memo - larimer.org · larimer county | community development p.o. box 1190, fort collins, colorado...

LARIMER COUNTY | Community Development

P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190, Planning (970) 498-7683 Building (970) 498-7700, Larimer.org

MEMO

To: Larimer County Planning Commission

From: Community Development Staff

Date: July 15, 2020

RE: 3rd Addendum to Staff Report for NISP 1041 File #20-ZONE2657

Attached to this memo please find the following information which has been received by the staff since the packet for the July 8th meeting:

• Updated Citizen comments – 4.

• Several handouts from NISP WAE.

• JPEG map of the power line to be relocated.

7/14/2020 co.larimer.co.us Mail - Planning Commission

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5ad25453e9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1672218051675198426&simpl=msg-f%3A16722180516… 1/4

Rob Helmick <[email protected]>

Planning Commission1 message

Larimer.org <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:30 PMReply-To: Tom Sale <[email protected]>To: [email protected]

Submitted on Tuesday, July 14, 2020 - 12:30pm

Submitted by user: Anonymous

Submitted values are:

Emailing (to) [email protected] Planning CommissionYour Name Tom SalePhoneYour Email [email protected] Email [email protected] Planning Commission

1) Thanks for your effort with the NISP 1041 hearing

2) I pulled the following questions from my comments of 4.29.20(provided to Rob Helmick and the CountyCommissioners) that you may want to consider in meeting with Northern on 7.15.20

Best Regards, Tom Sale

Regarding: Comments on Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) 1041 Permit

Siting

Fault Questions:- Why is it that neither the North Fork or Bellvue Faults have ever been mentioned in public NISP documents to date?- What contingency plans are available to address fault-controlled leakage under the dams, what are the associated costs(e.g. following work on the North Dam on Horsetooth), and are the related costs being shared with participants andlending agencies?- In your recent multiple year (undocumented?) drilling programs were “subsurface voids” encountered that could lead tosevere seepage losses and/or washout under the Glade Dam? Have the results from recent subsurface investigationsbeen shared with the public?

Seepage Loss Questions:- Given up to 400 feet of water over the conductive sandstone beds, and the likelihood of large seepage losses, how canyou advocate that Glade is a suitable site for a reservoir?- The county requires groundwater models for projects where groundwater issues exist. What types of groundwatermodeling has been conducted for Glade and have the results been shared with the public? - Per Northern’s recent public open house on NISP, there are NO plans to place a seepage control liner in Glade (as wasultimately required at the North Dam on Horsetooth). If a liner were required how would it effect the costs for NISP andare the parties that will cover the cost aware of the associated risks?- Given effective subsurface water storage alternatives, how much money could be saved by eliminating seepage losses?

Munroe Ditch Questions:• The proposed steel pipeline in cement will see dynamic vertical stresses. What kind of foundations are required, whatare the costs for the submerged conveyance, are the costs currently included in the estimates provided to theparticipants?• How do you plan on dealing with large volumes of water flowing into the submerged tunnels when they becomesubmerged drains?

mailto:[email protected]





• Given prior experience with collapsing formations due to exposure to fresh water in the vicinity of Glade, why would theMunroe Ditch Tunnels not collapse when they become submerged drains?• Are there any successful engineering precedents for the proposed submerged conveyance of the Munroe Ditch throughGlade?• How will you safely remove sediments that will inevitably fill the submerged pipeline?• What are the anticipated costs of the submerged conveyance, its maintenance, and its periodic replacement?• Are the costs for the submerged Munroe Ditch conveyance through Glade included in current estimates of the cost forNISP and are the related cost/concerns being shared with participants and lending agencies?• What is Northern’s contingency plan given the likelihood of the Munroe Ditch conveyance failing?

Pushing the Missile Site Chlorinated Solvent Plume into Domestic Drinking Water Wells Fault Questions:- Why did Northern install 20 plus monitor wells in the missile site plume?

- Were water samples collected from the wells? o If yes, when will the data be made available? One might think that if the news was good, we would already know theresults.o If no, isn’t it in the best interest of protection to human health and to the environment, to accurately sample the wellsand share the results prior to any approval of the NISP 1041 Permit?

