneously opposed and neutral to the
project, while some in the community feel that the February 2017 decision to engage in
1.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (6813 : NISP)
discussions with Northern Water was effectively an admission that the project will be completed.
Some Water Board members feel that the City should take a strategic view on how to best react to
the NISP project, and start to build on that strategy, rather than remain uncommitted.
x If NISP continues to move forward, then several Water Board members have expressed a concern
about data and information transparency, which has historically been lacking on NISP reports and
analyses to date. In the future, the dialogue among stakeholders can be improved if more data and
information are shared. A lack of transparency coupled with typically short EIS review period
presents challenges to understanding and responding to the EIS. The City should continue to
advocate for open data policies and lead by example.
x Members of the Water Board also feel that collaboration among stakeholders may be a
requirement to deal with some of the NISP impacts and to ensure that the Poudre River is able to
provide for multiple benefits. This is due to the complexity of river operations and the inter-
connections among water users and uses. A single entity acting alone will struggle to provide
sufficient staff and financial resources to address water management issues in the Poudre River
system. Within this collaborative environment, monitoring of critical river metrics, such as
streamflow and water quality, will be essential to future management of the Poudre River, and
NISP participants and other regional water users should contribute to these efforts as an extension
of existing data collection and management programs.
As stated previously, a table is attached which summarizes issues of concern and ideas for mitigation of
those concerns. I hope that the information contained in this memorandum proves helpful in future
deliberations and action items on NISP that come before City Council. Please contact the Water Board
with any clarifying questions or follow-up comments.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Brett Bovee, Water Board Chairperson
Attachment: Table of issues and mitigation ideas
1.2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (6813 : NISP)
Issue/Concern City’s Mitigation Comments1 NISP’s Mitigation Plan2 Possible Future Action(s) for
Consideration
Peak Flows/Stormwater
NISP will reduce peak flows which will
increase flood risks and decrease
river health and function.
• Provide 3 day bypass every year
• Large scale river-floodplain reconnection
upstream and through the City to reduce
flood risk
• No further reductions to rise and fall of
peak flows
• 6 Tier peak flow bypass program
• Full 3-day bypass achieved 70% of years
• More frequent, shorter duration
bypasses in certain years
• Seek an environmental pool in Glade
Reservoir to store non-NISP water (e.g.
excess City sources as available) for peak flow
augmentation (near-term)
• Plan and fund large-scale floodplain
restoration projects upstream of the City
(long-term)
Base Flows
NISP will increase base flows, to
Mulberry Ave, but full benefits may
not be realized until build-out.
• Provide full base flow via conveyance
refinement at project start-up
• 36% of all Glade releases to river at
start-up
• Interim delivery schedule coordinated
through CPW
• Advocate for delivery of Glade releases to
river in lieu of other water supplies
Ramping Rates
Rapid flow changes are a safety
hazard and can impact aquatic and
riparian species
• Flow changes should not exceed 500 cfs
per day at Canyon mouth
• 500 cfs per day ramping schedule
adopted
• None
Water Quality
NISP’s impacts to Poudre water
quality and wastewater dilution
requirements are unknown.
• Postpose mitigation plan approval until
data becomes available
• Water quality data released in 2018
• Other water quality mitigation actions
proposed (multi-level outlet tower,
conveyance refinement, etc.)
• Study the potential to acquire and develop
small storage sites (like Rigden) near Drake to
provide targeted WQ releases
• Consider water lease options to provide
targeted dilution to mitigate WQ impacts
Adaptive Management
1
Frequently Asked Questions
NISP Open House
February 13, 2017
1) What is NISP?
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 municipalities and water districts, including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
(FCLWD), a municipal water provider serving a portion of Fort Collins. At full build out and
implementation, NISP would deliver 40,000 acre feet of water a year (for comparison, the Water
Utility of the City of Fort Collins (“City”) currently delivers about 25,000 acre-feet a year). The
project includes the construction of the 170,000-acre Glade Reservoir located north of Ted’s
Place on Highway 287. The highway would be rerouted to the east side of the hogback.
2) Is the City a participant in NISP?
