HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/02/2008-RegularSeptember 2, 2008
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, September 2,
2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and
Roy.
Councilmembers Absent: Troxell
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Eckman.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue, stated the City Charter allows the City to franchise electric
utilities and Council should not forfeit the authority to establish utilities that would increase Fort
Collins' clean energy production.
George Hoffman, 1101 Valley Oak Court, did not support the dirt yard and dilapidated fence
ordinance that was previously adopted.
Mel Hilgenberg,172 North College, spoke of an incident at his residence in the Northern Hotel when
a drunk man was passed out in the hallway and he had great difficulty in getting assistance from
Police Services or the Housing Authority to remove the drunk. He asked for the hiring of more
police officers to provide a quicker response time to citizen complaints.
Katy Friedenfall, Director of Community Affairs, ASCSU, stated Colorado State students have
returned to campus. ASCSU wants to continue its positive relationship with the City.
David and Gail Zirtzlaff, 2048 Manchester Drive, shared concerns about the problems caused by
college students living in their neighborhood.
James Ross, 1455 Bubbling Brook Court, candidate for State Representative, District 49,
commended Council for its opposition to uranium mining in Nunn.
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, stated students and teenagers who ride Transfort buses
are rude and disrespectful. She stated youth should not be allowed to ride buses for free as they are
not appreciative of the privilege given to them.
September 2, 2008
Aeenda Review
City Manager Atteberry requested that Item #20 Resolution 2008-081 Appointing Two
Representatives to the Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee be postponed to September
16, 2008 as Councilmember Troxell is not present at this meeting.
Councilmember Ohlson requested Item #14 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2008,
Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Waterline Easements on City Property to the City of Greeley
and the East Larimer Countyand North Weld County Water Districts and Item # 19 Resol ution 2008-
080 Reaffirming the Commitment of the City of Fort Collins to Continued Cooperation with the
Town of Windsor in the Planning, Design and Construction of the Interchange at Interstate Highway
25 and State Highway 392, and Approving Certain Basic Principles Related to That Cooperative
Effort be removed from the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the July 15, 2008 Regular Meeting and the
August 12, 2008 Adjourned Meeting
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the General Fund to the Capital
Projects Fund for the I-25 and SH392 Interchange and Improvements Project.
An amended Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Windsor, City of Fort
Collins, and the Developer (Metro Acquisitions, LLC) has been adopted to share the cost of
filing a Justification for Separate Action and processing a 1601 Study for the I-25 and SH
392 Interchange. Ordinance No. 078, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
August 19, 2008, appropriates Fort Collins' portion of the cost for these processes.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Poudre Valley Health System "Choose the Right Road" Driving
Program.
The Poudre Valley Health System has been awarded a $25,000 grant from the Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Division of the Colorado Department of Human Services. These funds will be
disbursed by the Colorado Department of Human Services and directed through the City of
Fort Collins, pursuant to State of Colorado requirements, then paid to the Poudre Valley
Health System. Ordinance No. 091, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading, allows
the City to disburse the grant funds to PVHS (via the Hospital Foundation) upon completion
of any grant -related documents and a subgrant agreement between the City and PVHS.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget.
a
September 2, 2008
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 19, 2008, appropriates
funds received from a grant in the amount of $17,259 from the Division of Criminal Justice,
Juvenile Diversion, for salaries associated with the continued operation of the Restorative
Justice Program. It also appropriates the required cash match of $5,753 from the Police
operating budget.
10. Items Relating to the Civic Center Parking Structure.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2008, Authorizing an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Larimer County and the Fort
Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority Pertaining to the Civic Center
Parking Structure.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2008, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the General Fund for Repayment to Larimer County for the County's Contribution
Toward the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority's Share of
Financing the Civic Center Parking Structure.
In accordance with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) approved in August 1998
between Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Downtown
Development Authority (DDA), the County paid the City $3,070,000 for its share of the
development and construction of the Civic Center Parking Garage. The County also paid
$1,274,000 for half of the annual debt service assigned to the DDA starting in 2007 until the
related financing is completely paid off in 2018. At the time of the IGA, the DDA was
expected to sunset in 2006. With the passage of Senate Bill 170 during the 2008 session of
the state legislature and with the adoption of Ordinance No. 101, 2008, the authority of the
DDA to use tax -increment financing has been extended to 2031. As a result, the DDA will
continue to pay its share of the debt service on the Civic Center Parking Garage and the
County should be repaid for the contribution it made on behalf of the DDA in 1998.
Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 19, 2008.
IL Items Relating to Bernard Ranch Phase 1.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of a
Conservation Easement on City Natural Area Property (Bernard Ranch Phase 1) to
Latimer County; and Authorizing a Related Grant Agreement with the Board of the
Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund for Land Conservation.
Ordinance No. 095, 2008, authorizes the conveyance of an 880-acre conservation easement
on Bernard Ranch, Phase 1, from the City's Natural Area Program to Larimer County and
authorizes entering into a grant agreement with the Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado
91
September 2, 2008
Trust Fund. The City will receive a $265,792 grant from Great Outdoors Colorado to
support the conservation of the property. The grant requires that a conservation easement
be placed on the property and conveyed to a qualified third parry. The conservation easement
acknowledges and protects the natural qualities of the property. It also allows continued
ranching and other compatible activities.
Ordinance No. 096, 2008, appropriates the funds to be received from GOCO into the Natural
Areas Program for further land conservation efforts. Both Ordinances were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on August 19, 2008.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2008, Amending the City Code by Repealing
Sections Relating- to Massag-e Therapy.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 19, 2008, repeals all
provisions of the Code relating to the practice of massage, including the provisions
establishing the Massage Licensing Authority.
13. Second Reading- of Ordinance No. 101, 2008, Extending the Period During Which the Fort
Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority May Allocate and Collect in the
Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Fund a Portion of Property Taxes.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 19, 2008, allows the
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to extend the period during which a portion of
the property taxes may be allocated, in accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 170-08,
and when collected, paid into the DDA's Tax Increment Fund. This extension is for 20
years.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102,2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Waterline
Easements on City Property to the City of Greeley and the East Larimer County and North
Weld County Water Districts.
The City of Greeley, the North Weld County Water District and East Larimer County Water
Districts, (the "Districts") are in the process of acquiring the necessary easements for their
waterline transmission projects ("GWET" and "NEWT") which are scheduled to begin
construction in January 2009. The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department owns a
parcel of land at 1000 North College Avenue on which the City of Greeley and the Districts
have requested easements for their projects. The City property was purchased for the future
intersection of the realigned East Vine Drive and North College Avenue as shown on the
Master Street Plan. In addition to the $2000 compensation, the City of Greeley has also
agreed to demolish the existing building, as requested by City staff, and reseed the ground
after construction is complete. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
August 19, 2008, authorizes the conveyances of the easements.
92
September 2, 2008
15. FirstReadin of fOrdinanceNo.104.2008,ApprropriatingUnanticipatedGrantRevenuefrom
the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the Latimer County Drug
Task Force.
Fort Collins Police Services applied to the Office of National Drug Control Policy on behalf
of the Latimer County Drug Task Force for federal grant monies to help fund the
investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. The Larimer County Drug
Task Force currently includes Fort Collins Police Services, Loveland Police Department,
Latimer County Sheriff s Department, Estes Park Police Department and the Colorado State
University Police Department. This grant award will be used to offset overtime costs of each
participating agency. As the grant administrator, Police Services will assure funding to other
participating agencies for their share of the federal funds. The City has received notification
of the grant awards in the amount of $70,200 for 2007 and $101,250 for 2008. This
Ordinance appropriates the $70,200 and $101,250 in new federal grant money.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for a Cultural Resources Survey and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching
Funds Previously Appropriated in the Advance Planning_ Budget.
This Ordinance appropriates $35,000 from the Colorado Historical Society for preparation
of the Historic Context for Post -World WarII commercial and residential architecture in Fort
Collins, for the period from 1945 and 1967. A professional consulting firm will be hired to
develop the historic context on post World War II commercial and residential architecture
in Fort Collins, to conduct the intensive -level survey, and to prepare cultural resource
inventory forms for 62 properties.
17. First Reading_of Ordinance No. 106. 2008, Extending the Custodial Contracts for Porter
Industries and Varsity Contractors Through December 31, 2009.
Currently, most City buildings are cleaned after normal working hours. Because of the wide
variation in facility usage by City employees and the public, janitorial companies must
provide cleaning staff on multiple shifts of various length beginning after 4:00 p.m. and
ending somewhere around 4:00 a.m. Switching to daytime cleaning will simplify the staffing
requirements for the vendors and result in various cost savings for the City. Staff already
conducts building maintenance and repair during the working day with minimal disruption
of regular activities. Improvements in cleaning technology, including lower decibel
vacuums, micro fiber cloths, and green chemicals allow cleaning operations to be less
obtrusive. City staff is requesting that Council approve an extension of the agreements for
an additional year so that the day cleaning transition can be made with existing contractors
who know the buildings and will be stakeholders in the success of the effort.
18. Resolution 2008-079 Authorizing_ the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and Several
Colorado Municipalities, and Other Participating Entities to Conduct a Research Study
93
September 2, 2008
Regarding_ Climate Change and its Effect on Water Supplies along the Front Range of
Colorado.
This Resolution authorizes the City to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with
several other municipalities and organizations to conduct a research study to examine the
possible effects of climate change on future available water supplies. The American Water
Works Association Research Foundation has approved the research proposal and will
contribute $80,000 toward the project. Participants in the project will provide an additional
$120,000, with the City of Fort Collins contributing $10,000.
19. Resolution 2008-080 Reaffirming the Commitment of the City of Fort Collins to Continued
Cooperation with the Town of Windsor in the Plannine, Design and Construction of the
Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and State Highway 392, and Approving Certain Basic
Principles Related to That Cooperative Effort.
While both the Windsor Town Board and the Fort Collins City Council have committed to
the 1601 Study to accelerate the planning, design and construction of the interchange
improvements project, conditions have changed in the past few months. As a result, staff
determined the timing was right to meet together again and discuss the ongoing partnership.
The principles were identified and agreed to during a joint work session between the Fort
Collins City Council and Windsor Town Board members held on August 4, 2008, relating
to the on -going partnership for I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvements Project. The joint
meeting provided an opportunity to step aside and reconfirm the partnership and identify
common ground, or differences, on a separate track, while at the same time keeping progress
moving forward.
