Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse To Constituent Letter - Mail Packet - 12/19/2017 - Letter From Wade Troxell To Brett, Bovee, Water Board, Re: Summary Of Water Board Work Sessions On NispMayor City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com December 14, 2017 Water Board c/o Brett Bovee PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Bovee and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us the December 13, 2017 memorandum regarding “Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP.” The memo is nicely organized according to the impacts of NISP, the alternatives, and mitigation/moving forward. Thank you for including the table of issues and mitigation ideas. We appreciate the thoughts and perspectives of the Board about the topic and will review your input. Best Regards, Wade Troxell Mayor /sek Cc: City Council Members Darin Atteberry, City Manager Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Utilities – Water Board 700 Wood St. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6702 970.416.2208 - fax fcgov.com M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 13, 2017 TO: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers FROM: Water Board RE: Summary of Water Board Work Sessions on NISP Background and Purpose In May, the Water Board decided that it would dedicate a set of Water Board work sessions to digging into important water issues facing Fort Collins Utilities and the City, hereafter generally referred to as the City in this memorandum. The Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) was selected as one of the most important and controversial water issues facing the City in the near term. Over a series of three work sessions in June, August, and October, the Water Board discussed various aspects of NISP and the City’s relationship with the project, now and into the future. Our original goals of this effort were: (1) To become more informed about NISP, by building a basic knowledge foundation in order to better deliberate and act on NISP-related items that will likely come before the Water Board in 2018 and beyond. (2) To better understand the options available to the City in opposing and/or addressing aspects of NISP that cause negative impacts to the City’s water management and Poudre River function. This memorandum provides a summary of the Water Board’s discussion on NISP. It is organized by the discussion topics of the three Water Board work sessions. We hope that City Council finds this information useful when making future decisions related to NISP. Attached to this memo is a table summarizing the key concerns of the City, mitigation of those concerns that the City has previously sought, and the mitigation that was recently approved by the state under the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan. The table also provides emerging ideas on how the City can take a proactive role in mitigating impacts of NISP using its own resources. It is important to note that several activities related to NISP have occurred in parallel with the Water Board work sessions. First and foremost, the City has continued to have a dialogue with Northern Water about the project with the end goal of minimizing negative impacts to the City’s natural resources and water system. A total of six meetings have taken place with Northern Water, following City Council’s support for starting these discussions in February 2017. In addition, a draft NISP Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan was released for comment in June 2017 and City staff made significant comments to enhance mitigation activities. The Mitigation Plan was approved by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and by the Colorado Water Conservation Board in September 2017. Since the Water Board work sessions started, additional information has developed about how the project will be operated and the extent of impact on the Poudre River. A clearer picture of NISP exists today compared with six months prior. Meeting #1: Impacts of NISP June Water Board work session The first Water Board work session was devoted to better defining both the positive and negative impacts of NISP to the City. Much of the discussion on NISP in Fort Collins has centered on the detrimental effects of reduced streamflows on the health and function of the Poudre River. It is also important to recognize that a portion of the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) will be served by the project by providing raw water supply to the Fort Collins Loveland Water District. The following points summarize our discussion of NISP impacts to the City. Positive Impacts  Increases in winter-time streamflows in the Poudre River through the City corridor, with possible river flow during historical “dry-up” reaches of the river in the winter. This should benefit fish and aquatic species, and could benefit water quality of the Poudre River below the effluent discharge points for City’s two water treatment (reclamation) facilities.  Additional water supply to the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which currently services approximately 15% of Fort Collins households. The District has subscribed for 3,000 acre-feet of yield from the project, which should help to meet its projected District-wide demands for roughly a decade. It should be noted that most of the demand growth in the District service area is expected to fall outside of the Fort Collins GMA.  