HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 5/19/2020 - Memorandum From Carol Webb Re: Staff Comments On Northern Integrated Supply Project (Nisp) 1041 ReferralUtilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
700 Wood Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 13, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Theresa Connor, Utilities Interim Executive Director
FROM: Carol Webb, Utilities Deputy Director
RE: Staff Comments on Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”) 1041 Referral
Bottom Line
City staff has evaluated the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Northern Water”)
Larimer County “1041” application and provided comment as a referral agency (see attachment).
Comments have been primarily based upon the design and location of the NISP Poudre River
intake structure and pipeline located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“GMA”)
and its compliance with the City Code and Land Use Code.
Overall, staff’s technical comments on the 1041 application describe concerns about the
methodology employed in the pipeline siting alternatives analysis and potential pipeline impacts
to natural habitat and features within the Poudre River corridor.
In addition to City Council, City staff has provided a copy of the technical comments to the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Water Board,
and City Council. Comments are being submitted to Larimer County.
Larimer County’s NISP “1041” Process
NISP requires a “1041” permit from Larimer County under its Land Use Code.
1
Larimer
County’s 1041 permit process is designed to ensure compliance with local master plans and
environmental, public health, and safety standards while balancing costs and mitigation measures
for development and activities of statewide interest as defined by Colorado statutes.
Larimer County has identified the City as a referral agency for the NISP 1041 permit and is
requesting comments on the NISP 1041 permit application. Like other 1041 permit referrals
received from Larimer County, the scope of the City’s review and comments is limited to the
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 2 of 2
development, construction, and impacts within the GMA. Specifically, the scope of the City’s
review includes:
installation of a new diversion structure on the Cache la Poudre River just upstream of
Mulberry Street;
temporary impacts from the installation of underground pipelines across private property
and several City-owned natural areas;
installation of above-ground infrastructure near the intersection of Lemay Avenue and
Mulberry Street; and
associated impacts to traffic, utilities, engineering, and stormwater.
While the scope of Larimer County’s 1041 review also includes recreation on Glade Reservoir
and a northern pipeline route and realignment of seven miles of Highway 287, these impacts fall
outside of the GMA and is not within the scope of City staff’s analysis.
The 1041 review process will eventually include public hearings before the Larimer County
Planning Commission and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
Comments from the City (in addition to the technical comments provided by City staff) may also
be provided at the upcoming public hearings including at the tentatively scheduled July 8
Larimer County Planning Commission meetings and the August 17 meeting of the Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners.
pc: Cameron Gloss, Manager, City Planning
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
John Stokes, Deputy Director, Community Services
Jennifer Shanahan, Sr. Specialist, Sciences
Eric Potyondy, Assistant City Attorney
Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6134 - fax
Planning, Development & Transportation
May 13, 2020
Carl Brouwer
Northern Integrated Supply Project Water Activity Enterprise
220 Water Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Referral Comments for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) 1041 Application
The following are the City of Fort Collins (“City”) staff review comments specific to the Northern
Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”) infrastructure that the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (“Northern Water”) has proposed within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area
(“GMA”) as described in the Northern Water application to Larimer County under Chapter 14 of
Larimer County’s Land Use Code, which contains the County’s 1041 regulations.
The submittal of these comments does not alter the Fort Collins City Council’s current position
on NISP as expressed in Council Resolution 2018-093 as:
“the City Council cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with the understanding that the City
Council may reach a different conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP and its
mitigation plan, if such variant and associated mitigation address the City’s fundamental
concerns expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS, SDEIS, the State Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, and FEIS through improved mitigation or
other means.”
The comments have been compiled specifically for the City’s review of the NISP 1041
application made with Larimer County. Many of the following comments (as they may be
amended or updated) may appear in subsequent City review processes that will be required of
NISP, such as the Site Plan Advisory Review (“SPAR”) for pipeline portions located within the
City of Fort Collins and an evaluation of the project’s design and construction relative to the
City’s Natural Areas Department easement policy.
As a referral agency in the 1041 review process, City staff acknowledges that the comments are
advisory in scope and encourages Northern Water to take the following recommendations and
requests for additional information into consideration. Recommendations are based on the
City’s Land Use Code standards and organized around the applicable 1041 Review Criteria
found in Larimer County Land Use Code (“LCLUC”) Section 14.10.D.
