Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 2/21/2017 - Updated Power Point Presentation - Agenda Item #21 Northern Integrated Supply Project (Nisp)1 Northern Integrated Supply Project Status and Proposed Approach City Council February 21, 2017 Updated per LPT request Agenda Item #21 City Goals for the Poudre City Plan Principle ENV 24: The City will support a healthy and resilient Cache la Poudre ecosystem and protect, enhance and restore the ecological values of the River…. 2 3 Public Lands in the river corridor Josh Ames 4 5 City Initiatives 6 Poudre River Downtown Project 7 8 9 10 National Environmental Policy Act (FEIS 2017) 404 Clean Water Act permit State of Colorado 401 Certification (2017) State of Colorado Wildlife Mitigation Plan (2017) Record of Decision Permits Fort Collins 11 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 River Health Indicators Physical Chemical Biological Issues of Concern 14 Peak and base flows Source and wastewater quality impacts Aquatic and riparian habitat Recreation Air Quality and Climate Fort Collins 2015 15 “…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 16 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 and BATNA 17 Likelihood of achieving or influencing outcomes Do nothing Oppose NISP Comment Negotiate Not mutually exclusive Best Alternative to a Negotiated Outcome BATNA Poor Alternatives 18 Oppose and litigate or appeal Army Corps permit Pro: Aligns City’s position with 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 19 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, or does, facilitate a project that is damaging to the City’s interests NISP Corps Permitting Process* Notice of Intent & Scoping Conduct Baseline Environmental Studies Develop Purpose & Need Develop Alternatives Conduct Environmental Impact Studies Issue Draft EIS Collect Public Comments Refine/Add Studies & Alternatives Develop Common Technical Platform Issue Supplemental Draft EIS Collect Public Comments Refine/Add Studies & Alternatives State & County Permitting** Collect Public Comments Issue Final EIS Issue Record of Decision & Permit *Process diagram for presentation purposes only **Includes water quality certification, fish and wildlife mitigation planning, and county 1041 permitting LEDPA Decision (internal)