Recreational opportunities are proposed to be available in Glade Reservoir.  Additional water storage capacity will not benefit Fort Collins Utilities, but it is considered a benefit to the Northern Colorado region. Additional storage is intended to help meet the water demands of regional population growth and is anticipated to provide flexibility in managing water resources in light of climate change uncertainty. As a related benefit, NISP may help to preserve water rights in the agricultural sector by providing a major water supply source for many fast growing communities, as an alternative to “buy and dry” of farmland. Negative Impacts  Reduce the ability for the Poudre River channel to convey flood flows, due to the lack of large scouring flows and the aggradation of sediment in certain river reaches within the City. This reduced flood conveyance capacity could result in a widening of the floodplain, an increase in flood frequency, and/or an increase in flood severity, in some reaches. Sediment aggradation around canal head gates may impact their operation. Sedimentation also may result in the need to raise bridges.  The project involves extensive pumping of water up into Glade Reservoir, with associated energy requirements, demands on local power sources, and corresponding carbon emissions impacts. For perspective, NISP annual pumping power requirements are estimated to be approximately 2% to 4% of the City’s total annual electric demand.  Summer river flow levels are likely to be decreased, which could impact current recreational uses of the river in the City and associated visitors to the City reaches of the river.  At times of reduced flow levels, there will be less flow to dilute the City’s wastewater effluent and could cause problems for the City meeting water quality standards at its discharge point.  A reduction in both peak flows and summer-time flows will likely impact aquatic species and riparian habitat within the City.  Raw water quality available to the City for its treatment and use may be affected by longer water retention times in Horsetooth Reservoir, specifically an increase in total organic carbon.  The Glade Reservoir dam site is located in close proximity to an abandoned missile silo site, which is known to have groundwater contamination concerns. There are questions on how the construction and operation of Glade Reservoir might interact with this legacy site. A quick review of these impacts shows a familiar story. Water development activities to help service new municipal water demands will have negative impacts on the river and riparian environment. The impacts on the river are bifurcated by season, with some winter-time benefits and some summer-time detriments. On the whole, the project is considered to be a net loss to the City’s river environment. Considering the continued population and economic growth that the Northern Colorado region will see, the project clearly provides a benefit as a major water supply source for the region. Meeting #2: Alternatives August Water Board work session The second Water Board work session was a discussion of alternatives. The Board discussed what options the City could take in responding to and challenging NISP. We defined the following potential options: 1. Negotiate with Northern Water on better mitigating negative impacts of the project. This option is the one currently being pursued by the City, following the City Council vote in February 2017 to pursue a discussion with Northern Water. City Council did not refer to these discussions as a negotiation. City staff have defined a set of target mitigation goals that they seek to achieve as part of these discussions. A list of these goals is provided later in this memo. At the present time, and specifically with the recent approval of the NISP Mitigation Plan, it is not clear how this dialogue between Northern Water and the City should continue. 2. Challenge the NISP Record of Decision in court. The City could file a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating that the decision to allow construction of NISP was “arbitrary and capricious” and did not take into account the full suite of information. In a sense, the City would have to challenge certain aspects of the NISP project. The City would not want to challenge all technical aspects, because the City shares many datasets and assumptions in developing its own Halligan Reservoir Expansion EIS document. The City might seek to challenge two aspects of NISP: (1) Purpose & Need, developing information to support the idea that the project participants do not actually need this new water supply, or (2) Alternatives, arguing that the Corps of Engineers did not consider all of the viable water supply alternatives in the environmental permitting process, particularly if there exist alternatives that are less- damaging to the environment. There are several roadblocks to the City challenging NISP simply on the basis of river impacts within the City. First and foremost, the project seeks to develop a valid water right which has been decreed in water court. Colorado’s system of water laws do not inherently protect river conditions outside of specific (often junior-priority) appropriations for environmental flows. Second, some of the anticipated impacts to the City are not well-aligned with the Federal or State permitting requirements. Even if the City were successful in challenging the Record of Decision, the court would likely ask that the Corps revisit its decision, and thus delay but not defeat the project. So long as the project participants have an appetite to continue funding the development of NISP, a lawsuit is not likely to be a final decision on the project. Finally, the City should consider how its actions on NISP, particularly a lawsuit, might impact the comments received on the Halligan EIS and the overall pursuit of additional storage capacity in Halligan Reservoir. 