The City and its Water Utility is not a participant. The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which
serves southeast third or so of Fort Collins’ Growth Management Area, is a participant. It would
receive about 3,000 acre feet of water annually and ultimately about 1,400 acre feet would be
delivered to Fort Collins’ residents.
3) What is the City’s official stance on NISP?
In 2015, City Council adopted Resolution 2015-082. The resolution states that “the City Council
cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed in the [Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, dated June 2015], with the understanding that City Council
may reach a different conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP… if such variant
addresses the City's fundamental concerns expressed in the City's comments to the [Draft
Environmental Impact Statement] and comments to the [Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement].”
4) Who decides if NISP can be built?
In order to construct NISP, Northern Water must acquire several permits from federal and state
agencies and from Larimer County. NISP requires no approvals from the City. The key permit
that NISP needs is a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(“Corps”). In order to issue this permit, the Corps must write an environmental impact
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Frequently Asked Questions (6813 : NISP)
2
statement (“EIS”), which investigates the need for the project, evaluates alternatives, and
studies environmental impacts. Results from the EIS are used for various other permitting
processes.
5) History of NISP
NISP’s participants formally agreed in 2003 to pursue the project. Shortly thereafter NISP
entered the federal permitting process, which is administered by the Corps. In 2008, the Corps
published a Draft EIS. Based on public comments, including comments from the City, the Corps
decided to issue a Supplemental Draft EIS, which was published in 2015. The City reviewed the
Supplemental Draft EIS and submitted numerous comments to the Corps. The Corps currently is
preparing the Final EIS, which is expected to be complete by the end of 2017. Concurrently, the
State of Colorado is preparing to review a Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan that Northern Water
will submit in 2017. In addition, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is
preparing a water quality model and report that will be issues with the Final EIS.
6) What is staff proposing to City Council?
Staff has proposed a resolution that would authorize staff to discuss and explore mutual
interests pertaining to NISP with Northern Water. Staff would meet with Northern Water to
discuss the City’s key goals and issues related to NISP, while regularly reporting to City Council.
If mutual interests can potentially be met, staff would be authorized to negotiate draft
agreements that would be presented to Council for its review and possible approval.
7) What is different about the staff proposal from past steps?
In the past, the City has participated in the Corps permitting process as a stakeholder,
submitting comments to the Corps when it published the EIS’s in 2008 and 2015. Staff has never
been authorized by City Council engage in direct negotiations with the project proponent.
8) What would the City expect to gain for negotiating?
The City may gain better outcomes than it could by relying on the permitting agencies. The
permitting agencies have their own criteria and are not focused on impacts to the City. Staff is
concerned that relying on these agencies to protect the City’s interests is risky and passive. By
engaging Northern Water directly, the City’s concerns may be better addressed. Key issues of
concern to the City include peak and base flows; biological affects to the Poudre; potential
affects to storm water conveyance; and, affects to recreation. These concerns are extensively
documented in the City’s 2008 and 2015 comments to the Corps.
1.3
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Frequently Asked Questions (6813 : NISP)
3
9) What would the City give up by negotiating?
The City would not give up anything by meeting with Northern Water to negotiate as proposed.
It is not known at this time what the City may be ultimately requested to do to reach an
agreement and to receive a benefit, although there a variety of potential scenarios. The City
may maintain its lack of support for the project but agree not to comment on certain project
elements. On the other hand, the City might adopt a position of neutrality. Although the City
could adopt a support position – staff considers this an unlikely outcome given the known
negative impacts of NISP. The decision of whether the City should give up or commit to
anything would be decided by City Council later if a draft agreement were brought back to City
Council.
10) Why is staff proposing this approach now? Why not just wait and see what happens?
From staff’s perspective, the City faces a risk in relying solely on the permitting agencies to
determine mitigation for impacts to Fort Collins. It is likely that the mitigation measures
determined by agencies will be less rigorous than those desired by the City. Many state and
federal agencies will be involved in the development of mitigation for NISP, each within their
own regulatory arena. For example, mitigation of wetlands is overseen the Army Corps,
mitigation of fish and wildlife is handled by CPW, and mitigation of endangered species is
regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins interests are beyond a single
resource and are focused on the overall ecological health of the Poudre River. This places the
City in a unique position to advocate mitigation for NISP.
While the permitting process is long and complex, the Final EIS is expected late this year.