- What are the contingency plans for adverse impact to domestic water supplies?

- Is it appropriate to proceed with a decision on the NISP 1041 Permit absent public documentation of the water quality inNorthern’s 20+ monitoring wells in the vicinity of the missile plume?

Off the Main Stem of the Cache La Poudre Questions:• How will NISP capture peak flows if the diversion from the Cache La Poudre River is constrained by the hydrauliccapacity of the diversion?• Why should NISP be approved if there are lower cost/less harmful alternatives for surface water storage projects thatthe project proponents can participate in? • How will NISP get the required electrical power to the pumps at the forebay?• Has Northern provided the required information for approval of an 80 MW power line?• How will required power lines impact the aesthetic of the views in Pleasant Valley and the new recreational facilities?

Alternatives

Mining Water Losses from Antiquated Water Storage and Transmission Infrastructure Question:• Given a viable alternative that is less damaging, low risk and suited to uncertain times – why should the (NISP) 1041Permit be approved if it is, in contrast, severe in its impacts, more costly, and poorly suited to the State’s currentconditions?

Subsurface Water Storage Question:• Given all that is happening with Subsurface Water Storage in Colorado, and Dr. Sale’s comments, why would youdismiss Subsurface Water Storage?

Conservation Questions:• How can Northern justify requesting further surface water diversions, billions of dollars from Colorado’s residents, anddestruction of Larimer’s County’s limited wild lands when so much can still be done with conservation?



Privacy Setting

This form was submitted from a /contact email link on larimer.org.

http://larimer.org/

June 01, 2020 Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Larimer County Planning Staff 200 West Oak Street, Suite 3100 PO Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80521

RE: NISP 1041 Permit Application; Project No. 20-ZONE 2657

Dear Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Kefalas, Commissioner Donnelly, and Planning Commission:

I am writing to express my opposition to the Northern Integrated Supply Project NISP and encourage the Larimer County Planning Commission and County Commissioners to reject the 1041 County permit for the project. Let me explain why I do not support this project and encourage you to reject the permit.

This annual spring “rise” on the Cache la Poudre River is a sacred event, a living pulse of water that lasts just about a month but refreshes and re-nourishes the entire river ecology. As the Poudre reaches Fort Collins these floodwaters spill the banks, filling secondary channels where frogs, birds, and fish rear and lay eggs. Fresh layers of sediments drop out over the floodplains, nourishing the deep, lush cottonwood forests and marshes.

Something unique about the Poudre is that despite roughly 2/3 of the flow already diverted out, there is still enough of a spring “rise” to flood the banks, clean out the river of lingering sediments, redeposit nu-trients, and refresh the ecology. This is rare, nearly all of the rivers and creeks along Colorado’s Front Range have been dammed or diverted where the natural rhythm of the spring “rise” is gone, turning the echoing drumbeat of the river into a muted whine.

The Poudre still has its spring heartbeat, but not for long if the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District builds their gluttonous Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). If this project is built it will take 71% of the water out of the river during the spring “rise”, flat-lining the river and putting it on life support.

My expertise is in river restoration and geomorphology, it’s my job to know how river and stream me-chanics respond to changes in flow. A major problem that NISP would have on the river is that by reduc-ing the spring “rise”, the river will not be able to redistribute and transport sediments out of the river channel where they can deposit onto floodplains and wetlands. By functionally limiting the peak flow and eliminating the annual flushing effect, those sediments will stack up in the channel year after year, eventually raising the channel higher and higher to a point that will create regular flooding problems. The annual flush is needed to improve hydraulic conveyance and move sediments downstream. Not al-lowing this annual pulse will create a clog, similar to a blood clot.

Additionally, if NISP were built and the sediments are not annually flushed out with large spring pulses, the water quality will greatly suffer. This will occur because the sediment and nutrients trapped in the channel will decompose and consume oxygen levels within the water, thereby decreasing dissolved oxy-gen available for fish and other wildlife. The annual spring “rise” is not “extra unused water”, it’s the force that cleans the river environment, flushing sediments and nutrients out and distributing them on floodplains.

Taking the last of the peak flow and storing it behind a dam to feed sprawling suburbs, while turning the river into a putrid algae-filled ditch, is not a good starting point.