20. Resolution 2008-081 Appointing Two Representatives to the Colorado Municipal League
Policy Committee.
Appointments to the CML Policy Committee are made each fall and members serve for a
one-year period. Each member municipality of the League is entitled to a representative, and
all cities over 100,000 are entitled to designate two representatives. The Policy Committee
is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and recommending to the League Executive
Board, positions of support, opposition, no position or amendment to a wide variety of
legislation affecting cities and towns. At each annual conference in June, the Policy
Committee proposes to the membership, revisions to the League's policies which guide
League positions on public policy issues affecting municipalities. The Committee meets
three or four times a year, before and during legislative sessions as well as in May prior to
the annual conference. This Resolution appoints Councilmember Wade Troxell and City
Manager Darin Atteberry to represent the City of Fort Collins on the Colorado Municipal
League Policy Committee.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
M
September 2, 2008
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the General Fund to the Capital
Projects Fund for the I-25 and SH392 Interchange and Improvements Project.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Poudre Valley Health System "Choose the Right Road" Driving
Program.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget.
10, Items Relating to the Civic Center Parking Structure.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2008, Authorizing an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Larimer County and the Fort
Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority Pertaining to the Civic Center
Parking Structure.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2008, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the General Fund for Repayment to Larimer County for the County's Contribution
Toward the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority's Share of
Financing the Civic Center Parking Structure.
It. Items Relating to Bernard Ranch Phase 1.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of a
Conservation Easement on City Natural Area Property (Bernard Ranch Phase 1) to
Larimer County; and Authorizing a Related Grant Agreement with the Board of the
Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund for Land Conservation.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2008, Amending the City Code by Repealing
Sections Relating to Massage Therapy.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2008, Extending the Period During Which the Fort
Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority May Allocate and Collect in the
Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Fund a Portion of Property Taxes.
25. Second Reading of Ordinance No, 072, 2008 Amending Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code
Pertaining to the Definition of Farm Animals and Amending Section 4-117 of the City Code
Pertaining to Chickens.
September 2, 2008
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104,2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from
the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug
Task Force.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for a Cultural Resources Survey and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching
Funds Previously Appropriated in the Advance Planning Budget.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2008, Extending the Custodial Contracts for Porter
Industries and Varsity Contractors Through December 31, 2009.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar . Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated Neighborhood Night Out was held on August 5, 2008 and over 4000
residents attended 86 neighborhood events. He noted the Streets Sweeping Crew and the Streets
Rehab Crew have worked safely, achieving 365 days with no preventable accidents or injuries.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for an analysis of the deicing chemicals used on the streets and the
impacts to the landscape and water supply. City Manager Atteberry stated staff has done a study of
materials used by the City to determine the environmental impact ofthose materials. A work session
will be scheduled to discuss the findings.
Resolution 2008-082
Directing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the
Northern Integrated Supply Project ("NISP") and Expressing the City Council's
Opposition to NISP as Described in the DEIS. Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
Adoption ofthe Resolution will have no additional financial impact through the end of the comment
period. Funding to develop the comments has already been appropriated.
September 2, 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) is a collaborative water project between the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) and twelve municipalities and water
districts to increase regional water supply in northern Colorado. In order to proceed with NISP,
a 404 permit must be issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). A 404 permit cannot be
issued until a final environmental impact statement (EIS) is issued by the Corps. The Corps issued
a draft EIS for NISP on April 29th (officially on the 30th) and specified a comment period of 90
days, ending on July 30th. Based on requests by the City and others, the comment period was later
extended to September 13, 2008.
Adoption of the Resolution directs the City Manager to submit to the Corps prior to the comment
deadline, afinal set ofcomments generally consistent with this compilation, together with additional
technical and procedural comments and explanation. The Resolution authorizes staff to continue
to develop additional comments concerningpossible impacts from NISP until the comment deadline
of September 13th.
The Resolution also states the City's opposition to NISP as it is described and proposed and any
variant of NISP that does not address the City's fundamental concerns.
NISP involves the construction of two off -river reservoirs, Glade and Galeton. Glade Reservoir,
approximately the size ofHorsetooth Reservoir, would have a 170, 000 acre foot capacity and would
be located just north of Ted's Place along US 287. Galeton Reservoir would have a 40,000 acre
foot capacity and would be located northeast of Greeley. Cache la Poudre River (Poudre) water
near the mouth of the canyon would be pumped into Glade and conveyed to participating
communities via a pipeline to Horsetooth Reservoir and/or through water exchanges.
Staff intends to submit comments that address impacts to or from: water supply and treatment;
water reclamation; Trichloroethylene(TCE); river sedimentation; riparian vegetationandwetlands;
aquatic habitat and aquatic life; terrestrial wildlife; recreation; economics; aesthetics; and quality
of life. Additional comments will identify deficiencies in the draft EIS including: inconsistencies;
errors; omissions; incomplete information, modeling or analysis; unsubstantiated conclusions and
the need for a supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) and a revised Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)
analysis. Other comments will address concerns with mitigation measures proposed in the draft EIS
and possible alternative mitigation options.
Staff reviewed the comment themes with Council at the June 10th Work Session. The summary of
the Work Session is attached (Attachment 1) along with staffs response to various Council questions
from the Work Session (Attachment 2). Since June 10th, a considerable amount of additional work
has been completed to develop andfurther elaborate the initial comment themes. Overall, however,
the fundamental comment themes are essentially unchanged.
97
September 2, 2008
BACKGROUND
WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Source Water Quality
After extensive review of the DEIS, staffhas determined that the proposed action poses substantial,
and indeed, grave threats to the City's drinking water quality. These threats, while complex and
extensive, are related primarily to total organic carbon (TOC) and geosmin. Other water quality
parameters of concern to the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility (FCWTF) include pathogens,
turbidity, taste and odor compounds, and manganese. Staffhas also concluded that the DEISfails
to properly analyze source water quality issues and that a SDEIS must be conducted in order to fully
understand impacts and to address possible avoidance, minimization, or mitigation strategies.
Total organic carbon (TOC) is one of the most important water quality parameters for source
waters of the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility. High TOC levels are important because they
adversely impact water treatment processes, increase treatment costs and serve as the main
contributor to formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs). DBPs are potential carcinogens
formed when TOC reacts with chlorine used for disinfection. The FCWTF and the City's
improvements to it over the years have been designed to remove TOC (and other substances) when
present at concentrations that have historically occurred at the existing intake structures. The
proposed action may substantially raise TOC levels in Horsetooth Reservoir through water delivery
via a pipeline from Glade to Horsetooth and subsequently increase water treatment costs and
jeopardize regulatory compliance.
Geosmin is a persistent, earthy taste and odor compound found in surface waters throughout the
world that has also been detected at very high concentrations in both Halligan and Seaman
Reservoirs. Geosmin is ofspecial concern to the City because it is difficult and costly to remove and
many of the City's industrial users, such as breweries, are especially sensitive to any taste or odor
problems in their products. Staff is concerned that like Seaman and Halligan, Glade Reservoir may
develop and contain persistently high levels ofgeosmin. (The City does not use waterfrom Halligan
directly; it stores the water for use in exchanges on the Poudre River.)
While the proponents ofthe project have indicated that a delivery pipeline from Glade to Horsetooth
may not be needed, it is included in the DEIS as an action alternative that must be analyzed
Furthermore, staffbelieves that a pipeline will eventually be necessary for Glade deliveries because
the possibilityfor water exchanges will diminish over time as water is bought, sold, and changed
to different uses.
The DEIS is inadequate in its analysis of TOC, geosmin, and other critical water quality issues. The
DEIS fails to apply rigorous scientific modeling to potential TOC issues at Horsetooth. It fails to
properly analyze the continued ability of the proposed action to be able to deliver water via water
exchanges instead of via a pipeline to Horsetooth. Where there is analysis in the DEIS that pertains
to these, and other source water quality issues, there are significant shortcomings and errors. For
example, the DEIS utilizes one year of water quality data to derive a long-term projection of water
M.
September 2, 2008
quality. One year of data is insufficient to properly analyze the long-term water quality of Glade
and/or Horsetooth. The DEIS also assumes instantaneous and complete mixing of Glade and
Horsetooth water. This assumption is not correct in the real world of reservoir dynamics. These
types ofshortcomings and errors call into question the validity ofsource water quality conclusions
drawn in the DEIS.
Based on professional engineering estimates, if the City has to install advanced treatment systems
at the FCWTFdue to high levels ofTOC or other contaminants caused by the proposed action, those
improvements could cost the City anywhere from $50 to S90 million in one-time costs as well as
annual operating expenses of—$3 million.
As required bylaw, the Corps and project proponents must avoid all adverse source water quality
impacts to the City of Fort Collins. If, however, those impacts are not avoided, then the project
sponsors must make binding commitments to minimize and fully mitigate those impacts in a SDEIS
and associated documents.
Wastewater Treatment
The City operates two wastewater reclamation plants on the Poudre River in town: the Drake and
Mulberry facilities. Both Poudre River flow and water quality are critical to the operation of these
plants and critical to the plants' compliance with stream standards and federal permit requirements.
Reducedflows and degradation ofPoudre River water quality have the potential to adversely affect
treatment operations and force implementation of increasingly restrictive permit requirements.
These changes could be extremely costly to the City.
The DEISfails to adequately analyze impacts to water quality in the Poudre River through town and
there are serious errors and omissions. There are numerous examples:
• The DEIS excludes the Drake water reclamation facilityfrom its analyses, where 10 million
gallons of treated effluent is being discharged every day, and which is permitted for a
discharge of up to 23 million gallons.
• The DEIS fails to identify and address degradation impacts from NISP to water quality in
the Riverfor specific regulatory water qualityparameters, includingpH, copper, aquatic life
use, E. coli, selenium, and dissolved oxygen.
• The DEIS claims that water temperatures will decrease with reduced flows; in other places
it claims that temperatures will increase.
• The DEIS claims that water quality datafor certainparameters downstream ofthe Mulberry
facility was not available. However, the City has over ten years of detailed water quality
data at the location in question.
September 2, 2008
• The DEIS states that a USGS gage station and water quality monitoring site on the Poudre
does not exist (and thus was not available for analysis) when in fact this data is readily
available via USGS websites.
• The DEIS fails to use industry accepted standard methodologies (Total Maximum Daily
Load calculations, wasteload allocation) in addition to the completed mass balance
calculations for assessing potential impacts ofNISP on the Drake and Mulberry plants and
to river water quality through Fort Collins.