Further, the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be finalized this year. The City’s ability to
influence the Final EIS as well as federal and state mitigation plans is modest and, as noted
above, the agencies are not focused on impacts to Fort Collins. As the permitting processes
continue to march forward, in staff’s view, the City’s window to directly influence mitigation
with the project proponent diminishes.
11) Does negotiating mean that the City will facilitate the construction of NISP?
As part of the federal permitting process, the Corps must evaluate a range of alternatives to
meet the needs of the NISP participants, and then from that range select the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (or “LEDPA”). Corps guidance specifically
precludes considering mitigation in making a LEDPA determination. Consequently, if,
hypothetically, Northern and the City were to reach agreement on certain mitigation measures,
these measures could not be used by the Corps in its selection of the LEDPA.
Once the LEDPA has been selected, the Corps moves to the decision as to whether or not to
permit the project. It is possible that if there were an agreement between the City and
1.3
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Frequently Asked Questions (6813 : NISP)
4
Northern Water regarding mitigation, it could speed the Corps permitting process by reducing
the number of comments submitted to the Corps or by simply leading to a better mitigation
package that is easier to permit by the Corps. These implications would only be applicable if an
agreement between the City and Northern Water were ultimately approved. They would be
evaluated if a proposed agreement were to be brought back to City Council and the public
following negotiations. The proposal to enter into discussions and negotiations does not itself
facilitate NISP.
12) Will NISP harm the river?
Flows, and in particular spring peaking flows, drive much of the overall condition on the Poudre
River. NISP will take water out of the Poudre River primarily during the peak flow months of
May, June, and July. If NISP is constructed, flows will be reduced on average 20% annually and
30% during the highest peak flow days. The reach from the NISP diversion near the canyon
mouth through town will see the greatest reductions in flow. Under today’s river management,
these reaches receive flows that are greatly reduced from the native flows.
Studies conducted by the City, such as the Ecosystem Response Model have enhanced
understanding of current and possible future conditions on the Poudre. Poudre River flows
(both in volume and in inter-annual patterns) continue to support many essential ecosystem
functions, yet they are approaching critical thresholds below which the river’s health and
resilience will suffer. In sum, it is likely the health of the river will be negatively impacted by
NISP, especially without well-planned and extensive mitigation actions.
13) Will the public get to weigh in on any mitigation proposals? How so?
Yes. Staff would meet with Northern Water initially. If any concepts were generated by those
discussions that would be of interest to the City, there would be outreach and discussion with
City Council and citizen advisory boards such as the Natural Resources Advisory Board. In
addition, there would be more general outreach with the public through, for example, open
houses or web-based materials. Ultimately, it is up to City Council to make any final decision(s)
about the City’s NISP related interests.
1.3
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Frequently Asked Questions (6813 : NISP)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE: CITY’S RESPONSE TO NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT (NISP) FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIS) STATEMENT
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Inform and Consult
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: What is your feedback on the City’s response to NISP Final EIS?
KEY STAKEHOLDERS:
Water Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board
City Council
City Leadership
River visitors
River neighbors/ land owners
Locally engaged scientific community
Poudre water stakeholders and water districts
Stakeholders involved in current collaborative efforts
Community members
TIMELINE:
*The timeline is dependent upon when Army Corps of Engineers releases the Final EIS for comment, and
the comment period they establish. Staff is anticipating the Final EIS will be released in late June with a
45-60 day comment period and possible extension up to 90 days.
June/July- Preview to community through Coloradoan column, enewsletters, social media, website, email
blast. OurCity, platform and preparation of City’s NISP website.
Late June- Final EIS released, staff begins to analyze and formulate comments. Continue to reinforce
preview messages.
July- Identify broad-level themes that staff envisions including in City’s response. Share themes with City
Council, Boards, and community via OurCity platform, board meetings, City Council meetings. Gather
feedback from all and summarize for August City Council meetings.
August- City Council considers staff-drafted response and resident feedback.
September- Comments due to Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
Key Messages:
• Comments on the final EIS are just one way the City is working to positively influence outcomes.
• The City has limited power to influence the process.
• Anyone may directly comment to ACOE. Link provided to ACOE comment opportunity.