This is not my vision for the Poudre River or the Northern Colorado region. Instead, my vision is to keep the wild character of the river, meet growing water needs, and retain the farmland and rustic character of the region. We don’t need another river-destroying boondoggle like NISP that creates more urban sprawl. We need intelligent planning, water conservation, recycling, water sharing agreements between cities and farms, and water efficiency upgrades. These solutions have been done in places like Las Vegas where water use has gone down even through growth has skyrocketed. These methods are common and would be significantly cheaper than a billion-dollar dam, paid for by ratepayers.

Only 35 years ago, a 415 ft tall dam was proposed along highway 14 near the mouth of the Poudre Can-yon. The Grey Mountain Reservoir proposal was pushed by Northern Water, the same agency pushing NISP. Thankfully Grey Mountain Dam was rejected by Larimer County, and I hope that NISP will be de-feated too, but only with your help in rejecting the 1041 County Permit.

Please stand with the river and all the constituents in Larimer County that do not want to see our be-loved river put on life support to feed the growth of cities in other Counties.

Thank you,

Preston Brown

Fort Collins, CO.

May 22, 2020 Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Larimer County Planning Staff 200 West Oak Street, Suite 3100 PO Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80521

RE: NISP 1041 Permit Application; Project No. 20-ZONE 2657

Dear Planning Commision, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Kefalas, Commissioner Donnelly, and Planning Staff:

My name is Ken McCullough, I am a life-long resident of Larimer County and a third-generation alfalfa farmer. My 45-acre farm is irrigated with water diverted directly out of the Cache la Poudre River via a canal operated by the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company. This canal is located just east of Taft Hill Road and is downstream of the diversion point for the proposed Glade Reservoir. As someone with deep ties to the agricultural economy and rural culture of the Fort Collins area, I am opposed to the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) being pushed by the Northern CO. Water District. For many reasons, I urge you as Commissioners and County Staff to oppose this God-awful project. Let me explain why I am so strongly opposed to this project and believe you should be too.

My farm diverts about 30-acre feet of water from the river annually, primarily June through September. This is a reliable water right, although my water rights are not senior to many upstream and down-stream users, I have never suffered from an inadequate supply when I needed it most. There have been many years when I don’t get my full 30-acre feet, but my alfalfa operation has always received enough water, even in the driest years of 2000-2006, to get a reliable crop and stay in the black. After review of the NISP project and discussions with others in the agricultural economy, including leadership Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, the NISP project will not benefit me at all, in fact, it could make me lose my farm.

The NISP project does not supply any new additional water to irrigators, agricultural users, or farmers in Larimer County. However, the water diverted into Glade Reservoir would be water that is already allo-cated and exists in paper water rights with farms in Larimer and Weld Counties. A major problem with NISP is that the water to be stored in Glade would need to be purchased in order to be allocated to the project, which it isn’t, and unless Northern Water and NISP customers purchase thousands of acres of farmland, that water will never make it to Glade except for years with incredibly exceptional runoff. Since most of the water NISP is hoping to capture is already allocated for downstream users, NISP would need to purchase the farmland where the water rights are held in order to divert and eventually sell that water to customers. This issue was pointed out in the 2018 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the NISP project produced by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Despite this incredibly prob-lematic detail, Northern Water thinks they can purchase these farms eventually over the next 30-40 years. Frankly, that is unrealistic, this is a billion-dollar pipe dream that won’t likely operate at full capac-ity unless billions of more dollars are sourced to purchase farmland.

The issue I fear most that could jeopardize my farm is if Northern Water begins purchasing farmland and water rights in Larimer and Weld Counties. If farms are purchased for their water rights, the value of the

farmland will skyrocket because the water rights associated with the land will be “developed” and stored behind a dam and made available for urban users instead of kept in the river. This would result in a major negative economic incentive for farmers to sell their land and water rights to NISP in order to “cash out”. Farmers would of course have to sell their land willingly but imagine if a big fat “green car-rot” was dangled in front of a working-class family? We all know what will happen, the pressure to sell the land for cash would be too overwhelming for most, and the multi-generation farms will be turned over for a quick buck.