Please direct any questions regarding City staff’s comments to Cameron Gloss, Long Range
Planning Manager, at 970-224-6174 or cgloss@fcgov.com.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 2
Comment Summary:
1. LCLUC 14.10.D (1) (The proposal is consistent with the master plan and applicable
intergovernmental agreements affecting land use and development).
1. Most of the Poudre Intake Pipeline lies within the Fort Collins GMA and is governed by
the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, which was jointly adopted by Larimer County and the
City in 2002 (amended in 2003). No evaluation of the proposed pipeline alignments
relative to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan is contained in the 1041 application and
should be addressed as the adopted plan is an element of Larimer County’s Master Plan
and further implements the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer
County Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development (2000).
2. The portion of the preferred pipeline location, between Lemay Avenue and Timberline
Road, is designated within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan as “Natural Buffer.” The plan
cites the need for the “preservation, restoration and enhancement of these designated
areas,” in that “they provide a valuable wildlife habitat and contribute to the area’s scenic
quality.” The following policy relates specifically to the preservation of this portion of the
corridor:
Policy EMC. ONL – 1.1 The interface between the Poudre River riparian habitat and
development along East Mulberry Street, should be coordinated to retain
environmental quality, encourage wildlife habitat and, where impacts can be
appropriately buffered, provide recreational use.
3. The City thus requests that Northern Water provide an analysis of the proposal’s
consistency with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan relative to all adopted Plan Goals,
Principles and Policies.
2. LCLUC 14.10.D (2) (The applicant has presented reasonable siting and design
alternatives or explained why no reasonable alternatives are available.).
Six alignment alternatives were considered and evaluated for those portions of the Poudre River
Intake Pipeline, (2 for the Poudre Intake West and 4 for the Poudre Intake Pipeline toward the
east) located within the Fort Collins GMA. The City has significant concerns over the
methodology that Northern Water used. The City recommends that Northern Water perform a
new alternatives analysis for the Poudre Intake Pipeline using the comments below as guidance
for location and analysis, to determine the least environmentally damaging practicable pipeline
route.
1. It is unclear why additional alternatives that extend the pipeline along the Mulberry right-
of-way (longer than currently proposed) were not evaluated, or if modifications to the
proposed alternatives could be made that further decrease negative impacts on public,
private, and environmental resources.
2. Alternative routes for the Poudre Intake Pipeline could be reviewed through a framework
that evaluates environmental impacts and selects the least environmentally damaging
one. It is the City’s understanding the proposed pipeline alignment was presented for
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 3
the first time in the NISP Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). Therefore, an
evaluation of alternatives and associated environmental impacts comparing pipeline
alignments did not occur within the federal National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)
process. Instead, it occurred this year using the decision matrix of review criteria, which
is a very different approach to evaluating alternatives.
3. The methodology for the Poudre Intake Pipeline Alternatives Analysis provides scoring
through a decision matrix of criteria with only two environmental criteria included. The
two criteria are weighted equally with 16 other criteria, so the combined weight of the
environmental criteria contributes only 9% to the total score. The City disagrees with
this undervaluation of environmental impacts and the approach where environmental
impacts were given equal value to other criteria, such as “Easement Difficulty.”
4. Furthermore, the methodology does not evaluate the alternatives based on the relative
importance (weights) of each criterion. The scoring approach essentially treats each
criterion as independent and of equal weight, when many are interrelated and not of
equal importance. The City recommends applying weights to each criterion to better
address tradeoffs between disparate goals.
5. The criterion labeled “Environmental Impacts” only considers linear feet of wetlands and
riparian areas. Linear feet of wetland is not a standard or meaningful approach to
evaluating impacts to wetlands. The federal permitting process typically evaluates a
number of environmental factors, yet many of these factors and resources were
unaccounted for in the alternatives assessment for the pipelines that will be impacted by
the proposed alignment.