• The timeline is likely to be 60 days and the document is extensive so the engagement timeline will
be compressed.
• The City is collecting feedback on the City’s response to the Final EIS, only.
Background
• City Council passed a resolution stating opposition to the project as it was then configured but
that this position could change if a future NISP configuration addressed the City’s concerns (2015)
ATTACHMENT 4
1.4
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6813 : NISP)
Tools and Techniques
• Speaking points- internal
• Coloradoan column
• Outreach to Coloradoan, North Forty News, and KUNC reporters directly (preview, key
messages)- new idea to prevent misinformation. Press release/media advisory could also be
effective.
• Board meetings
• City Council meetings
• Our City platform
• NISP website
• Email blast to stakeholders
• Enewsletters (Natural Areas, Utilities)
• Potential meetings/presentations/webinar with key stakeholders, upon request and depending on
capacity
• No open house is planned due to the compressed timeline
1.4
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6813 : NISP)
1
Northern Integrated Supply Project
Status & Proposed Approach
May 29, 2018
ATTACHMENT 5
1.5
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Overview
1. City goals
2. Background and history
3. Modifications and mitigation
4. Remaining concerns
5. Staff recommendations
2
1.5
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
1. What are we working towards
3
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
What we are
working towards
1.5
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
4
1.5
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
5
1.5
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
6
• Clean Water Act 404 Permit & National
Environmental Policy Act
• Clean Water Action 401 Certification
• Colorado Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Plan
• Larimer County 1041 Approval
Permits and Process
1.5
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
History
7
Permitting begins
Draft EIS
2008-082: “…City Council opposes NISP as it is described and proposed in
the [Draft] EIS and also opposes any variant of NISP that does not address
the City’s fundamental concerns about the quality of its water supply and the
effects on the Cache la Poudre River through the City…”
NISP Timeline
2004 2008
1.5
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
History
8
2004
Supplemental
draft EIS
2008
2015-082: “…City Council cannot support NISP as it currently described and
proposed in the [supplemental draft] EIS, 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…”
2015
1.5
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
History
9
2004 2008
Fish & Wildlife
Mitigation Plan
2015 2017
Staff proposes
negotiations
2017-024: City Council directed Staff to discuss concerns with Northern
Water, but did not authorize negotiations
1.5
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
History
10
2004 2008
Final EIS
2015 2017
2018
2019
2020
Record of Decision
401 Certification
1.5
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Past Comments
11
Reduced River Flows
• Flood Risks
• Water Quality & Wastewater Treatment
• Fish & Aquatic Life
• Riparian Areas & Wildlife
• Recreation & River Experience
1.5
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Past Comments
12
Construction & Operation
• Source Water
• Groundwater Contamination (TCE)
• Air Quality
• Climate Change
• Habitat Loss
1.5
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
NISP Modifications
13
• No Glade to Horsetooth
pipeline
• No Horsetooth Reservoir
exchange
• Conveyance refinement
1.5
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
14
NISP
Conveyance
Refinement
1.5
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Mitigation & Enhancement
15
• Peak flow operations
• Diversion structure retrofits
• Channel & riparian improvements
• Land conservation
• Monitoring & adaptive management
1.5
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Status
16
Mostly Addressed Partially Addressed Not Addressed
• Source water
• Groundwater
contamination
• Habitat loss from
inundation
• Flood risks
• Fish & aquatic life
• Riparian areas &
wildlife
• Recreation & river
experience
• Water quality &
wastewater treatment
• Air quality
• Climate change
1.5
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Key Remaining Concerns
17
Flood Risk
• Complete 3-day peak flow
bypass
• Increase river-floodplain
connection
• Adaptive management to
address channel constriction
1.5
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Key Remaining Concerns
18
Ecosystem Impacts
• Complete 3-day bypass
• Conveyance refinement as soon as
NISP impacts the river
• Better defined, flow-based adaptive
management
• Increased funding for channel
improvements
1.5
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Key Remaining Concerns
19
Water Quality &
Wastewater Treatment
• Additional study & data
• Conveyance refinement at start-up
• Adaptive management - third-party
monitoring
1.5
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Key Remaining Concerns
20
Other
• Long-term groundwater
monitoring
• Increase mitigation funding
• Adaptive management
improvements
1.5
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Constraints
21
• Limited influence in permitting process
Comments unlikely to significantly alter NISP
• NISP likely to receive permits
Recent examples: Windy Gap, Moffat
• Mitigation unlikely to change in permitting
State approval received
1.5
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Risk Assessment
22
Likelihood of achieving or influencing outcomes
Do nothing Oppose NISP Comment Negotiate
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Outcome
1.5