Developers would then be able to buy the land from NISP and turn the land into homes and subdivi-sions, knowing that the farmland being paved over and has fed the Country for generations and will for-ever be lost.

My biggest fear about NISP is that if it were successful, which is unlikely, it would incentivize the devel-opment of Larimer and Weld Counties rich farmlands and rural charters, resulting in appalling urban sprawl and will contribute to the loss of a stable and reliable agricultural economy. At best NISP would waste billions of dollars and never become operational, but at worst, it would turn our beautiful rich ag-ricultural lands into cement cul-de-sacs and parking lots.

My family and I have weathered through many years of drought, lost revenue, pest diseases, broken equipment, labor disputes, and market swings, but we’ve always kept our heads above water. However, I see NISP as the grim reaper, a sign of danger coming to turn my farm and our neighbors’ farms into lawns and asphalt driveways, forever destroying the traditions we have established in Larimer County.

This is not the future I want to leave my daughter, who will inherit the farm and be the first woman in the family to run it. I want her to have the same lifestyle and traditions that my grandfather had when he came to Larimer County in 1910 to farm alfalfa and corn. As someone who is trying to find their way in this chaotic world and walk tall as a steady and honorable person, I find myself feeling helpless and in utter despair if NISP were built. That’s why I am writing, to urge you to hear my story and see my per-spective as a farmer who wishes the best for his home. Please stand with me and do not issue a 1041 permit for the Northern Integrated Supply Project.

Sincerely,

Ken McCullough

Laporte, Colorado

With boom in visitation comes safety concerns for recreators at Horsetooth Reservoir

Kevin Duggan, Fort Collins Coloradoan Published 7:00 a.m. MT July 3, 2020 | Updated 4:08 p.m. MT July 3, 2020

Fans of Horsetooth Reservoir have taken to heart the message that it’s OK to enjoy the great outdoors during the coronavirus pandemic.

Crowds flocked to the reservoir west of Fort Collins as well as other sites managed by Larimer County Natural Resources as they reopened in spring to boating, camping and hiking. The surge in visitation has carried over to summer.

And with the people have come problems with safety and parking, county officials say.

Parking issues in the Horsetooth area came to a head in mid-June as hundreds of vehicles pulled over along sections of Centennial Drive and county roads 38E and 23 during weekends because the reservoir’s parking lots were full.

Any spot that wasn’t signed “no parking” had a parked car, said Senior Ranger Luke Brough during a recent meeting with the county commissioners.

Pay up: State wildlife areas require licenses for all users (/story/sports/outdoors/2020/06/30/new-rule-requires-colorado-hunting-fishing-license-on-larimer-public-lands-watson-lake-poudre-river/5349078002/)

Vehicles lined both sides of the narrow-shouldered roads, and cars sped through even as cyclists rode along and paddleboarders and kayakers hauled gear across the roads to reach the water.

Given the dangerous circumstances, Brough said “it was a miracle” no one was seriously injured.

“It was a blessing at the end of the day to say no one got ran over,” he said.

Placing 40 temporary no-parking signs along the county roads plus stepped up traffic enforcement by Larimer County sheriff’s deputies and the Colorado State Patrol helped calm the situation.

But the crowding is a sign of things to come as the region grows and more people seek outdoor recreation spots.

Visitation is booming

3 free articles left. Register now.

Page 1 of 4Horsetooth Reservoir sees rise in visitation from boaters, campers

7/14/2020https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2020/07/03/colorado-fort-collins-horsetooth-reservoir-rise-visit...

Cars fill a pullout along Centennial Drive near Horsetooth Reservoir over Memorial Day weekend in Fort Collins, Colo. on Saturday, May 23, 2020. (Photo: Bethany Baker / The Coloradoan )

A visitor count conducted two years ago found 1.2 million people visited the Horsetooth area, which covers the reservoir and Horsetooth Mountain Open Space, said Mark Caughlan, manager of the Horsetooth District, in an interview.

“That’s a tremendous amount of people to run through a fairly small park area,” Caughlan said.

The number seems to have increased. As of mid-June, visitation to the reservoir and open space was up 40% from a year ago, Caughlan said.