3. Petition the Environmental Protection Agency to veto the project. Following a Record of Decision, assuming that the ROD is favorable to continued development of NISP, the City could petition (or request) that the EPA exercise its authority to veto a project if it presents irreparable harm to the environment. This EPA veto action is what halted the development of the Two Forks Dam project in the 1980s. The EPA has exercised this veto authority about 20 times in history (which represents less than 1% of all Federal water projects), all of which were tied to large-scale projects that had significant opposition. The probability that the EPA, and certainly the current EPA administration, would veto the project is considered low. 4. Lobby Congressional delegation for mitigation improvements. Switching branches of government, Fort Collins could pressure its representatives in Congress to develop required mitigation conditions to offset the negative impacts of the project. However, NISP does not require Federal funding, and therefore Congress would have limited ability to influence the project. Elected officials representing Northern Colorado may not want to challenge the project, as it benefits their constituents as well. 5. City would develop its own mitigation. A final option is for the City to develop its own mitigation efforts and projects to offset the negative impacts of NISP. This option would mean that staff and financial resources are focused on projects that the City can pursue while the NISP project continues to be developed. The City would utilize its assets and resources to build its own mitigation plan for NISP. Ideas for a City mitigation plan are presented as a table attached to this memorandum. One aspect of City mitigation which was discussed at the meeting is the concept of the City using a portion of its currently unused water rights portfolio to provide strategic environmental flows in the Poudre River. First, it was concluded that dedicated storage releases from an expanded Halligan Reservoir (which the City is currently pursuing) are unlikely to significantly benefit the Poudre River through the City and offset the impact from NISP. The reason is because Halligan is a relatively small storage reservoir, and the small release volumes are likely to primarily benefit streamflows in the North Fork of the Poudre River. Second, the City owns several agricultural ditch rights which it has not yet converted for municipal use and could be applied to environmental uses. In addition, the City’s water rights portfolio in the Poudre River has some excess supply in average and wet years. Available modeling suggests that Glade Reservoir storage levels will be much less than full capacity in most years, providing a storage void into which the City could put its unused direct-flow water rights. City staff have not analyzed this possibility in detail, but conceptually this could provide significant benefit if the City were to make peak flow releases from its stored water in Glade Reservoir. There are many aspects that would need to be considered, but perhaps most important would be the creation of an environmental storage pool in Glade Reservoir as part of the Record of Decision, allowing third- parties (non-participants in the project) to store water in Glade Reservoir. In defining these options, we considered that City staff are likely to continue to draft substantive comments during the permitting process for NISP. Most of the comment period has passed, with a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for NISP due in January 2018. The Corps of Engineers is not required to consider comments on the Final EIS when issuing the Record of Decision, but City comments are important to provide information to the Corps as it defines mitigation conditions in the Record of Decision. The City will also provide comments on other State agency permit documents, but should consider how these efforts will alter the project from its current form. The other aspect of our Alternatives discussion was what alternatives existed for the NISP project participants, and in particular the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District, if NISP were not permitted and not constructed. In the EIS process, the “No Action” alternative was presented as another regional storage project named Cactus Hill Reservoir, located east of Fort Collins. This alternative is not desired by the project participants and the EIS does not find it to be less environmentally damaging. The Board discussed some flaws of the EIS process and study documents. The