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
Staff Recommendation
23
1. Participate in public
process
• Technical comments on Final
EIS & other permits
• Advocate accurate
assessment of impacts
2. Seek to negotiate
• Goal - meet mutual
interests
• May improve status quo
• Will entail tradeoffs
• No guarantee of success
1.5
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
24
Discussion
1.5
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6813 : NISP)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2018-053
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEES TO MEET
WITH THE NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT TO NEGOTIATE A POTENTIAL AGREEMENT REGARDING
THE NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT
WHEREAS, since at least 2001, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(“Northern Water”) has been pursuing various forms and iterations of the Northern Integrated
Supply Project (“NISP”), a water storage and supply project that would divert significant
amounts of water from the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, Northern Water requires various governmental permits and approvals to
construct NISP, including: a permit under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; a State
water quality certification under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act and applicable State
of Colorado (“State”) statutes and regulations; and a “1041” permit (or agreement in lieu thereof)
under Chapter 14 of the Larimer County Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, since NISP’s inception, the City has been concerned about the potentially
significant impacts that NISP would have on the City and the Fort Collins community; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically participated in numerous and varied discussions
with Northern Water related to NISP, both in the context of the various required governmental
permits and approvals and otherwise; and
WHEREAS, the City submitted comments on two occasions in the federal permitting
process for NISP, which is being managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the
permitting agency under the federal Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act,
first pursuant to Resolution 2008-082 and then pursuant to Resolution 2015-082, both as
described below; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2008-082, the City submitted comments on the draft
environmental impact statement (“DEIS”) for NISP, which Resolution states, among other
things, that “the City Council opposes NISP as it is described and proposed in the DEIS and also
opposes any variant of NISP that does not address the City’s fundamental concerns about the
quality of its water supply and the effects on the Cache la Poudre River through the City, which
are critical to the City’s quality of life, health, and economic development and environment”; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2015-082, the City submitted comments on the
supplemental draft environmental impact statement (“SDEIS”) for NISP, which Resolution
states, among other things, that “the City Council cannot support NISP as it is currently
described and proposed in the SDEIS, with the understanding that City Council may reach a
different conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP, such as the proposed Modified
Alternative Number 4 as described in the City’s comments, if such variant addresses the City’s
Packet Pg. 49
-2-
fundamental concerns expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS and comments to the
SDEIS” and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2017-024, City Council authorized and directed the
City Manager or his designees “to meet on a regular basis with the 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, pursuant to Resolution 2017-073, the City submitted comments and
provided testimony in a State process under Section 37-60-122.2 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes, by which Northern Water sought and subsequently received State approval of a plan to
mitigate NISP’s impacts on fish and wildlife resources; and
WHEREAS, the City’s discussions, meetings, and formal comments and participation in
the permitting processes (as well as the participation of others) have resulted in some—but not
all—of the City’s concerns regarding the significant impacts that NISP would have on the City
and the Fort Collins community being addressed, including:
• the removal of a proposed pipeline from Glade Reservoir to Horsetooth Reservoir;
• the removal of exchanges through the Colorado-Big Thompson Project system;
• the “conveyance refinement” that will deliver NISP water in the Cache la Poudre River
through a portion of Fort Collins;
• the inclusion of a multi-level outlet tower and the aeration of releases from Glade
Reservoir;
• the addition of water quality monitoring; additional monitoring of the Trichloroethylene
plume near the Glade Reservoir forebay;
• the Peak Flow Operations Plan; proposed wetland mitigation and improvements;
• the stream channel and habitat improvement plan;
• the proposed alterations to certain diversion structures in the Cache la Poudre River;
• the plan to conserve lands near Glade Reservoir for terrestrial wildlife and for fencing
and underpass construction along Highway 287;
• certain best management practices to address some air pollution concerns; and
• the completion of various additional studies; and
WHEREAS, despite the above improvements to NISP, and other improvements that have
been made to NISP over time, and following the City’s discussions, meetings, and formal
comments and participation in the permitting processes, the City still has significant concerns