Because of these water quality -related and wastewater treatment errors and omissions, and
numerous other shortcomings and deficiencies, a SDEISand revisedSection 404(b)(1) analysis must
be completed.
Even though the DEIS does not adequately describe or sufficiently analyze potential adverse water
quality and wastewater impacts, the City believes that the proposed action could soon very well
require the installation of expensive advanced wastewater treatments systems at the Drake and
Mulberry plants. Current preliminary professional engineering estimates for design and
construction of advanced treatment systems in Fort Collins range from $75 to $125 million plus
significant annual operation and maintenance costs.
As required by law, the Corps and project proponents must avoid adverse water quality impacts to
the City of Fort Collins. If, however, those impacts are not avoided, then the project sponsors must
make binding commitments to minimize and fully mitigate those impacts in a SDEIS and associated
documents.
Groundwater Contamination — Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a solvent that was used to clean rocketfuel tanks at the formerAtlas "E"
Missile Site 13 in Laporte, Colorado. The site was in operation from the 1950s to phase -out in
1965. TCE now contaminates groundwater at a location immediately northwest of a proposed
`forebay" at the foot of the proposed Glade Reservoir dam. (The forebay would serve as a small
reservoir to temporarily hold water to be pumped into Glade.)
Limited non -seasonal data from groundwater monitoring wells located adjacent to and within the
forebay area show TCE levels ranging from non -detect to approximately 75 parts per billion (ppb
or micrograms per liter). The safe drinking water standard is set at "not to exceed" 5 ppb. Chronic
exposure to TCE near or above that standard can cause liver damage. There is evidence that
lifetime exposure to drinking water at or above that standard may cause cancer. TCE is very
persistent in groundwater environments and difficult to remove. TCE has a "moderate" bio-
concentration effect in fish and a human ingestion standard of 2.5 ppb.
The City has several concerns about the TCE-contaminated groundwater:
1. There is potential for TCE-contaminated groundwater to migrate into the forebay and, in
turn, be pumped into Glade Reservoir. The NISP proposed action proposes water delivery
ITIIl]
September 2, 2008
via pipeline from Glade to Horsetooth Reservoir. Horsetooth is a primary drinking water
supplyfor both the City ofFort Collins and the surrounding area. TCE-contaminated water
should not be pumped into Horsetooth Reservoir.
2. Because no consistent seasonal groundwater monitoring program has been designed or
completed in the affected area, the nature and extent of changes in groundwater elevations
in the area over time are unknown. This means that seasonal movement of the TCE-
contaminated groundwater is unknown.
3. Because no groundwater modeling in the TCE-contaminated area has been done, the
potential direction and speed of movement of the contaminant plume under pressure from
(or under the weight of water from within Glade Reservoir are unknown.
4. If Glade Reservoir is authorized, the District and the Corps have committed to installing an
impermeable lining along the walls and bottom of the forebay to eliminate seepage of
groundwater into theforebay waters. However, waterpressure exertedfrom Glade may then
simply redirect and accelerate the movement of the TCE-contaminated groundwater plume
toward the Poudre River. This is an indirect impact of NISP that has not been modeled or
evaluated.
In addition to the DEIS, the City of Fort Collins has reviewed the "DRAFT FINAL - FEASIBILITY
STUDY REPORT - F. E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE FORMER ATLAS "E" MISSILE SITE 13,
LAPORTE, COLORADO" Reportprepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
in January 2007. In this report, page ES-2 states: "The discharge point of the regional aquifer is
interpreted from groundwaterflow direction to be the Cache la Poudre River located south of the
site. "
Simplystated, ifnottreated, TCE-contaminatedgroundwater will eventually reach the Poudre River
absent effective intervention. Glade Reservoir will: (1) increase groundwater levels in the vicinity
of the reservoir, including the TCE plume area; and, (2) lower the groundwater levels near the
Poudre River as the river flow is reduced. The net effect will likely be to speed TCE migration into
the Poudre River. This is a significant adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem that would not
happen butfor the proposedplacement ofthe Glade Reservoir. This impact requires a scientifically
rigorous, detailed evaluation in a SDEIS, including consideration of avoidance, minimization and
mitigation.
Proposed steps identified in the DEIS to avoid, minimize the harm, or mitigate TCE groundwater
contamination in the area are not founded on adequate monitoring data, which is lacking in the
supporting documents used to develop the DEIS and therefore those steps cannot be effectively
evaluated without additional data generation and analysis.
The failure of the DEIS to address this issue, including the complete failure to consider the effects
ofplacing a large reservoir upgradient ofthe contamination, is a fundamental deficiency that must
be replaced with thorough, rigorous scientific analysis in a SDEIS.
101
September 2, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Riparian Vegetation and Wetlands
The Poudre River corridor in Fort Collins provides extensive riparian, riverine, and wetlands
habitat. The City owns 19 natural areas comprising 1, 423 acres, 4 parks, and over 27 miles of trail
associated with the Poudre River. Surveys have shown that there are over 500, 000 visits annually
to the natural areas alone.
In general, the City has significant concerns with information presented in the "Vegetation
Technical Report" that is cited as support for conclusions in the DEIS regarding riparian and
wetlands vegetation. The conclusions presented in the "Vegetation Technical Report" appear to
rely on the judgment of the authors rather than data collection, literature review, and analysis.
The analysis related to vegetation and wetlands along the Poudre River is deficient in its review of
the scientific literature and acceptedprinciples ofwestern river ecology as related to anthropogenic
modification off ow regime. In addition, there are numerous contradictions, errors, omissions, and
inadequate analyses in the DEIS.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the DEIS when the document contains contradictory
conclusions. For example, several technical reports associated with the DEISfind correctly that
there will be significant detrimental impacts to riparian vegetation and wetlands. Also, several
statements in the DEIS correctly conclude there will be adverse impacts to riparian vegetation. Yet
the Vegetation Technical Report and corresponding sections in the DEIS (4.2 and 4.12) state that
the proposed action will cause no loss of riparian/wetland vegetation.
The "no loss " assertion is the major conclusion addressing impacts to riparian vegetation. The City
finds this conclusion unsupported by real data or case studies and inconsistent with relevant
scientific literature. The scientific literature concludes repeatedly that altered flow regimes can
cause significant adverse impacts to riparian vegetation. The conclusion that none of the action
alternatives will impact the riparian vegetation is inconsistent with current science based on f eld
data, peer -reviewed analysis, and valid ecological modeling. For these reasons the City believes
the "no loss" statement is not correct and unsupported by credible, scientific or engineering
evidence.
A critical omission of the DEIS is a failure to identify jurisdictional wetlands along the riparian
corridor through Fort Collins and to evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed
action on those wetlands. Failure to identifyjurisdictional wetlands in Fort Collins does not comply
with Clean Water Act Section 404(b) Guidelines. Impacts ofthe proposed action to wetlands along
the Poudre River in Fort Collins are clearly within the range of impacts that must be evaluated. For
these reasons a SDEIS and revised 404(b)(1) analyses are required.
A critical error was made in the "Vegetation Technical Report" (which undergirds many of the
conclusions in the DEIS related to riparian vegetation and wetlands) when the authors incorrectly
transferred river flow data from the "River Morphology Technical Report. " This incorrect transfer
102
September 2, 2008
led the authors ofthe "Vegetation Report" to conclude that overbankflows do not influence riparian
vegetation. This conclusion is unsupported by the scientific literature and, furthermore, is based
on an incorrect transfer of river flow data.
The "Vegetation Technical Report" is also hampered by inadequate data collection. For example,
key conclusions about how riparian vegetation is supported by various water resources, such as
groundwater, were based on 5 field days of observation over a period of 2 years at 12 sites that
spanned a distance ofapproximately 50 miles. Five site visits to various river reaches spanning this
long area is wholly inadequate to make a quantitative scientific assessment of these factors.
Because of the errors, omissions, and inadequacies of the DEIS, the requested SDEIS must be
conducted to accurately assess the long-term impacts ofreducing river flows through Fort Collins
in excess of 30% on an average annual basis. The City believes that impacts to riparian and
wetland vegetation are likely to be major or moderate, not "minor" as asserted in the DEIS. The
DEIS reaches its conclusions based on a paucity of field data. Moreover, the conclusion is
unsupported by the scientific literature.
Aquatic Habitat Quality and Aquatic Life
The City and authors of the DEIS recognize the significance of the Poudre River through Fort
Collins as a transition area from a cold water to warm water river. Areas ofphysical transition
from one habitat to another are typically rich in species diversity and sensitive to external
environmental perturbations. However, it is a particular concern that lack offteld data and limited
modeling efforts of the DEIS are not likely to lead to an accurate portrayal of the possible
environmental consequences to the aquatic biological resources from the proposed action.
Contrary to the conclusions of the DEIS, there may be major adverse impacts that could reduce or
eliminate certain aquatic life in the Poudre River as a result of the proposed action. Further,
degraded water quality, large reduction in peak flow, channel narrowing and increased
sedimentation will result in reduced ecological function that likely cannot be mitigated. Because
the DEISdoes a poor job ofdescribing the direct and indirect impacts to aquatic resources resulting
from the proposed action, its discussion of mitigation measures is premature at best, especially in
light of the fact that avoidance and minimization approaches are not evaluated.
This section of the DEIS and the supporting technical report also contain various
mischaracterizations, incorrect conclusions, and errors. For example, the "Aquatic Biological
Resources Technical Report" concludes that: "minor adverse effects would not be more serious
because, over time, these changes will happen gradually, and the fish and invertebrate communities
would adapt to the new flow regime and channel morphology. " It is inappropriate and incorrect
to characterize a reduction in fish and invertebrate abundance and diversity as an "adaptation, "
There will be a reduction or elimination of biotic diversity due to degraded stream conditions. Loss
of species should be considered a major adverse impact. While the Aquatic Resources Report
provides a good summary of the loss of species over time, the gradual loss due to human induced
changes to the Poudre River should not be considered "natural " and must be put in context of the
impact of the proposed action on the baseline (i.e., existing) aquatic fauna in the river.
103
September 2, 2008
Terrestrial Wildlife
Riparian habitats in semiarid landscapes support a disproportionately high number of wildlife
species. For example, 82% of all breeding birds in northern Colorado occur in riparian habitats
while 51 % of all species in the southwestern U.S. are able to survive only in riparian systems.