6. Linear feet of pipeline in City-owned natural areas is the second of the two
environmental criteria. With impacts to 5,700 linear feet in high visitor use and sensitive
Natural Areas, the short- and long-term impacts are of concern to the City. The City
disagrees with Northern Water’s designation of this criterion as the yellow or middle
scoring category because it is only the middle category due to the range of alternatives
presented, not the actual impacts of 0.6 miles of pipeline installation would have on
natural habitats.
7. The alternatives analysis did not consider the disruption and impacts on wildlife.
Floodplain corridors provide wildlife with a mosaic of aquatic, wetland, riparian, and
forest and grassland habitat types all along a narrow corridor within a developed
landscape. Therefore, these corridors contribute a disproportionate (high) value towards
supporting wildlife, both local and migratory. The City recommends adding a wildlife
criterion as a factor in the alternatives analysis.
8. The floodplain criteria state the floodplains are not a risk to the pipeline, but the
perspective needs to also consider the risk that the installation of a pipeline close to the
river may impact opportunities for increasing resilience to large floods. The pipeline
running through Kingfisher Point Natural Area adjacent to the river will prevent future
opportunities for increasing the conveyance capacity through the lowering of floodplain
elevations (for example with the creation of overflow side channels).
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 4
9. While the alternatives analysis considers impacts to traffic, it does not consider impacts
to visitor use of City-owned and publicly-accessible lands and trails.
10. It should be noted that the City’s Natural Areas Department easement policy does not
consider cost as a factor in the analysis of proposed routes.
3. LCLUC 14.10.D(3) (The proposal conforms with adopted county standards, review
criteria and mitigation requirements concerning environmental impacts, including but
not limited to those contained in this Code.).
No comment at this time.
4. LCLUC 14.10.D(4) (The proposal will not have a significant adverse affect on or will
adequately mitigate significant adverse affects on the land or its natural resources, on
which the proposal is situated and on lands adjacent to the proposal).
Wetlands and other Waters of the US (WOTUS)
Reported impacts to Wetlands and other WOTUS are inconsistent throughout key permitting
documents. For this reason, it is more difficult to determine the sufficiency of proposed wetland
mitigation in Larimer County and within the GMA.
The 1041 Wetland and Water Mitigation Plan prepared by the NISP WAE (Pinyon, 2020)
presents a reduction of impacts across almost all categories. For example, Pinyon (2020)
shows a reduction in impacts at Glade. Furthermore, the permanent functional losses to Poudre
River wetlands are treated differently across alternatives and reports.
This leads to uncertainty over which set of values will form the basis for the mitigation
commitments in the forthcoming Wetland and Open Water Mitigation Plan. Pinyon, 2020 states:
“the Project is in the process of developing a Wetland and Open Water Mitigation Plan
(January 20, 2020 Draft) in order to comply with the USACE 2008 Mitigation Rule (33
CFR Part 332) (USACE, 2008a; Pinyon, 2020). The Wetland and Open Water Mitigation
Plan describes how the Project will mitigate for unavoidable permanent impacts to
WUS.”
It is unclear whether this forthcoming plan will compensate for the discrepancies documented
here, as well as the functional losses to aquatic resources (wetland and streams) as required in
the 2008 rule and the Colorado Mitigation Procedure (USACE, 2019).
Understanding there are small differences in the scope and sequencing of these documents, the
City recommends that additional information be provided that clarifies the aquatic resource
impacts by project component, associated mitigation, regulatory scope, and the relationship
between the documents that describe them.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 5
Alt 2M Alt 2M Alt 2 Alt 2
FEIS
Table 4-64
1041-Pinyon 1
Table 1
FEIS 2
Table 4-67
FWMEP 2
Table A2
Permanent Wetland Impacts
Glade Reservoir 42 31.3 42 Not broken out
US 287 3 Not listed 3
Conveyance
Systems
<1 0.044 <1
Total 45+ 31.344 45+ 44
Temporary Wetland Impacts
Glade Reservoir 4 2.361 4 Not broken out
US 287 <1 Not listed <1
Conveyance
Systems
10 5.697 5
Total 14+ 8.181 9+ 8
Permanent Impacts to Waters of the US
Glade Reservoir 8 0.93 8 Not broken out
US 287 1 Not listed <1
Conveyance
Systems
<1 0.59 1
Total 9+ 1.52 9+ 12
Temporary Impacts to Waters of the US
Glade Reservoir 2 2.361 2 Not broken out
US 287 <1 Not listed <1
Conveyance
Systems
5 2.292 4
Total 7+ 4.653 6+ 3
Permanent Indirect wetland impacts to riparian wetlands
Poudre wetlands 0 (30) Not addressed 17 9
1- 1041- Pinyon, 2020
2- FWMEP- the state approved Fish and Wildlife and Mitigation Enhancement Plan reported wetland impacts based
on Alternative 2 therefore Alternative 2 from the FEIS is presented for comparative reference.