Corps made a seemingly arbitrary decision to mandate that any alternative in the EIS process must be a regional water project. For the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District, future water supply development besides NISP will likely include development of water storage from former gravel pits, continued acquisition of CBT units in the short term, and additional acquisition of agricultural ditch rights which divert from the Poudre River in the longer term. The possibility of a wholesale water purchase from Fort Collins Utilities was previously explored for several Southside Ditch rights, but use limitations expressed on the Utilities water right decrees prevented their use beyond the Utility service area. Meeting #3: Mitigation & Moving Forward October Water Board work session The third and final Water Board work session was focused on how the City might seek mitigation for the negative impacts caused by NISP, and ideas about how the City might continue to move forward. The purpose of the meeting was influenced by the recent approval of the Mitigation Plan by Colorado agencies in September 2017. The City’s ability to influence required mitigation, at least those aspects regulated by the state, is limited given the approval of the Mitigation Plan. Therefore, the mitigation discussion was kept rather brief, and we focused on moving forward. Additional mitigation will be defined in the Record of Decision, with the term “mitigation” focused on impacts to wetlands, stream reaches, and conveyance capacity of the river channel. City staff’s comments on the Draft EIS and Final EIS will hopefully influence the quality of mitigation defined in the Record of Decision. In the near future, the City will also be commenting on the State water quality 401 permit decision. Most Water Board members believe that there will likely be a gap between the City’s desired mitigation and the type and level of mitigation that will be required for NISP under Federal and State permits. Part of our discussion on moving forward focused on how the City should best address this gap. The Water Board focused its final discussion piece on how the City should move forward with respect to advancing its concerns with NISP. No detailed position was developed by the Water Board, but Board members expressed the following points as considerations and recommendations for future actions of City Council with regard to NISP:  The City has spent considerable resources (staff time and consultant funding) in analyzing and challenging NISP with the goal of minimizing impacts on the City, particularly with regard to Poudre River health and function. A team of 12 outside consultants have previously been engaged by the City to help develop comments in the EIS process. This resource expenditure has resulted in some significant changes to the NISP project. Specifically, the inclusion of a bypass flow through the City and the changes in project operations defined in the approved Mitigation Plan. From here, these resources can and should be leveraged to help develop a City mitigation plan for NISP. Several Water Board members believe that the City should start to develop its own mitigation plan and not rely on Federal and State agencies to get mitigation right for the City. The attached table provides specific ideas on how the City might develop its own mitigation. Time is of the essence in starting to build this plan if that is what City leaders want to do.  A legal challenge to the Corps’ Record of Decision on NISP would be costly and highly uncertain. It is not an exaggeration to say that the City would have to spend millions of dollars to successfully challenge the Corps decision. Several Water Board members feel that developing a City mitigation plan could represent a fraction of the cost of a legal challenge and/or provide a far more certain outcome.  The NISP project represents a piece of a much broader water management discussion for Northern Colorado, and there are other issues which might actually be more important than NISP moving forward. These issues include: land use planning at both local and regional levels, irrigation ditch company planning, and advances in water conservation. The City might have more of a long-term impact leading on these issues than it would in standing opposed to NISP. Some Water Board members feel that as long as there is unappropriated streamflow in the Poudre River system, there will be some interest in developing a project to utilize the water supply. In other words, even if NISP does not become a reality, there will be others waiting to develop a similar project.  At least one Water Board member felt that the City should make a commitment on where it stands related to NISP. Historically, the City has been simultaneously opposed and neutral to the project, while some in the community feel that the February 2017 decision to engage in discussions with Northern Water was effectively an admission that the project will be completed. Some Water Board members feel that the City should take a strategic view on how to best react to the NISP project, and start to build on that strategy, rather than remain uncommitted.  