Furthermore, during migration, riparian habitats attract 10 to 14 times the number of birds
compared to upland habitats. A large volume of peer reviewed research indicates the proposed
action could cause short and long-term negative changes to critical habitat components to wildlife
including loss of mature cottonwood forests, lack of cottonwood recruitment, homogenization of
habitats consisting ofhighly adapted species (weeds), and a subsequent reduced diversity ofwildlife
guilds. As the City is heavily invested in 1, 423 acres ofhabitat along the Poudre River through Fort
Collins, the maintenance and/or improvement ofriparian habitat and conservation ofthe dependent
wildlife within the riparian system are of paramount concern.
Analysis of wildlife in a riparian ecosystem depends on a "clear understanding of habitat
requirements and the physical and biotic processes that create and maintain those habitats " (Askin,
2000, Baron et al., 2002, Skagen et al., 2005). Overall, the DEIS does not adequately describe the
wildlife resource along the Poudre River through Fort Collins. The DEIS also does not describe
the direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resulting from the proposed action. In light of these facts,
the discussion ofmitigation measures is unsupported and inappropriate, especiallysince avoidance
and minimization approaches are not evaluated.
Due to the sparseness of data in this chapter and oversimplification of ecological theories, the
project proponents have not met the minimum requirements outlined in the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines regarding the terrestrial wildlife resource and related project impacts. Although some
information was gathered from other published sources, this effort was not thorough and was
inadequate. This issue must be addressed in a SDEIS and revised Section 404(b)(1) analysis.
Only once was City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Staff consulted (for a one -hour meeting) during
the scoping period to discuss wildlife issues along the Poudre River through Fort Collins. At that
time, City staff was not given clear information on the impacts of NISP to the flow regime when
asked about the potential impact to wildlife. The proponent's consultants did not request any data
from the Natural Areas Program.
The City has a wildlife species list for Poudre River Natural Areas (routinely available to the public)
documenting 267 distinct species. This information was not requested by the proponent's
consultants or included in the DEIS. Furthermore, there is little evidence presented in the DEIS that
suggests site specific surveys were conducted far species other than for a few select species of
concern.
Fundamental conflicts exist within and between the DEIS and the Wildlife Report cited as the
technical basis for the DEIS regarding basic elements of the project, severity and magnitude of
impacts to wildlife and to the wildlife habitat. Similar conflicts are present between the Biological
Assessment and the Wildlife Report and the DEIS.
104
September 2, 2008
No information or discussion is provided in the DEIS regarding species specific habitats, density
and distribution, season of use, breeding vs. migratory habitat requirements, source versus sink
populations, patch size, movement corridors, high versus low quality habitat, habitatjuxtaposition,
larger scale landscape issues, disproportionate loss of species, disproportionate habitat value,
cascade of impacts due to reduced water quality and change in impacts to lower food chain species.
The following are specific examples of why the analysis of wildlife in the DEIS is inadequate:
1. The DEIS describes impacts to wildlife along the Poudre only once, in a subsection entitled
"Temporary Impacts. " Changes to wildlife habitat are likely to be permanent and wide
ranging.
2. In the cursory description ofwildlife in the riparian corridor there is a section dedicated to
highlighting the importance of this area for waterfowl. The discussion never addresses the
existence of neotropical migrants in the river corridor.
3. The Wildlife Technical Report provides a brief and anecdotal description of the impacts to
wildlife habitat then concludes: "Although species diversity and abundance of riparian -
dependent wildlife species could be reduced in localized areas, no major changes in species
composition or distribution are likely. " Ifspecies diversity and abundance are reduced then
they should be quantified and characterized as a moderate or major adverse effect.
Avoidance and minimization alternatives in response to terrestrial wildlife impacts were not
evaluated in the DEIS. In any case, without quantifying what wildlife will be impacted by the
project, any proposed avoidance, reduction or mitigation of impacts is speculative and essentially
meaningless. Mitigation objectives must be measurable, and based on specific and quantified
habitat components (shrub density, plant species composition etc) and wildlife components (species
richness, nesting vs. migration habitat etc.) based on pre -construction (baseline) surveys. Without
these data, there is no way to understandproject impacts or the probability that mitigation measures
would be targeted and successful. As a result, the Corps cannot comply with the requirements of
NEPA or Section 404 without further analysis in a SDEIS.
Sedimentation
Due to lack of analysis and incorrect analysis, the DEIS does not accurately characterize the
severity or potential cumulative adverse impacts offine sediment deposition impacts on the Poudre
River through Fort Collins. NISP will reduce both river flows and associated channel flow
velocities needed to maintain an open channel. Because of diminished flows and flow velocities,
deposition offine sediments within the gravel and cobble bed of the Poudre River is likely to occur.
A resulting cascade of adverse effects could follow, including increased vegetation encroachment
into the channel causing the channel to narrow and constrict flows under normal conditions and
subsequently obstruct flows under higher flow (flood) conditions.
The DEIS and its associated reports reach contradictory conclusions about river morphology and
sedimentation in the Fort Collins reach making it difficult understand what the true impacts will be,
105
September 2, 2008
and calling into question the DEIS' conclusions. Based on the technical analysis completed for the
DEIS, major changes to the channel through Fort Collins (with regard to fine grained sedimentation
and vegetation encroachment) would resultfrom the action alternatives. Yet the DEIS indicates that
the most severe effects will occur below the Fort Collins reach. This contradiction between the
DEIS and the Biological Assessment (cited as the technical basis for the DEIS regarding the range
and severity of potential impacts of sedimentation on the river through Fort Collins) must be
resolved in a SDEIS and revised Biological Assessment.
The City has a vested interest in maintaining a healthy and functional river system which retains an
open channel capable of transporting food flows. The process of sediment deposition without the
process ofsediment flushing through scouring and erosion will lead to vegetation encroachment and
subsequent channel constriction. These changes will significantly change the river's function as a
conveyor offlood water and result inflow obstruction, increased flood stages and possibly greater
flood damage in the future. The DEIS and Section 404(b)(1) analyses are inadequate in their
treatment of this issue.
Flood control and stormwater management have been significant issues since the settlement ofFort
Collins. In modern times the City has experienced a number offlood events (1983, 1997, 1999, etc.)
and, over the last twenty plus years, the City has invested over $3 million on river stormwater
modeling, planning, and construction offlood protection projects. For example, levees to protect
the City's Drake Water Reclamation Facility and the residences in the Buckingham neighborhood
have been constructed. The riverbank has been stabilized in a number of locations through town.
Furthermore, the acquisition and relocation ofstructures from the floodplain have also takenplace.
With the potential for increased base flood elevations due to sedimentation, these flood protection
structures may become inadequate and the properties they are protecting would be at risk of loss
and destruction again. The DEIS ignores this vital issue of public safety.
Channel contraction and vegetation encroachment could have significant adverse effects on base
flood elevations (BFE's) and the resulting extent of flood inundations during large recurrence
interval floods such as, the 100- and 500 year flood events. Reduced channel conveyance in the
Poudre would likely increase BFE's through the City. In turn, this would widen the limits of the
floodplain and potentially add structures and properties into the floodplain and /or floodway that
were not previously at risk of flooding. Addition of any new structures or properties to the
floodplain would deviate from the City's goal of promoting the public health, safety and general
welfare by minimizing future public and private flood losses. Flood risks could affect property
values and business relocations, and, therefore, tax revenues. As remapping of the floodplain
occurs, additional properties included in the floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) will be subject to the City's floodplain regulations and the mandatory flood
insurance purchase requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. The DEIS does not
adequately address these costs or cumulative adverse impacts to the City and the general public.
If the Poudre River channel has a reduced capacity to convey floodwater, new river modeling,
planning and measures would need to be put in place to ensure the safety of the citizens of Fort
Collins. Subsequent costs of designing, constructing and maintaining additional flood protection
facilities or modifying existing structures may result. Additional multi -million dollar investments
106
September 2, 2008
may be necessary. The DEIS does not adequately address these potential cumulative adverse
impacts and costs to the City of Fort Collins and its stormwater rate payers, and is particularly
deficient in meeting the regulatory criteria of Part 230.10(c)(1) and Part 230.11(b) promulgated
under Section 404(b)(1)_
Recreation
The Poudre River corridor in Fort Collins provides extensive riparian, riverine, wetlands habitat,
and recreation opportunities. As noted above, the City owns 19 natural areas comprising 1, 423
acres, 4 parks, and over 27 miles oftrail associated with the Poudre River. Surveys have shown that
there are over 500, 000 visits annually to the natural areas alone. The City has invested over $8
million in its natural areas and trails along the river (not adjusted for inflation) and over $22
million in parks and trails (current value).
In general, the DEIS concludes that there will be minor impacts to recreation on the Poudre River
in Fort Collins. The City agrees that there will be impacts, but believes they will be moderate to
major. For example, because high spring flows will — in most years, be significantly reduced by the
proposed action, the river would no longer support a proposed kayak course, and it would probably
not be built. Tubing, an increasingly popular activity, will be greatly affected by reduced flows.
Because impacts to wildlife will be moderate to major, there will be a corresponding diminishment
of wildlife viewing recreation and enjoyment.
In the fall of 2007, Dr. John Loomis of Colorado State University conducted a scientific, peer -
reviewed survey of Fort Collins households to determine the economic benefit (non -market
valuation) of maintaining peak flows in the Poudre River through Fort Collins.
A mailed survey questioned a random sample of 550 Fort Collins households (with an impressive
response rate of 64%) andfound that slightly more than two-thirds (6616) ofthe respondents thought
a 50% reduction inflows was a very bad change with an additional 15% believing it would be a bad
change. Thus, more than 80% of the households surveyed believe a 50% reduction in flows is a bad
change.
The same survey also found that three fourths (75%) of Fort Collins households surveyed have
visited the Poudre River in town at least once, and more than half do so every year, with a median
ofsix trips per person. Using a federally -accepted Contingent Valuation Method, the median value
of $15 per visit per survey respondent was estimated. Given the six trips per person per year with
a value of $15 per visit, this translates to an annual recreation value of $90 per year per household.
When median and mean willingness to pay results are generalized to the percentage of households
in Fort Collins that responded to the survey, the analysis yields an annual benefit of $8.5 million to
$12.7 million with a present worth or value of these benefits in perpetuity estimated at $283 to $424
million.