General City Environmental Protection Standards
While this project is following Federal, State and County environmental studies and protection
standards through NEPA, State, and 1041 permitting processes, the City has separate, and
often more stringent study requirements and protection standards for development projects
outlined in the City’s Land Use Code. In acknowledging the work already performed by Northern
Water, the comments below describe the City’s requirements (found in Section 3.4.1 of the Land
Use Code) that are applicable to this project within the GMA. City staff encourages Northern
Water adhere to these City Land Use Code standards.
1. If a project is within 500 feet of a known or potential natural feature, the City requires an
Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) be performed by a qualified professional that
describes resources and their respective value, ecological function and character. The
ECS is the guiding document in staff’s decision-making process related to mitigation and
protection requirements. Because the information provided through this application is
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 6
conceptual in scope the value of resources has not been evaluated to allow City staff to
determine existing conditions and adequate mitigation measures, City staff recommends
completing an ECS for areas within the GMA, using the criteria outlined in Section 3.4.1
(D)(1) of the Land Use Code.
2. The City’s adopted Natural Habitat and Features standards in Land Use Code Section
3.4.1 (D)(2) protect wetlands irrespective of their jurisdictional determination. Therefore,
any non-jurisdictional wetlands that are impacted and unaccounted for require mapping
and mitigation. Detailed recommendations for protecting, mitigating and enhancing all
wetlands are required within the ECS. Based on impacts, City staff may require a
Wetland Restoration Plan, Weed Management Plan and Monitoring Plan (3+ years) to
ensure mitigation success.
3. If a proposed development disturbs a jurisdictional wetland, the developer is required per
Land Use Code Section3.4.1(D)(2) to provide to the City a written statement from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan fully complies with all
applicable federal wetland regulations as established in the federal Clean Water Act.
City staff recommends that Northern Water provide this letter to the City.
City Buffer Standards and Environmental Protocols
Section 3.4.1 of the City's Land Use Code identifies natural habitats and features for protection
and requires specific buffer distances to protect the character and function of these resources
from the impacts of construction and ongoing activity associated with the development. Given
the noise and impacts from construction activities and the continual access needs for ongoing
operations and maintenance along the pipeline corridor, City staff recommends adhering to the
following requirements.
Buffers
1. Poudre River Corridor 300’ Buffer (measured from top of bank or edge of riparian
forest/vegetation whatever is more stringent). The Poudre River is designated as a
National Heritage Area and is considered the City’s highest valued regional and urban
wildlife corridor. The value of riparian forest and bird habitat impacted along the river
would take decades to re-establish and may result in nest failure, as stated in the
Wildlife Conservation Plan. City staff is concerned about the close proximity of the
pipeline to the river from north of Kingfisher Point Natural Area to the crossing of
Timberline Road. The proximity results in impacts to soils, native vegetation, wetlands,
and restoration projects previously performed by the City’s Natural Areas Department.
The grasslands at the Kingfisher Point Natural Area is particularly hard to restore given
the beet lime waste material underneath. Therefore, restoration progress is slower than
usual. Starting restoration all over again for a strip in the middle of a field is not
preferred. Additionally, nearby cliffs have long supported various cliff nesting birds such
as bank swallows and (today) a nesting kingfisher. City staff recommends the pipeline
be moved further from the Poudre River to reduce impacts.
2. Boxelder Creek: 100’ Buffer (measured from top of bank or edge of wetlands, whichever
greater). Boxelder Creek is considered a regional wildlife corridor and the crossing of
Boxelder Creek immediately west of I-25 is concerning. Staff recommends boring the
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 7
pipe under the creek and digging bore pits 100’ from top of bank or edge of wetlands
(whichever is greater) to minimize impacts to the creek, habitat and associated wetlands.