regarding the impacts that NISP would have on the City and the Fort Collins community,
including those related to base flows, peak flows (also known as “flushing flows”), ecological
impacts, flooding impacts, the mitigation of impacts, mitigation funding, and other matters; and
WHEREAS, the various permitting processes are proceeding towards their conclusions
and the City will have limited opportunities moving forward to influence NISP through formal
participation in those processes; and
Packet Pg. 50
-3-
WHEREAS, the City and Northern Water have a multi-facetted relationship, including
various roles with respect to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and the Windy Gap Project;
their roles as water users on the Cache la Poudre River that are concerned with matters of water
quality and quantity; and their mutual involvement in other water-related endeavors, matters, and
projects; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to express its support for other communities, including
participants in NISP, in their quest to acquire reliable water supplies without significantly
adversely affecting other communities and the environment; and
WHEREAS, it will be to the benefit of the City to have designated staff members meet
with Northern Water to seek to engage in negotiations regarding NISP, and if Northern Water is
so willing, to engage in negotiations regarding NISP; and
WHEREAS, nothing herein is intended to affect the City’s position regarding NISP, as
described in Resolution 2015-082, Resolution 2017-024, and Resolution 2017-073, and as may
be modified in the future; and
WHEREAS, such meetings, discussions, and negotiations with Northern Water regarding
NISP will not change the City’s position regarding NISP, as described in Resolution 2015-082,
Resolution 2017-024, and Resolution 2017-073, and will not bind the City without subsequent
action from City Council.
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 meet with
Northern Water to seek to negotiate regarding NISP, and if Northern Water is so willing, to
engage in negotiations regarding NISP. The City Manager in his discretion may designate
certain qualified staff members for such discussions and negotiations.
Section 3. That in negotiating with Northern Water regarding NISP, the City
Manager and his designees shall focus on the following key goals and issues, which are listed in
no particular order:
(a) A reduction of source water quality and other adverse impacts to the City’s water
supplies that are used by the City to meet treated and untreated water demands;
(b) A reduction of water quality and other adverse impacts to the City’s wastewater
treatment facilities;
(c) A reduction of adverse impacts to the river health and ecology of the Cache la
Poudre River and associated biological resources, including riparian vegetation
and wetlands, aquatic habitat and life, and terrestrial wildlife, from the point of
diversion for NISP to the location where the river crosses Interstate 25;
Packet Pg. 51
-4-
(d) A reduction of adverse impacts to the ability of the Cache la Poudre River to
adequately convey storm and flood waters;
(e) A reduction of NISP’s diminishment of “peak flows” in the Cache la Poudre
River from the point of diversion for NISP to the location where the river crosses
Interstate 25.
(f) A reduction of adverse impacts to the aesthetic, recreational, and socioeconomic
attributes of the Cache la Poudre River from the point of diversion for NISP to the
location where the river crosses Interstate 25; and
(g) A reduction of adverse impacts to air quality.
Section 4. That in such negotiations, the City Manager and his designees shall be
guided by the concerns that are more fully expressed in the comments provided pursuant to
Resolution 2008-082, Resolution 2015-082, Resolution 2017-024, and Resolution 2017-073, in
addition to such other information and investigations that are prudent and further the purposes of
this Resolution.
Section 5. That the City Manager and his designees shall report back to City Council
regarding such discussions at regular intervals.
Passed and adopted at a special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
29th day of May, A.D. 2018.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 52
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 29, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
SUBJECT
Consideration of a Motion Authorizing Release of Records Withheld as Council Work Product.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider a motion authorizing release of records withheld as
Council work product in response to a records request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving a motion authorizing release of records withheld as Council work product.
Suggested motion:
I move that the City Council authorize release of documents that are not otherwise privileged and were
withheld as Council work product in response to a records request made by Judicial Watch.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On October 4, 2017, personnel from a blog, Judicial Watch, requested records from the City pursuant to the
Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”). The City provided voluminous records to Judicial Watch in response to
the request. The request included, among several other requests, a request for the following:
Copies of any/all communications from May 12, 2017 to October 4, 2017 to include but not limited to
emails exchanged between Kim Baker Medina, Fuerza Latina, Jackie Kozak-Thiel (Fort Collins Chief
Sustainability officer), the Fort Collins City Manager’s office, the Fort Collins Police Department, the
Northern Colorado Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #3 and/or the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office.