Respondents were asked how their visits to the Poudre River in Fort Collins would change ifpeak
spring and summer flows were reduced by half. About one-third would visit less with the lower
flows, 5%would stop visiting altogether, and about half would not change their visits (the remainder
107
September 2, 2008
currently do not visit and the lowerflows would not change that). Combining all the responses yields
an average reduction of 3.2 visits, with a median reduction oft fewer visits with a 50% reduction
inflow. Given the reported current median visits is 6 trips per year, this is a substantial decrease
(-33%) in the median number ofvisits made to the Poudre River ifflows were cut in half. Given the
economic value of$15 per visit, average annual recreation losses are between $30 and $48per Fort
Collins household and represent a —$1.3 million loss in recreation -related economic activity on an
annual basis. (The DEIS concludes that there will be losses ranging from $300,000 to $1 million.)
In summary, the Loomis analysis indicates a substantial economic and recreation value to Fort
Collins households in maintaining current peak spring and summer flows in the Poudre River. It
appears the value ofthese instream flows to Fort Collins residents is ofsignifrcant magnitude even
relative to the market value of the water. Further, the value of water in the Poudre River to the
residents of Fort Collins is sufficiently high to suggest that additional water diversions from the
Poudre River should occur downstream of Fort Collins even ifthis involves higher costs to diverters
or reduced water yields to diverters.
Finally, these non -market values are part of the ACOE National Economic Development (NED)
assessment of benefits and costs and must be factored into the Corp's decision on whether or not
to permit the proposed action and the mitigating measures that would be included in an approved
permit.
SOCIOECONOMICS
With respect to socioeconomic impacts, the "Socioeconomic Resources Technical Report" of the
DEIS concludes that: "All of the components of NISP action alternatives are located outside of
community boundaries. No community cohesion, quality of life, or access impacts are associated
with any of the action alternatives. "
This statement is inaccurate. Although the construction of NISP facilities occurs outside of
incorporated municipalities, reduced river flows impact a number of downstream urban
communities (Laporte, Fort Collins, Timnath, Windsor, and Greeley) in multiple ways. This
technical report excludes an assessment of socioeconomic impacts within those communities, and
its categorical conclusion that there are no impacts is unsupported by any analysis. In fact, many
City of Fort Collins' plans are predicated on a robust and healthy Poudre River ecosystem, with
connections and access being made between the Downtown and the Downtown River Corridor and
the North College Corridor. The impact of reduced flows on these connections is not assessed in
the DEIS, and must be examined properly in a SDEIS.
AESTHETICS
The DEISconcludes that "Since aesthetic impacts are anticipated to be negligible, economic impacts
are uncertain, but are expected to be similarly negligible. "
No data or analysis is presented to support this conclusion. It represents solely the author's opinion
and value system relative to "aesthetics". No effort was made to solicit the specific views of the
108
September 2, 2008
general public or NEPA process stakeholders. Aesthetics was one of the issues identified in the
public scoping process, and yet this section of the DEIS fails to adequately address potential
changes to the aesthetics of the City's Parks and Natural Area properties and trails adjacent to the
Poudre River in light ofreduced f ows, subsequent changes to riparian vegetation and wildlife, and
other factors outlined in the DEIS.
The DEIS and the Northern Integrated Supply Project Environmental Impact Statement Scoping
Report identify the issue of impacts to scenic resources from hydrologic changes. Section 4.3.18
(page 16) of the Scoping report contains the statement, "Impacts on the aesthetic value of the Cache
la Poudre River from reduced f ow were of interest. " Despite these statements, the DEIS does not
contain any assessment ofimpacts to scenic resources, including the Poudre River, from hydrologic
changes. By limiting the scope of review to reservoir sites and U.S. 287, the DEIS clearly does not
meet the intent of the issues identified in Scoping nor the Visual Resources description. A SDEIS
should provide a full assessment of the impacts of NISP on the visual resources of the River.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The DEIS fails to identify numerous, reasonably foreseeable actions in the downtown area of Fort
Collins. The DEIS does not identify, describe or address projects completed, underway or expected
to occur, such as the Poudre River Enhancement Project (completed in October 2003), the
Downtown River District Infrastructure Project, the Clean Energy Cluster and CSU's Engines and
Energy Conversion Laboratory, and the Bohemian Foundation's AmphitheaterlMusic Venue. In
addition, the DEIS incorrectly describes as "not considered reasonablyforeseeable " the Discovery
Science Museum project, and the Mason Street Corridor Improvements. A cumulative impacts
analysis in a SDEIS should include an accurate and comprehensive list of reasonably foreseeable
actions for downtown Fort Collins.
MITIGATION
The City believes that reduction inflows by 25-71 % as stated in the DEIS will result in major
adverse impacts to the Poudre River corridor through Fort Collins. Maintenance ofexistingfows,
andlor enhancement off ows, would support a healthy, functioning, and dynamic river system that
is a solid foundation for recreation, pleasing aesthetics, economic benefits and diverse wildlife.
The DEIS over -emphasizes mitigation or purported mitigation to the detriment of avoidance and
minimization measures. This approach fails to fulfill the Corps' duty under Section 404(b)(1).
The DEIS proposes several mitigation measures relevant to the Poudre River. While some of the
mitigation proposed in the DEIS (including management of in -channel and riparian vegetation,
installation of in -stream structures to control sediment movement, and f ow regulation✓exchanges,
etc.) may be useful andpromote local desired effects, they are not likely to reduce the impacts ofthe
proposedaction to the level ofnon-significance. In addition, anyproposed mitigation strategies that
require the installation ofstructural measures on the river to control sedimentation wouldhave their
own direct and indirect impacts on the river which have not been analyzed and need to be addressed
in a SDEIS.
109
September 2, 2008
While the proposed mitigation measures are localized, the impacts from the proposed alternative
are systemic. The City has serious concerns about the proposed mitigation because restoration
efforts that "target small reaches through artificial measures are very costly, may require perpetual
effort, and often fail" (Rood et al, 2003b). Finally, the "adaptive management" proposal
emphasized in the DEIS is fundamentally flawed. This is in part because the assessment of the
current resource condition is inadequate, as is the assessment of environmental consequences
associated with the proposed alternative. Furthermore, the Corps must first seek to avoid and
minimize harm, which it has not yet done.
Springflow reductions of25 — 71 % cannot be effectively mitigated. Strategies that avoid and lessen
flow reduction impacts must be included in the DEIS. Future river planning endeavors must focus
on restoration efforts designed to enhance the historical flow regime and to guarantee
environmental flows.
The following excerpt from a feature article in Environmental Management emphasizes the
importance of the flow regime to river ecosystems:
"Physical processes in streams and rivers largely are driven by the magnitude,
intensity, duration, and frequency of water discharge in combination with the
catchments lithology andstreamside vegetation. Additionally, flow regularity as well
as variations in amplitude, frequency, duration, baseflow, and rate ofchange, is also
ecologically significant... These characteristics provide the template for the
ecological processes and are the underpinning of every major theoretical and
conceptual advance made about the ecology of rivers in the last three decades."
(Naiman et al., 2002)
A suite of "overview" papers in the scientific literature has been written in the last decade
attempting to advance the science of river management, protection, mitigation, and restoration.
The following technical publications written by several of the world's leading river scientists should
be considered prior to the process ofdeveloping avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures
in a SDEIS and Revised 404(b)(1) analysis:
• Legitimizing Fluvial Ecosystem As Users of Water: An Overview (Naiman et al, 2002)
• The Natural Flow Regime; A Paradigm for River Conservation and Restoration (Poffet al.,
1997)
• Meeting Ecological and Societal Needs for Freshwater (Baron et al., 2002)
• Entering an Area of Water Scarcity: The Challenges Ahead (Poste12000)
• Process-BasedEcogical River Restoration: Visualizing Three-DimensionalConnectivityand
Dynamic Vectors to Recover Lost Linkages (Kondolf et al., 2006)
• Ecology, Planning, and River Management in the UnitedStates: Some Historical Reflections
(Reuss 2005)
• River Flows and Water Wars? Emerging Science for Environmental Decision -Making (Poff
et al., 2003)
• Landscapes to Riverscapes: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Conservation of
Stream Fishes (Fausch et al., 2002)
110
September 2, 2008
CLIMATE CHANGE AND AIR QUALITY
The DEIS concludes that the proposed action would have impacts to air quality that are within levels
that comply with the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Those conclusions,
however, are unsupported by any rigorous analysis. Projects of similar size around the country
have exceeded air quality standards and have been required to perform in-depth conformity analyses
in order for their projects to proceed.
The DEIS brushes aside an analysis of climate change even though it acknowledges that it is
foreseeable. The fact that there is uncertainty regarding the precise degree and effects of climate
change does not excuse the Corps from analyzing this issue. The DEISrelies on a retrospective data
set (1949 to 1999) to project its firm yield and makes no attempt to factor in uncertainty associated
with climate change. It also neglects to include the last seven years of data during a period of
drought, which may be more representative offuture conditions that the data set the DEIS used.
ERRORSAND OMISSIONS
There are various technical, procedural, logical errors, and omissions throughout the DEIS. These
have been noted in the City's detailed comments. Several are detailed in this summary, for example
in the Source Water Quality and Wastewater Treatment sections.
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
and various project participants have applied for a 404 permit for the Northern Integrated Supply
Project (NISP), which is required under the Clean Water Act. NISP is a water supply project for
Northern Colorado communities on the I-25 corridor. The project would build a large reservoir north
of Ted's Place on US 287 and would be a 170,000 acre-foot reservoir that would provide
approximately 40,000 acre-feet/year. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been
prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers that identifies possible impacts of the project on the
environment and the community.
A DEIS is intended to disclose environmental and other kinds of impacts and is required to be
performed under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. The next step in
the permitting process is for the Army Corps of Engineers to review comments from the public and
then decide whether to proceed with the current DEIS or to prepare a supplemental EIS.
The scope of staff's work in reviewing the DEIS, as directed by Council, was to understand the
impacts from the proposed action, which is construction of Glade Reservoir. Staff was to determine
if the impacts in the DEIS were properly identified, analyzed and disclosed and was limited to the
proposed action and its impacts to Fort Collins' interests. The overall findings are that the impacts
are likely to be substantial to the City and are not properly identified, analyzed or disclosed by the
DEIS. The DEIS has numerous errors and omissions and relies on incomplete or nonexistent data
or analysis to form conclusions. Mitigation measures are vague, non -binding, and crippled by an
inadequate impacts analysis. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution which directs the City
Manager to submit comments to the Army Corps of Engineers, to express the City's opposition to
the Project as it is described in the DEIS and to request a supplemental EIS.