3. Irrigation Canals: 50’ Buffer (from top of bank or edge of wetlands, whichever greater).
The City of Fort Collins views irrigation canals as wildlife movement corridors. The City
recommends the value of ditches be evaluated in the ECS from a wildlife corridor,
vegetative quality and habitat perspective and provide mitigation for impacts. The City
also recommends bore pits occur 50’ from the ditch’s top of bank or edge of wetlands at
ditch crossings, whichever is greater, to minimize impacts.
4. Lakes: 100’ Buffer. The City is concerned about the close proximity of the pipeline to the
ponds at the Riverbend Ponds Natural Area. The City recommends the width of
temporary construction easement be reduced in this area to minimize impacts to the
pond embankments, wetlands and wildlife using the ponds.
5. Dry Creek: 100’ Buffer. The City views Dry Creek as a wildlife movement corridor. The
City recommends bore pits to occur 100’ from the Creek’s top of bank or edge of
wetlands, whichever is greater, to minimize impacts.
6. Riparian Forest: 50’ Buffer. Riparian forest along the Poudre River and Boxelder Creek
will be impacted by the proposed project. The City recommends avoiding these sensitive
areas by providing a 50’ buffer from the edge of forest canopy.
7. Wetlands Buffer: As noted above the City protects all wetlands irrespective of
jurisdictional status. For all wetlands, the City requires the following buffers for wetlands
and recommends Northern Water to adhere to these standards.:
1. Wetlands >1/3 acre in size: 100’
2. Wetlands <1/3 acre in size: 50’
Wildlife Protocols
City staff encourages Northern Water to adhere to the following requirements related to
mitigating wildlife impacts, found in 3.4.1 of the City’s Land Use Code.
1. The City requires that construction activity be organized and timed to minimize the
disturbance of Sensitive or Specially Valued Species occupying or using on-site and
adjacent natural habitats or features. City staff is concerned about construction noise
near wetlands at Riverbend Ponds, along the Poudre River and irrigation ditch corridors.
The activity could have negative impacts on wildlife such as nest failure for breeding
birds, or the inability of prey to detect predators.
a. Raptors and Song Birds: The City requires that trees that are known to have
served as raptor nest sites not be removed within five (5) years of the last known
nesting period. If the tree is removed, it shall be mitigated in accordance with
Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection Standards.
b. The City requires raptor nests be inventoried within a 500’ buffer on either side
the Right of Way and indicated by species (when possible).
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 8
2. Fox, coyote and badger dens: 50’ Buffer. The City requires surveys be performed to
determine the location of fox, coyote, and badger dens throughout the limits of
development and adhere to the 50’ buffer requirement.
3. Prairie Dogs:
a. If more than 1 acre of prairie dog colonies are eradicated, Northern Water would
be required to mitigate for the resource value lost either through a payment-in-
lieu or trap and donate.
b. Methods for removing prairie dogs must be reviewed and approved by the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
c. Following relocation or eradication activities for prairie dogs, the City requires
that a report be provided that documents when prairie dog removal occurred, the
method(s) that were used to remove prairie dogs, measures taken to ensure that
prairie dogs will not re-inhabit the site, and confirmation that no threatened or
endangered species were harmed by removal activities.
Restoration Protocols
1. Under the Buffer Zone Performance Standards in Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(1)(g),
the applicant must undertake restoration and mitigation, such as regrading and and/or
replanting of native vegetation, to enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the
buffer area.
2. The width of the temporary construction right of way varies between documents (120’ in
Wetland Mitigation Plan (Pinyon, 2020), 100’ in Technical Memorandum No. 3 (Northern
Water, 2020), etc.). City staff recommends the width for temporary construction Right of
Way be minimized, particularly around sensitive natural and recreational resources
(wetlands, mature trees, trails, etc.).
Comments specific to Natural Areas lands
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy:
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas are conserved due to citizen ballot measures that specify
these lands are to be protected and enhanced for native plant and wildlife communities.
Therefore, siting of facilities needs to consider how these resources will be protected and
enhanced within City Natural Areas.
