HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport - Mail Packet - 1/31/2017 - Information From Darin Atteberry Re: Northern Integrated Supply Project Status And Proposed Approach (Longer Presentation)1
Water Board
January 19, 2017
Northern Integrated Supply Project
Status and Proposed Approach
January 26, 2017
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Darin Atteberry
RE: Per Councilmember request for
longer presentation that went to Boards
and Commissions
/sek
2
3
4
National Environmental Policy Act (FEIS 2017)
404 Permit Clean Water Act
State of Colorado 401 Certification (2017)
State of Colorado Wildlife Mitigation Plan (2017)
Record of Decision
Permits
Fort Collins
5
2006 First presentations to Council
2008 Preliminary Report on Potential NISP impacts
2008 Comments on DEIS
2015 Comments on SDEIS
2010 – 2017
Ecosystem Response Model
River Health Assessment Framework
State of the River Report
Issues of Concern
6
Peak and base flows
Source and wastewater quality impacts
Aquatic and riparian habitat
Recreation
Air Quality and Climate
Fort Collins 2015
7
“…City Council cannot support NISP as it currently described and proposed
in the SDEIS with the understanding that the City Council may reach a
different conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP….if such variant
addresses the City’s fundamental concerns…
“As the entity most impacted by the Project, Fort Collins would welcome the
opportunity to participate in mitigation-related discussion and efforts.”
Recommendation to Council
8
City staff would meet with Northern Water to discuss the City’s key goals
and issues related to NISP, while regularly reporting to City Council.
If mutual interests can potentially be met, City staff would be authorized
to negotiate draft agreements that would be presented to Council for its
consideration.
Risk Assessment
9
Likelihood of achieving outcomes
Fight NISP Do nothing Comment Negotiate
Poor Alternatives
10
Oppose and litigate or appeal Army Corps permit
Pro: Aligns City’s position with some advocates
Con: Low likelihood of success and antagonizes City water provider; negates
ability to leverage stakeholder process or negotiation into better
outcomes
Do nothing
Pro: saves staff time and resources
Con: foregoes opportunity to influence outcomes
11
Better Alternatives
Continue to participate in permit processes
Pro: able to provide comments/suggestions, may influence outcomes
Con: limited ability to influence outcomes, poor BATNA
Explore/pursue negotiated outcomes
Pro: may be able to develop better outcomes; NISP partners may be
motivated to “stretch” to meet the City’s objectives
Con: may not be able to develop better outcomes and City appears to
be facilitating a project that is damaging to the City’s
Key factors in staff recommendation
12
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
Permit Process
West Slope Projects
Water Supply south Ft. Collins
Belief that Northern and its partners would rather be in a collaborative
relationship and are motivated by that sentiment
Better potential river health outcomes
Example: Peak River Flows
13
Less than 2,500 CFS for three days
3,300 CFS for three days
No cooperation – No river health
14