Although the City provided numerous records to Judicial Watch personnel, the City withheld some records on
the basis that they constitute Council “work product” as that term is defined under CORA. Under CORA, work
product is not considered a public record and therefore a public entity is not required to disclose it when an
open records request is made. CORA gives authority to elected officials to release or authorize the release of
all or any part of work product prepared for them.
Release of the records withheld as Council work product may help to facilitate resolution of a claim filed by
Judicial Watch.
2
Packet Pg. 53
Adaptive management should be well
funded and include clear
performance standards
• Add performance standards or postpose
mitigation plan approval until
standards/triggers are defined
• Independent monitoring
• Increase annual budget to $100,000
• Performance standards and triggers not
defined
• Flows will not be used in adaptive
management
• Pledge $50,000 annually for 20 years
beyond build-out
• Advocate for local science and monitoring
efforts, performance standards (near-term)
• Help to identify and develop sustainable
funding for mitigation beyond 20-years (long-
term)
Mitigation/ Funding
Mitigation/enhancement funds
should match the scope of NISP’s
impacts
• Provide $77.2M for mitigation and
enhancement
• Take a functions based, long term
approach to restoration for loss of
function
• $59M for mitigation and enhancement
• Certain short-term/small scale
approaches proposed for
mitigation/restoration (e.g., dredging).
• Allocate new funding to the Natural Areas
budget to conduct targeted mitigation in
riparian corridor that is not done by project
• Leverage volunteer resources to help with
these activities as appropriate
Big Game Habitat
Construction of Glade Reservoir will
impact big game habitat near the
City’s Gateway Natural Area.
• Partner with City to conserve 5,000 acres
near Glade Reservoir
• Increases commitment to conserve
lands near Glade
• Consents to GOCO easement
requirements
• None
1Taken from the City’s comments on NISP’s Draft Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (FWMEP), and the City’s September 1, 2017 letter to Colorado Parks
and Wildlife Commission responding to revisions to the FWMEP
2Taken from the NISP’s final approved FWMEP
1.2
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP (6813 : NISP)
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Key Issues in past City Comments, NISP Revisions and Mitigation Measures, and Remaining
• Peak Flow Operations Plan is
insufficient, particularly by omitting
peak flows following drought years
• Even with Peak Flows Plan, channel
constriction anticipated, leading to
increasing flood risks
• Peak flows during initial fill period
should be provided
Water Resources
• Hydrologic modeling is insufficient
• No ability to protect mitigation
releases and bypasses from
downstream diverters
• Created Common Technical Platform
to cooperatively address flow
modeling
• Senate Bill 18-170 now protects
mitigation flows
• N/A
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Key Issues in past City Comments, NISP Revisions and Mitigation Measures, and Remaining
Corps shows TCE plume degrading
and decreasing
• Long-term TCE monitoring is needed
Environmental Issues
Riparian
Vegetation and
Wetlands
• Reduced river flows will cause
narrowing of riparian corridor and loss
of ecosystem services (e.g. pollution
filtration)
• Inappropriate study data and methods
• Peak Flow Operations Plan lessens
concerns
• Wetland mitigation planned
• 10 acres of riparian vegetation
improvements in Fort Collins
• $1M for stream channel and habitat
improvement plan
• Additional study provided
• Peak Flow Operations Plan is
insufficient
• Longer duration peak flows needed to
maintain wetlands and riparian areas
• Insufficient funding of stream channel
and habitat improvements
1 Abbreviated from City comments on the 2008 NISP Draft EIS, the 2015 NISP Supplemental Draft EIS, and the 2017 NISP Mitigation Plan.
2 Listed mitigation measures are not exhaustive and specific to Fort Collins’ interests. Additional mitigation will be provided through NISP’s proposed Poudre
River Adaptive Management Program.
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Key Issues in past City Comments, NISP Revisions and Mitigation Measures, and Remaining