Homestead Natural Area:
1. The diversion point and pipeline installation is located within a recently restored and
highly active riparian wetlands. Significant efforts went into ensuring the success of this
restoration which has now been establishing for the past seven years. The location is
also flooded at relatively low flows so the immediate success of future restoration is
uncertain due to annual scouring flows. The proposed mitigation for these temporary
impacts is to return the habitat to its current condition, but this does not offset the
temporal loss. For this reason, the City recommends Northern Water collaborate with
the City’s Natural Areas Department to determine the best location for the diversion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 9
2. The City understands that Northern Water has identified a preferred diversion point, but
that there may be some flexibility in the precise location. There may be pros and cons to
subtle adjustments of the take-off point. Moving the location of the new diversion
somewhat upstream may result in multiple benefits including; avoiding damage to the
recently restored active riparian zone, minimizing construction footprint in sensitive
areas, taking advantage of existing slower backwater conditions upstream, and
minimizing erosion from spring flows on vulnerable post-construction that occurs
frequently in low lying zone.
3. The City owns the land (in-channel and in the riparian zone) at the location of the
proposed diversion structure near Mulberry Avenue. To avoid further fragmentation of
aquatic habitat and sediment and to ensure fish passage, the City recommends using a
low-profile design approach such as a riffle-crest structure. The tie in to either bank
must be resilient to souring flows but as natural functioning and looking as possible to
avoid disconnecting the channel from the riparian zone.
4. According to the Colorado Mitigation Procedures (USACE, 2019) the impacts of a new
diversion to stream functions must be fully mitigated. Without baseline hydrogeomorphic
and biological data analyses of this complex river reach it is impossible to ensure
mitigation of impacts to stream functions. It also impossible to ensure the longevity of the
new diversion structure or that it will results in a resilient reach of river. The City
recommends spatial footprint for the design process and hydrogeomorphic analysis is
larger than just the immediate footprint of the structure (i.e. it extends further upstream
and downstream). Also, because the river is a split channel at this location, proper
evaluation of river dynamics at the reach scale will be essential for guaranteeing the
protecting of local infrastructure during large flood events (the Mulberry Treatment plant
and the Mulberry Avenue Bridge).
5. Because this area sees frequent visitor use, City staff recommends the design elements
strongly consider public safety and potential vandalism.
Kingfisher Point Natural Area:
1. The City recommends the footprint of the infrastructure on the Kingfisher Point Natural
Area (pumphouse and settling pond) be minimized to the greatest degree possible.
2. Through the Kingfisher Point Natural Area, the pipeline is proposed to run near to the
river and justification for this is not provided. By laying pipeline in the middle of the
natural area/floodplain and close to the river, it will limit future opportunities for
excavating floodplain material to increase the conveyance capacity (for example with the
creation of overflow side channels). Also, at this location the riverbank forms a cliff and
hosts several cavity nesting birds, including Northern rough-winged swallow, bank
swallows, and kingfishers. Nesting success is uncertain with this work nearby. The City
recommends the pipeline be routed as far north as possible (away from the river) from
the pumphouse to the Fort Collins Nursery.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 10
3. The City will not consider the sale or conveyance of any real property rights on any City
property for the NISP project until Northern Water has a final and non-appealable Clean
Water Act Section 404 permit.
4. The City may wish to have input on specific aspects of aesthetics and screening of the
proposed infrastructure to best fit the landscape and character of the Kingfisher Point
Natural Area.
5. As previously noted, the City’s Natural Areas Department easement policy does not
consider cost as a factor in the analysis of proposed routes.
Riverbend Ponds Natural Area:
1. Along the eastern end of the pipeline route through Riverbends ponds the pipeline is
located along a narrow zone available immediately adjacent to a high value wetlands
complex. In addition to hosting higher diversity of birds, this area is also home to three
rare plants: Carex lasiocarpa, Glaux maritima, Eustoma grandiflora. The City
recommends the temporary construction easement for this section of pipeline use as
narrow a width as possible to completely avoid impacting the adjacent wetlands.