III
September 2, 2008
Three themes were examined by staff. impacts to source water quality which is the City's drinking
water, impacts to the wastewater treatment systems and environmental and other impacts. One action
of this project that concerns staff is the proposal to deliver water from Glade Reservoir into
Horsetooth Reservoir. The water from Glade would be of a lower quality and will create difficult
treatment issues when it is delivered into Horsetooth near the drinking water treatment plant. The
treatment costs could be $50-90 million with $3 million in annual operating costs.
The proposed action will substantially reduce Poudre River flows which will reduce the City's water
quality, change the temperature of the water and increase concentrations of metals. These changes
could cause the City to install advance wastewater treatment facilities. The facilities now rely on
the current conditions in the Poudre River to operate within the parameters set by the regulating
agencies. Installation of advance wastewater treatment facilities could cost $75-125 million in
capital as well as high operating costs.
Substantially reduced flows in the Poudre River are likely to change the extent and character of
wildlife and vegetation on the Poudre River as it flows through the City. Reduced flows could also
negatively impact recreation and the overall visitor experience on the Poudre River.
The DEIS fails to properly analyze the potential need for a Glade to Horsetooth Reservoir pipeline.
The proponents of the project have indicated in the DEIS that a pipeline may not be needed, which
would not pose a water quality problem for the City. However, staff is concerned that, over time,
water will need to be delivered in a pipeline because there will be reduced exchange capacity in the
future as water rights are moved from agricultural uses to municipal and industrial uses. That issue
was not analyzed in the DEIS.
Three kinds of mitigation are given under the law. The first option is that the proponent of a project
avoid negative impacts. The second option is to minimize impacts and the third option is to mitigate
impacts. The DEIS does not address avoidance of impacts. The mitigation addressed in the DEIS
is vague and non -binding. The mitigation measures rely heavily on adaptive management, which
is the weakest form of mitigation available.
The DEIS excludes the Drake water reclamation facility, a 23 million gallon/day permitted facility,
from its analyses, which limits the credibility of the EIS concerning wastewater issues on the Poudre
River. The DEIS does not use industry -accepted methods for assessing potential impacts to the
Drake and Mulberry facilities.
The DEIS does not address the issue of trichloroethylene, which now contaminates groundwater
northwest of the foot of the proposed Glade Reservoir dam. It incorrectly concludes there will be
no loss of riparian wetland and vegetation based on limited field data. No groundwater monitoring
was done. The DEIS does not contain any identification of jurisdictional wetlands on the Poudre
River, which is required by law. The conclusions drawn by the DEIS related to vegetation are
unsupported by the scientific literature. Impacts to wildlife are not sufficiently addressed in the
DEIS. It does list waterfowl as wildlife along the River but does not mention the 223 species of
birds found on the Poudre River in Fort Collins. The DEIS does not adequately address the potential
for increased sedimentation and channel constriction through Fort Collins, which could create a
112
September 2, 2008
danger from increased base flood elevations. This could affect structures, FEMA mapping and flood
control infrastructures. The Project could affect recreation opportunities with the reduced flow of
the Poudre River. A supplemental EIS is needed to address quality of life impacts from this Project.
The following citizens did not support the Northern Integrated Supply Project and urged Council to
adopt the proposed resolution:
Will Walters, 1701 Tanglewood Drive
Bill Miller, 322 Scott Avenue
Martha Roden, 102 Peterson Street
Ruth Grant, 516 Spring Canyon Court
Kim Derry, 219 Wood Street
Ann Molison, 1307 Front 9 Drive
Mark Easter, 2820 Cherry Lane
Chris Fry, 1600 Layland Court
Thomas Wilding, 4001 Windom Street
Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court
James Ross, 1455 Bubbling Brook Court
Carol Hossan, 504 Edwards
Jesse Perkins, 3800 Platte Court
Stell Povang, Fort Collins resident
Lindy Zimmer, CSU student
Ally Eden, CSU student
Donna Bragenatz, Bellvue
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset
John Gless, 311 Whedbee Street
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant, Save the Poudre Coalition
Gina Janett, 730 West Oak Street,
Tim Johnson,1337 Stonehenge
Greg Eckert, 507 North Loomis
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive
The following citizens supported the Northern Integrated Supply Project and urged Council not to
adopt the proposed resolution:
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College
Kevin Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court, President, Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Chip Parrish, member of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ken Anderson, 2814 Fleet Drive
Brian Werner, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
113
September 2, 2008
Councilmember Manvel asked if the pipeline that might be needed from Glade Reservoir to
Horsetooth Reservoir would be an aboveground pipeline. Stokes stated that information was not
available at this time.
Councilmember Roy asked for more details about degrading water quality in Horsetooth Reservoir
if Glade Reservoir water is added. Kevin Gertig, Water Resources and Treatment Services Manager,
stated each year, during the runoff period of six to twelve weeks, Poudre River water is blended with
Horsetooth water. The Horsetooth water has a lower concentration of total organic carbon (TOC)
content than the Poudre water. The short duration is manageable because water is blended and
resources can be utilized within the water portfolio to maintain the high quality of water expected
by Fort Collins citizens. If the quality of Horsetooth Reservoir water is changed by extending the
time TOCs are added, as would happen if the Glade Reservoir water were piped into Horsetooth
Reservoir, the water may not meet the City's water quality criteria and would require extra treatment
that the current water treatment facilities are not designed to handle. Investments from $50 to $100
million would be needed to construct water treatment facilities to handle the water quality issues,
with operation and maintenance costs of $3 million. The estimates are based on engineering cost
estimates from the consultant. The ratepayers would pay for these investments.
Councilmember Brown asked if the City of Thornton has junior water rights that would allow it to
take water from the Poudre River above Fort Collins, even if NISP is not built. Stokes stated
Thornton's decree of water rights would allow it to take 18,000 acre-feet of water per year from the
Poudre River as it flows through towns. The amount of water taken from the Poudre River to supply
NISP would be about 33,000 acre-feet. Thornton's conditional water rights are junior to the Gray
Mountain rights that will be used by NISP and Thornton's use could be much reduced by the
exercise of the Gray Mountain rights. Dennis Bode, Water Resources Manager, stated the Glade
Reservoir has a senior water right to the Thornton right. Much of the water Thornton would use
when it develops its rights is through the ownership of the Water Supply & Storage Company shares
and would be a change of use. The water would be diverted at the Larimer County Canal, located
above US 287. Thornton also has some junior, conditional rights which would allow it to take about
12,000 acre-feet off the River and another 5,000 acre-feet in exchanges for a total of 18,000 acre-feet
that would be taken from the Poudre River through Fort Collins. Thornton would still retain some
water rights to take from the Poudre River if NISP is built, but those rights would be lower.
Councilmember Brown asked if the City could stop the NISP Project or if it can only mitigate the
damage to Fort Collins. Stokes stated when a project is this far in the environmental impact process,
it is likely to be permitted. The hope is that the Army Corps of Engineers will seriously consider the
comments submitted by the City and it would use the comments to affect the Project and make it a
better Project. The Resolution does not say the City opposes the Project, regardless of how it is
described but it does state opposition to the Project as it is currently described in the DEIS. The City
is seeking a better analysis of the impacts of the Project. It is difficult to discuss mitigation when
the impacts are not accurately and fully described.
Councilmember Brown asked where the funds would come from to build or improve water treatment
facilities. Gertig stated the ratepayer could bear the brunt of the cost or there may be other ways to
114
September 2, 2008
pay for the expansion, but the O&M costs, estimated at up to $3 million per year, would paid by the
ratepayers of the utility.
Mayor Hutchinson noted Fort Collins is not one of the members of the coalition and he asked if
Council had any ability to affect the Project. Stokes stated the City has no regulatory authority over
the Project. The Army Corps of Engineers is the permitting authority for the Project. The City can
comment on the Project, but is not in a position to stop the Project. The City is engaged in the
process and proposes to submit detailed, data -driven comments that the Corps will be obligated to
address.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2008-082.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the Poudre River is a major part of the City's identity and steps must
be taken to protect the River and not diminish it. The Resolution is based on scientific data and is
a proper step to take to defeat the NISP Project. The proposed Project would be devastating to the
Fort Collins community. It would have serious negative impacts financially, environmentally,
economically, and on recreation.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the City envisions future uses of the River that will build and grow
Fort Collins. Many taxpayer dollars have been invested in natural areas and trails along the River.
The Project will not benefit Fort Collins and would be a great detriment to the community.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Project will harm the environment and City staff has found many
defects in the DEIS. A supplemental EIS is needed to objectively look at the environmental impacts
of the Project.
Councilmember Brown stated the Project could have a $50-$90 million impact on Fort Collins
citizens if improvements to its water treatment facilities are required. Mitigating any of the costs of
the impacts is necessary to protect the interests of Fort Collins. The prepared comments address the
City's concerns.
Mayor Hutchinson stated staff and consultants have spent much time examining the DEIS and have
provided a data -driven, objective approach to address the concerns of the City. Flaws have been
identified in the DEIS and a request for a supplemental EIS is reasonable. By adopting the
resolution, Council is opposing NISP as it is described and proposed in the DEIS and is also
opposing 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 Poudre River. Addressing its concerns in this
manner allows the City to stay engaged in the process and to retain some ability to influence the
Project.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and
Roy. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
115
September 2, 2008
Ordinance No. 072, 2008
Amending Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition
of Farm Animals and Amending Section 4-117 of the City Code
Pertaining to Chickens. Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a citizen -initiated request for a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code. The proposal would
amend Section 5.1.2 which is the definition of "Farm Animals. " The effect of the change would
allow up to six chicken hens in all zones of the City. Chickens are presently included in the Farm
Animal definition and, therefore, are allowed only in the zones which allow Farm Animals (RUL,
UE, RF). Additional regulatory and nuisance aspects are being added to Section 4-117, the Animal
Control section ofthe City Code since First Reading. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading
on June 3, 2008, by a vote of 5-2. (Nays: Brown, Troxell)
Since First Reading, staff has worked with the Larimer County Department of Public Health, the
Larimer County Humane Society, and has researched other nearby communities regarding their
experience with allowing chicken hens within an urban area. Information is provided regarding air
quality. In addition, the Ordinance has been slightly revised to increase the level ofspecifrcity, add
a mandatory registration system and a one-year review provision.