If NISP continues to move forward, then several Water Board members have expressed a concern about data and information transparency, which has historically been lacking on NISP reports and analyses to date. In the future, the dialogue among stakeholders can be improved if more data and information are shared. A lack of transparency coupled with typically short EIS review period presents challenges to understanding and responding to the EIS. The City should continue to advocate for open data policies and lead by example.  Members of the Water Board also feel that collaboration among stakeholders may be a requirement to deal with some of the NISP impacts and to ensure that the Poudre River is able to provide for multiple benefits. This is due to the complexity of river operations and the inter- connections among water users and uses. A single entity acting alone will struggle to provide sufficient staff and financial resources to address water management issues in the Poudre River system. Within this collaborative environment, monitoring of critical river metrics, such as streamflow and water quality, will be essential to future management of the Poudre River, and NISP participants and other regional water users should contribute to these efforts as an extension of existing data collection and management programs. As stated previously, a table is attached which summarizes issues of concern and ideas for mitigation of those concerns. I hope that the information contained in this memorandum proves helpful in future deliberations and action items on NISP that come before City Council. Please contact the Water Board with any clarifying questions or follow-up comments. Sincerely, ___________________________________ Brett Bovee, Water Board Chairperson Attachment: Table of issues and mitigation ideas cc: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Issue/Concern City’s Mitigation Comments1 NISP’s Mitigation Plan2 Possible Future Action(s) for Consideration Peak Flows/Stormwater NISP will reduce peak flows which will increase flood risks and decrease river health and function. • Provide 3 day bypass every year • Large scale river-floodplain reconnection upstream and through the City to reduce flood risk • No further reductions to rise and fall of peak flows • 6 Tier peak flow bypass program • Full 3-day bypass achieved 70% of years • More frequent, shorter duration bypasses in certain years • Seek an environmental pool in Glade Reservoir to store non-NISP water (e.g. excess City sources as available) for peak flow augmentation (near-term) • Plan and fund large-scale floodplain restoration projects upstream of the City (long-term) Base Flows NISP will increase base flows, to Mulberry Ave, but full benefits may not be realized until build-out. • Provide full base flow via conveyance refinement at project start-up • 36% of all Glade releases to river at start-up • Interim delivery schedule coordinated through CPW • Advocate for delivery of Glade releases to river in lieu of other water supplies Ramping Rates Rapid flow changes are a safety hazard and can impact aquatic and riparian species • Flow changes should not exceed 500 cfs per day at Canyon mouth • 500 cfs per day ramping schedule adopted • None Water Quality NISP’s impacts to Poudre water quality and wastewater dilution requirements are unknown. • Postpose mitigation plan approval until data becomes available • Water quality data released in 2018 • Other water quality mitigation actions proposed (multi-level outlet tower, conveyance refinement, etc.) • Study the potential to acquire and develop small storage sites (like Rigden) near Drake to provide targeted WQ releases • Consider water lease options to provide targeted dilution to mitigate WQ impacts Adaptive Management Adaptive management should be well funded and include clear performance standards • Add performance standards or postpose mitigation plan approval until standards/triggers are defined • Independent monitoring • Increase annual budget to $100,000 • Performance standards and triggers not defined • Flows will not be used in adaptive management • Pledge $50,000 annually for 20 years beyond build-out • Advocate for local science and monitoring efforts, performance standards (near-term) • Help to identify and develop sustainable funding for mitigation beyond 20-years (long- term) Mitigation/ Funding Mitigation/enhancement funds should match the scope of NISP’s impacts • Provide $77.2M for mitigation and enhancement • Take a functions based, long term approach to restoration for loss of function • $59M for mitigation and enhancement • Certain short-term/small scale approaches proposed for mitigation/restoration (e.g., dredging). • Allocate new funding to the Natural Areas budget to conduct targeted mitigation in riparian corridor that is not done by project • Leverage volunteer resources to help with these activities as appropriate Big Game Habitat Construction of Glade Reservoir will impact big game habitat near the City’s Gateway Natural Area. • Partner with City to conserve 5,000 acres near Glade Reservoir • Increases commitment to conserve lands near Glade • Consents to GOCO easement requirements • None 1Taken from the City’s comments on NISP’s Draft Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (FWMEP), and the City’s September 1, 2017 letter to Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission responding to revisions to the FWMEP 2Taken from the NISP’s final approved FWMEP