Easements from Natural Areas
1. In addition to the City comments presented in this 1041 review, the Natural Areas and
Conserved Lands Easement Policy (adopted 2012, updated 2018) requirements will
apply during the easement application process and can be found in the Easement
Request Packet at https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/easement.php
2. Please identify the permanent easement width, as well as the frequency and type of
operations and maintenance activities along the permanent easement.
3. Permanent and temporary easement width justification will be required by the Natural
Areas Department easement policy.
Visitor Use Impact
Consistent with the Natural Areas Easement Policy, the City will require a
minimization/mitigation plan for the visitor use impacts anticipated during construction. The four
areas of particular concern are:
1. Homestead Natural Area, Williams Natural Area, and the Poudre Trail in the vicinity of
Mulberry Bridge.
2. The Timberline parking lot at Riverbend Ponds Natural Area.
3. Trail closures and detours on Riverbend Ponds Natural Area.
There may be a potential conflict with the future trail near Prospect and I-25. Timing of the
NISP piping construction may or may not affect this trail or the potential future development
at the Prospect Gateway. Further coordination may be required. The City of Fort Collins
2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan, including any future updates to this plan,
indicates the general location of future paved trails. Trail crossings of the pipeline may be
required to construct the buildout of the trail system. Paved trails will be allowed to cross the
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 11
pipeline easement as long as construction or maintenance of the trail does not impact the
operation or construction of the pipeline.
Based on the City’s Natural Areas Easement Policy, the following will be required:
Trail and public access closure plan
Detour plan for the Poudre Trail
Potential temporary paved trail if trail(s) are closed longer than 2 weeks.
Parking alternative plan for Riverbend Ponds Natural Area parking lot. The plan
should include only partial lot closures and offsite parking.
Trail closure plan for Riverbend Ponds Natural Area and advanced public notice
for closures will be required by the Natural Areas easement policy.
5. LCLUC 14.10.D(5) (The proposal will not adversely affect any sites and structures
listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places).
1. Any aspect of the development plan that will include federal involvement through permitting
or funding triggers compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
through a review coordinated by the State Historic Preservation Office (History Colorado). An
area of potential effect (APE) would define the geographic area or areas within which an
undertaking may create adverse effects on archeological and historic resources and require
documentation forms and potential mitigation of any determined adverse effects. While that
requirement is separate from local historic review and compliance, the City of Fort Collins would
be a consulting party for that review process. Please provide more information to Maren Bzdek,
Senior Historic Preservation Planner, mbzdek@fcgov.com, regarding compliance with this
federal legislation to date.
2. The 1041 submittal asserts that the EIS included an evaluation of cultural resources so that
potential impacts had been covered in this previous analysis. Given that the Poudre River
Intake pipeline was not included in the original EIS, the revised 1041 application should include
historic and cultural resource survey information.
3. Please include “Impact to Historic and Cultural Resources” as an evaluation criterion in the
Alternatives Evaluation for the Poudre Intake Pipeline.
6. LCLUC 14.10.D(6) (The proposal will not negatively impact public health and safety).
No comment at this time.
7. LCLUC 14.10.D(7) (The proposal will not be subject to significant risk from natural
hazards including floods, wildfire or geologic hazards.).
Floodplain Comments
1. A portion of this project is currently located in the FEMA-regulated, 100-year and 500-
year Poudre River floodway and floodplain; the 100-year Dry Creek floodway and
floodplain; 100-year Boxelder floodway and floodplain and therefore must comply with
Chapter 10 of City Code. Any construction activities in the floodplain within the City
limits must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit as required under Chapter
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 12
10 of City Code, the appropriate permit application fees, and approved plans. Any
construction activities in the regulatory floodway must be preceded by a No-Rise
Certification, which must be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado. Development review checklists for floodplain requirements can be obtained at
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fp-checklist100-2018-
update.pdf?1522697905. Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for
submittal.
2. Scour analysis must be performed for any channel crossings as a requirement of 10-
27(d)(4) of the City Code.
3. A stability analysis for any proposed development within an erosion buffer zone will be
required under Section 10-27(d)(5).4. Please show the boundaries of the floodplain
and floodway on site drawings as applicable.