BACKGROUND
During the deliberation at First Reading, Council indicated that more information is needed with
regard to a variety of concerns. This background report, and related attachments, summarizes the
findings Current Planning, Natural Resources, Larimer County Department of Health and
Environment and the Lorimer Humane Society.
1. Changes to the Ordinance since First Reading
The Ordinance has been revised to demonstrate a higher level of specificity. The provisions that
have been added since First Reading include the following:
If a parcel has more than one dwelling, all residents and the owner of the parcel must
consent in writing to allowing the chicken hens on the property.
The chicken hens must be provided with a covered, predator -resistant chicken house that is
thoroughly ventilated, designed to be easily accessed for cleaning and maintenance, and be
at least 2 square feet per chicken in size.
Neither the chicken house nor the outdoor enclosure may be located less thanl5 feet from
any abutting property line unless one or more adjoining property owners consent in writing
to a location that is closer than 15 feet. If such an agreement is reached, the agreed -upon
116
September 2, 2008
location will be deemed acceptable even if there is a change in ownership of the adjoining
properties.
• The chicken hens must be shut into the chicken house from dusk to dawn.
• During daylight hours, the chicken hens must have access to the chicken house and, weather
permitting, also have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to keep out
predators.
• Stored feed must be kept in a container that is rodent proof and predator proof.
• Registration is required with the Lorimer Humane Society. There will be a one-time fee of
$30.00 per parcel. At the time of registration, applicants will be given a four page
informational hand-out from the Lorimer County Cooperative Extension Service titled
Rearing Chickens for the Family Flock (Attachment 2)
• Chicken hens must not be allowed to come in contact with wild ducks or geese or their
excrement. (This provision has been added at the request ofthe Lorimer County Department
of Health and Environment.)
• There will be an opportunity to review the Ordinance after one year.
z Larimer County Department of Health and Environment
Current Planning has been contact with Dr. Adrienne LeBailly, MD, MPH, Director ofthe Lorimer
County Department of Health and Environment and her staff. An official written response has been
provided (Attachment 3) that addresses nuisance and disease issues. In summary, two points related
to nuisance issues and diseases are raised.
Nuisance
Manure management of small flocks can in fact be successfully accomplished on a small lot if the
owners keep up with the tasks. Composting the manure, use of adequate bedding to keep the coop
dry, or frequent disposal in sealed bags in the regular trash service are all common practices that
help with the fly and odor issues.
Disease
Based on the scale envisioned by the City, backyard chicken flocks are not likely to be a huge public
health issue. The most likely health risk is that those who own chickens may be exposed to
salmonella and campylobacter which might make chickens undesirable pets for families with young
children or individuals with compromised immune systems. Hand washing is important after
handling all chickens.
117
September 2, 2008
There is no highly pathogenic 115N1 avianflu virus in the Western Hemisphere at this time. If this
virus becomes endemic in our wild bird population, it would be the owners of the chickens who
might be at greatest risk, not the general community unless the virus becomes pandemic. The
chances ofa pandemic virus originating in Fort Collins is exceedingly small. Preventing backyard
flocks from mixing with wild ducks and geese (or their bird droppings) would be important.
3. Methane Gas and Air Quality
In response to Council questions, the Department of Natural Resources has provided information
regarding the impact of allowing chickens in the urban area and the potential for increasing green
house gases. (Attachment 4)
In summary, stafff:nds that methane f •om non -ruminant animals, such as chickens, is insignificant.
For example, if every single family detached house had six hens today, their combined contribution
to green house gases in Fort Collins would be only 202, 000 kilograms of CO2 equivalent, or 0.009
percent (one -ten thousandths percent — a miniscule amount) of the total green house gas inventory.
4. Wildlife
In response to Council questions, the Department of Natural Resources has provided information
regarding the impact on wildlife. (Attachment 5)
In summary, staff finds data is scarce with respect to an increase in predators in an urban
environment due to allowing chickens. The most likely species attracted to a chicken coop would
be the red fox followed by raccoon and then coyote (but only at the urban edge). Garbage, pet food,
bird feeders and vegetable gardens are likely to attract many more predators than chickens.
5. Registration and Information
The Lorimer Humane Society will charge a one-time fee of $30 for each household. Information
from the Lorimer County Cooperative Extension Service will be provided for each registrant. This
hand-out is titled Rearing Chickens for the Family Flock. (Attachment 2)
6. Number of Households Estimated to Begin Raising Chickens
Council asked for an estimated number of households that could be expected to begin raising
chickens. The applicant, Mr. Dan Brown, estimates that there could be up to 150 households. This
number is roughly based on the level of interest demonstrated in response to Mr. Brown's website
and petition.
Size of Chicken Coop Without Needing a Building Permit
A chicken coop (or garden shed, out -building, etc.) can be up to 120 square feet and up to eight feet
in height without needing a building permit.
118
September 2, 2008
8. Loveland's Experience
Since chicken hens have been permitted in Loveland (as they are in Fort Collins in three zone
districts), Council asked what has been the experience with nuisance complaints.
Staff asked the Larimer County Humane Society to respond. According to Captain Bill Porter,
Animal Control Officer, between January and June of 2008, the Larimer County Humane Society
took in 2, 853 calls for the City of Loveland during which there have been two complaints for noise
(crowing roosters), zero for chicken at -large and zero for wildlife conflicts. Captain Porter
emphasized that in Loveland, there is no requirement for chickens to be confined to an enclosure and
yet there were zero complaints for chickens at -large.
9. Comparative Study with Other Cities — the Longmont Study
The City of Longmont is facing the same issues as Fort Collins. In June 2008, the Longmont
Planning Department researched 14 Front Range communities (including Fort Collins) and Boulder
County, as well as three major out-of-state cities as to the magnitude and extent ofaloowing chickens
in an urban area. (Attachment 6) (On July 22, 2008, the Longmont City Council directed staff to
proceed with an ordinance that would allow chicken hens in the urban area, subject to limitations.)
In summary, the study found:
• Seven jurisdictions allow chickens and seven do not. Fort Collins was noted as being under
consideration due to the Planning andZoningBoard recommendation and Council approval
on First Reading.
• All jurisdictions prohibit roosters.
• Among the cities that allow chickens, there is a wide variety of regulations.
• Animal control officers from five cities were interviewed. In almost every case, complaints
were associated with crowing roosters. Very few complaints were due to hens.
• Ofthe seven Colorado jurisdictions and three out-of-state cities that allow chicken hens, the
number allowed ranges from a low of three to a high of 15. Five jurisdictions regulate the
number by a lot size formula or the number is simply unspecified and enforcement falls to
the discretion of the Animal Control Officer.
10. End of Life Issues
Council expressed a concern about nuisance complaints that may arise due to euthanasia and
disposal techniques.
In researching this aspect of raising chicken hens, staff has gleaned the following common
techniques that would available to a typical urban household:
119
September 2, 2008
Donation of a live hen to the Raptor Center.
Utilize the services of a veterinarian or the Humane Societyfor euthanasia and disposal just
as for dogs and cats. "
City Manager Atteberry noted concerns have been raised by some citizens that an inordinate amount
of time has been spent on the topic of urban hens by Council and staff. Council has spent no more
than 75 minutes discussing this issue on First Reading, including public comments. This issue was
not initiated by Council or staff. The Land Use Code process allows citizens to initiate code
amendments and a citizen did initiate this proposed code amendment.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated changes have been made to the Ordinance between First and
Second Reading, based on citizen and Council input. Additional details regarding care of chickens
registration with the Larimer County Humane Society and review of the ordinance after one year
have been added.
The following citizens spoke in support of adoption of the Ordinance:
Sara Peacock, 1907 Bear Court
Kate Piper, 3201 Azalea Drive
Kent Nixon, 723 Cherry Street
Joe Piper, 3201 Azalea Drive
Steve Lovaas, 318 East Myrtle
Annie Glaser, 236 McKinley
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive
Tonya Pliler, 5534 Fossil Court
Greg Eckert, 507 North Loomis
Anacleto Zielinski -Gutierrez, 124 North Shields
John Gless, 311 Whedbee
Todd Simmons, Downtown business owner
Holly Terry, Colorado Director, Humane Society of the United States
Rob Gartner, 1901 Etton Drive
Teresa Redmond -Ott, 4508 Terry Lake Road
Lori VanSkike, 2907 Southmoor Drive
Dan Brown, 2709 William Neal Parkway
Steve Sedam, 2609 Greenmont Drive
Kristina Cash, 1226 West Prospect
Theadora Bay, 125 3rd Street
Barb Latin, Fort Collins resident
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset
Emily Elmore, 144 North College
Eric Levine, 514 North Shields, Air Quality Board representative
Katie Wallace, 527 North Loomis
Randy Redmond -Ott, 4508 Terry Lake Road
120
September 2, 2008
The following citizens opposed adoption of the Ordinance:
Sherrie Robinson, 1931 Leicester Way
Donna McDougall, 4424 Craig Drive
Councilmember Manvel noted a license fee has been added to the ordinance as a one-time, $30 fee
to gather information for a registry of chickens. A citizen will receive an information sheet about
raising chickens at the time the license fee is paid. He asked that the information sheet be tailored
to urban raising of chickens.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if a resident would be able to raise chickens if the neighborhood
homeowner's association specifically banned chickens. Shepard stated the HOA ban would be in
effect.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the ordinance referred to chickens as pets and why slaughtering
of hens was not allowed. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated chickens were not considered pets.
Shepard stated the Land Use Code amendment removed chickens from the farm animal definition
but did not include chickens in the pet definition. Slaughtering of chickens is not allowed to protect
the neighboring property owner. Other cities vary in whether slaughtering is allowed or not. Staff
was concerned that neighboring property owners would consider slaughtering a nuisance.
Councilmember Brown asked why the agreement between neighbors to allow chickens closer to a
property line would last into perpetuity. Shepard stated once the chicken coop is allowed to be built
closer than 15 feet to a property line, a new neighbor could not come in and demand that it be
moved. If the use of the chicken coop is discontinued for one year, a new agreement would probably
be required.
Councilmember Manvel noted property variances are granted and a new neighbor cannot move in
and request the removal of the variance. A new owner should be aware of the presence of a
neighboring coop before the purchase of an adjoining property,
Councilmember Brown asked how odor and nuisance complaints will be enforced. Shepard stated
enforcement will be on a complaint basis. An investigation of the complaint will be made by the
Latimer Humane Society, not Police Services. Captain Bill Porter, Larimer County Humane Society,
stated odor complaints would be handled similarly to a dog feces complaint. An officer would visit
the property and, in order to issue a citation, the odor would have to be extreme. Generally, a
warning is issued first, then a summons would be issued if compliance is not achieved.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the work load of the Humane Society officers will increase as a result
of the proposed Code amendment and if the license fee was intended to cover those costs. Captain
Porter stated the fee will enable the Humane Society to track where chickens reside.