8. LCLUC 14.10.D(8) (Adequate public facilities and services are available for the
proposal or will be provided by the applicant, and the proposal will not have a
significant adverse effect on the capability of local government to provide services or
exceed the capacity of service delivery systems.).
Traffic Operations comments
1. The submittal documents include a traffic review of reservoir construction (long term but
temporary), pipeline construction (short term at various locations), and recreational
(permanent). The 1041 submittal provided summary information on traffic impacts and
referred to the overall detailed evaluation done in the FEIS in Volume 2, Section
4.13.3. The relocation of US287 is not a part of the City’s 1041 review.
2. The southern end of the reservoir is about 5 miles from the closest point to the Fort
Collins GMA. The newly realigned US 287 will be more than 2 miles from the closest
point to the GMA. The pipeline will include locations within the Fort Collin city limits.
3. The document indicates the following regarding traffic impacts:
a. For reservoir construction: the construction (2-4 years) will create anywhere from
400 (winter) – 1600 (summer) daily trips with an average of 800. The document
notes that construction traffic should utilize ‘major’ roads for haul routes. For all
reservoir construction activities, haul routes should be specified. To the extent
feasible, they should not include City roadways.
b. For pipeline construction: the construction will include short term disruption
(anywhere from 2 to 10 weeks) at locations within Fort Collins city limits. It notes
that roadway crossings with paved facilities will be trenchless (bored), while
roadway crossings that are non-paved will be open cut. For pipeline
construction, early coordination with the City is important especially for
construction in the vicinity of major roadways, and approved Work Area Traffic
Control (WATC) plans from Fort Collins will be required
c. For permanent recreational impacts: identifies access roads and parking lots in
vicinity of the reservoir. Anticipated trips related to recreation are estimated to be
as high as 1,200 daily vehicular trips in the summer. For future recreational
traffic: The City encourages Northern Water to complete intersection evaluations
at locations that will be impacted by recreational traffic (such as the intersection
of US 287 and CR 21C) for operational and safety improvements. In addition, a
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 13
review of potential bike facilities (such as shoulders / paths) between Fort Collins
and in / around the vicinity of the new reservoir would be important.
Development Review Engineering Comments
1. The proposed Poudre Intake Pipeline project will be crossing through the Fort Collins
city limits. The City would require encroachment permits at right-of-way crossings within
the city Limits. The encroachment permit would establish maintenance operations and
utility location responsibility within City Rights-of-Way.
2. Northern Water would be responsible for utility location requests associated with the
Colorado Revised Statutes.
Water, Wastewater, Stormwater Comments
3. The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets the criteria for a need for Erosion
and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are
located in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual in Chapter 2 Section 6.0 a copy of
the requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion
4. It is expected the proposed pipelines will maintain standard separation from existing
utilities when ultimately designed.
5. It is the understanding of the City’s Stormwater Utility that this project will maintain
existing grading and drainage patterns and not impede existing drainage.
9. LCLUC 14.10.D(9) (The applicant will mitigate any construction impacts to county
roads, bridges and related facilities. Construction access will be re-graded and re-
vegetated to minimize environmental impacts.).
No comment at this time.
10. LCLUC 14.10.D(10) (The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses
of any natural resources or reduction of productivity of agricultural lands as a result of
the proposed development.).
Under the Larimer County 1041 Regulations, the decision regarding the 1041 Application rests
with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The City respectfully requests that the
BOCC consider the City of Fort Collins’ review comments when making its decision.
11. LCLUC 14.10.D(11) (The proposal demonstrates a reasonable balance between the
costs to the applicant to mitigate significant adverse affects and the benefits achieved
by such mitigation.).
Under the Larimer County 1041 Regulations, the decision regarding the 1041 Application rests
with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The City respectfully requests that the
BOCC consider the City of Fort Collins’ review comments when making its decision.
12. LCLUC 14.10.D(12) (The recommendations of staff and referral agencies have been
addressed to the satisfaction of the county commissioners.).
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6
Page 14
Under the Larimer County 1041 Regulations, the decision regarding the 1041 Application rests
with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The City respectfully requests that the
BOCC consider the City of Fort Collins’ review comments when making its decision.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AFD1CF01-75D4-4533-8F7C-806F9D850EA6