Councilmember Brown asked if there will be any recommendations about the size of chicken coop.
Shepard stated enforcement of the size of a chicken coop will be done on a complaint basis. There
is no building permit review and no inspection to be done of a chicken coop.
121
September 2, 2008
Councilmember Poppaw asked if there was any enforcement or oversight of dog houses or pens.
Captain Porter stated a dog must be contained by a fence or leash but there is no inspection of dog
pens.
Councilmember Brown asked what will be done to control predators that could be drawn to
properties with chickens. Shepard stated no trapping or killing of predators is allowed.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No.
072, 2008 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated a review of the ordinance is required after one year. Allowing
chickens within city limits is allowing property owners to use their properties as they choose. The
ordinance contains enough restrictions to limit problems of vermin, predators and odors.
Councilmember Poppaw stated allowing chickens will enable citizens to live a more sustainable life
style. Many cities and towns across the country allow urban chickens with great success.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for specifies of the one-year review. City Manager Atteberry stated the
ordinance will be reviewed by August 1, 2009 to determine if problems have arisen and how many
complaints have been filed. The review will be given to Council as a written memo. He noted
Loveland has allowed chickens for several years and has not had any concerns raised by citizens.
Councilmember Roy stated allowing citizens to raise chickens will enable citizens to live in a more
sustainable fashion.
Councilmember Brown stated his concerns with vermin, predators and odors and the enforcement
of complaints.
Councilmember Ohlson stated Loveland has allowed chickens with no complaints. Staff has
determined more predators will not be drawn to the area by the presence of chickens. Many cities
have enacted similar ordinances and have not had issues with allowing chickens. If citizens wish
to raise chickens as part of a sustainable lifestyle, they should be allowed to do so. He asked that
disposal of chickens be addressed at the one year review date to allow citizens to slaughter hens.
Councilmember Brown asked if not allowing the slaughter of chickens was included in the ordinance
to prevent any type of a poultry factory with rapid turnover of chickens. Shepard stated the intent
was to add a level of protection for the neighboring property owner from the nuisance aspect of
slaughtering. Donating a live hen to the Raptor Center or utilizing the services of a veterinarian or
the Humane Society for euthanasia and disposal is not in the ordinance. City Manager Atteberry
stated the process of slaughtering chickens might be offensive to some neighbors and the intent was
to avoid that nuisance for neighbors.
Mayor Hutchinson noted a review of the ordinance will be helpful to determine any impacts of
allowing chickens in the City.
122
September 2, 2008
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy.
Nays: Brown,
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 102, 2008,
Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Waterline Easements on City Property
to the City of Greeley and the East Larimer County and North Weld
County Water Districts, Postponed to September 16, 2008
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Greeley, the North Weld County Water District and East Larimer County Water
Districts, (the "Districts') are in the process of acquiring the necessary easements for their
waterline transmissionprojects ("GWET"and "NEWT') which are scheduled to begin construction
in January 2009. The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department owns a parcel of land at 1000
North College Avenue on which the City of Greeley and the Districts have requested easements for
their projects. The City property was purchased for the future intersection of the realigned East
Vine Drive and North College Avenue as shown on the Master Street Plan. In addition to the $2000
compensation, the City of Greeley has also agreed to demolish the existing building, as requested
by City staff, and reseed the ground after construction is complete. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on August 19, 2008, authorizes the conveyances of the easements."
Councilmember Ohlson stated the proposed waterline transmission project will greatly impact the
environment and the City should not enable the project by authorizing the requested easements. Dan
Moore, Water Systems Engineer for the City of Greeley, stated there will be impacts from the project
but those impacts will be mitigated. The City of Greeley is working with Larimer County and the
Army Corps of Engineers to address issues raised. The least amount of environmental impact would
have been to place the waterline down the middle of a road, which would greatly impact the public.
The exact waterline route is still being determined and will take into consideration impacts to
wetlands and other environmental issues.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the City has a policy regarding environmental impacts caused by granting
easements on City property that is quite stringent. City Manager Atteberry stated this request has
been considered as an easement going through City right-of-way and staff has not considered any
non -City related environmental impacts.
123
September 2, 2008
Councilmember Manvel asked if placing the waterline down the middle of a road would involve
pumping stations. Mr. Moore stated there is a narrow corridor to place the pipeline from the Bellvue
water treatment plant and use gravity to move the water. The pipeline would be located next to a
school and major businesses if it were placed in the middle of the road and the cost of the project
would be much greater.
Councilmember Roy asked if the City had requested any strategies to minimize impacts of the
project outside of City limits. Mr. Moore stated Fort Collins has not requested any information
outside of its boundaries. City Manager Atteberry noted staff did not consider the merits of the
Greeley project but considered this as a routine easement request. Lindsay Kuntz, Real Estate
Specialist, stated Natural Resources, Stormwater Utilities, Engineering, Current Planning and
Advanced Planning staff were consulted about these easements. Staff has been working with the
City of Greeley since 2004 on this waterline proposal. Greeley staff has worked closely with City
staff to review the location of the waterline to minimize impacts to properties within Fort Collins
as much as possible. No historical structures within the City will impacted by this project. Natural
Resources has reviewed the environmental impacts of the waterline through the City and determined
the impacts will be minimal and can be mitigated.
Councilmember Roy expressed his concerns with the impacts the project will have outside of City
limits.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the ordinance requires the City of Greeley and the water districts to restore
the easement areas to a condition comparable to their condition prior to construction, once
construction is completed. He questioned why Council would be addressing any issues that would
occur outside of City limits.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the City is enabling the project to happen and will cause
environmental impacts. He wanted more information that clarified that the route chosen for the
waterline is the best route that would cause the least amount of environmental damage.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone
consideration of the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2008 to September 16, 2008.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was any pressing reason not to delay the vote. Mr. Moore stated
no harm would be done if the vote was delayed. Kuntz noted an ordinance for another easement
related to this project will be presented for First Reading at the next meeting. City Manager
Atteberry asked Council what additional information it needs to make an informed decision at the
next meeting. Councilmember Ohlson asked for information on alternative routes and the costs.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy.
Nays: Brown.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
124
September 2, 2008
Resolution 2008-080
Reaffirming the Commitment of the City of Fort Collins to Continued
Cooperation with the Town of Windsor in the Planning, Design and
Construction of the Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and State
Highway 392, and Approving Certain Basic Principles
Related to That Cooperative Effort. Adopted as Amended
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
While both the Windsor Town Board and the Fort Collins City Council have committed to the 1601
Study to accelerate the planning, design and construction ofthe interchange improvements project,
conditions have changed in the past few months. As a result, staff determined the timing was right
to meet together again and discuss the ongoing partnership. The principles were identified and
agreed to during a joint work session between the Fort Collins City Council and Windsor Town
Board members held on August 4, 2008, relating to the on -going partnership for I-251SH 392
Interchange Improvements Project. The joint meeting provided an opportunity to step aside and
reconfirm the partnership and identify common ground, or differences, on a separate track, while
at the same time keeping progress moving forward.
BACKGROUND
The joint Elected Officials' Meeting between the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor to
continue partnership discussions for the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Project was held
on August 4, 2008 at the REA Building, located at 7649 REA Parkway, Fort Collins. The meeting
was facilitated by Barbara Cole, consultant with Community Matters, Inc., in conjunction with
DarinAtteberry, Fort Collins CityManager andKellyArnold, Windsor Town Manager. Staffsfrom
both the City and Town were also in attendance to assist in the discussion.
The purpose of the meeting was to reaffirm the level and type of commitment each jurisdiction has
to the I-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Project; to reach concurrence on additional areas of
agreement to enhance the 1601 process and partnership; and to outline commonly held concerns
and issues and determine what parameters and principles are needed to resolve these issues.
The primary focus of the discussion included a review of the draft fundamental principles and
identification of amendments to this draft, listed as revised principles (see attached Meeting
Summary and Revised Fundamental Principles). These ten fundamental principles represent an
important basisfor the collaborative partnership between these two municipalities. These principles
also represent the criteria that Fort Collins and Windsor will use to guide their decision-makingfor
the I-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Project.
At the conclusion of the August 4, 2008 joint work session, town and city staff were instructed to
prepare appropriate resolutions for consideration by the Town Board and the City Council at the
125
September 2, 2008
next available meeting dates, setting forth the principles upon which the shared vision of the
cooperative effort between the municipalities is grounded.
Finally, both staffs were directed to identify a revised schedule for the remaining process to
complete the 1601 Study for approval, including all remaining joint work sessions to be conducted
jointly by both the Town Board and City Council as combined meetings. "
Councilmember Ohlson stated the Environmental SustainabilityiResource Protection Principle in
the resolution did not address the "corridor activity center" when minimizing environmental impacts.
The current resolution limits the environmental protection to the interchange. City Manager
Atteberry stated the joint discussion included sensitive wetlands to the west of the interchange, a
small wetland north of the interchange and was not limited only to the interchange itself. The intent
agreed on at the combined meeting was to include the corridor activity center.
Councilmember Poppaw stated adding "corridor activity center" into the Principle will not
fundamentally change the intent of the discussion with Windsor.
Councilmember Manvel stated adding the "corridor activity center" area would encompass a larger
area than just around the interchange.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to change the
Environmental Sustainability/Resource Protection Principle to read: "The City and the Town will,
to the greatest extent possible, ensure that the Interchange improvements and the development within
the "corridor activity center" (as that area is described on Exhibit"A" attached) will occur in a
manner that minimizes environmental impacts and protects and enhances the physical and natural
environment in and around the Interchange, including but not limited to the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area." Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2008-080 as amended. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Brown requested the City post its spending information on its website in a user-
friendly format. City Manager Atteberry stated staff needs time to implement changes to the City's
website to make the spending information that is already available on the website into a more user-
friendly format. Staff is currently revising the City's Chart of Accounts, a major project being done
in the Finance Department and is also working on the Budget Development Tool for the 2010-2011
Budget. It will probably be the end of second quarter of 2009 before this change can be
implemented.
126
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk `L,n Qrpufy,
Adjournme
127
September Z 2008