On weekends, parking lots at the reservoir are full by 9 a.m. Latecomers might have to wait in line more than an hour to launch their boats. Some weekdays can be as busy as Saturdays and Sundays.

A sign that reads "No Parking" is located along Shore Access Road beside Horsetooth Reservoir in Fort Collins, Colo. on Wednesday, July 1, 2020. (Photo: Bethany Baker / The Coloradoan )

Through mid-June, boat inspectors checking for invasive aquatic species had conducted 8,300 inspections. By that time a year ago, they had done 3,500 inspections.

About half of the visitors have come from outside the county, Caughlan said. Many visitors come from Weld County.

Guide: Summer fun in Larimer County during a pandemic (/story/life/2020/06/23/coronavirus-summer-things-to-do-fort-collins-colorado-covid-19/3235464001/)

Carter Lake near Loveland has seen a similar boom in visitation, as have other recreation facilities along the Front Range.

Buy Photo




At Boyd Lake State Park in Loveland, waits to get in the park and launch a boat can exceed two hours, Park Manager Eric Grey told the commissioners.

The park has 1,200 parking spaces. When those spaces fill, traffic is stacked at entry points, where variable message boards advise drivers on the potential lengths of wait times.

Get the NoCo Asks newsletter in your inbox.

You asked Google, we answered. Get the top stories people are searching.

Traffic coming in from the south backs up along Boise Avenue toward McKee Medical Center. The backup can hamper emergency vehicle access and the ability of residents to park in front of their houses.

“In the past four years, we only had that happen five times,” Grey said. “We had it happen six times this spring.”

Safety issues a concern

In anticipation of the crowding, Larimer County Natural Resources hired its full contingent of 15 seasonal rangers even though the potential impact of the pandemic was not clear. The department has four year-round rangers.

Caughlan said he’s grateful to have the help. On busy days, rangers run from service call to service call, often focusing on traffic mitigation rather than “doing real ranger work.”

“We’re doing the best job we can to address public safety, to address visitor needs, to make sure to protect the resources,” he said. “As you can imagine, it’s difficult at best with these visitation numbers to manage those.”

During major events, such as a June 20 medical emergency at Satanka Bay in which a 36-year-old man suffered a heart attack and died, park resources get spread thin, Brough told the commissioners.

Without rangers keeping track of things, parking lots, boat ramps and other facilities at the reservoir can become chaotic.

Accident: Climber seriously injured in Horsetooth fall (/story/news/2020/06/29/colorado-climber-airlifted-after-fall-near-fort-collins/3279557001/)

“Once that bottle is open, it’s a continuous flow and we can’t contain it,” he said.

Water safety is a major concern at the reservoir, Caughlan said.

Visitors should heed regulations limit swimming to designated areas. Inflatable tubes, mattresses and other toys are not allowed outside swim areas.

In 2019, a record 18 people drowned in Colorado lakes. This year, the state has already seen 15 drownings, he said.

“We just want people to make good decisions and wear life jackets,” he said.

Cliff diving is prohibited at Horsetooth Reservoir, but it still happens. People risk serious injuries from hitting rocks hidden beneath the surface.

The reservoir’s elevation can go down 6 inches in a day as water is pulled from the reservoir for irrigation. People may not realize that a location where they dived before might be 3 to 4 feet shallower a week later, Caughlan said.

Options for crowd management

Your Email




Satanka Bay at Horsetooth Reservoir is crowded with boats and paddleboards in mid-June 2020. (Photo: Mark Caughlan)

With so many people vying to get on the water at Horsetooth Reservoir, officials are looking into options for managing crowds. That could include hiring additional rangers.

Potential remedies include setting up a reservation system for boat launching for entering the park.

“Imagine what it’s going to be like 10 years from now,” Caughlan said. “We’re going to have to start implementing some of the entry processes other agencies are trying.”

Caughlan said Horsetooth hit its capacity about 10 years ago. There is little room for expansion.

Officials plan to “harden” the park’s infrastructure, such as paving roads and parking facilities, to keep up with the impact of having so many visitors.

At the same time, they want to preserve the area’s natural resources to provide good visitor experiences.

Opinion: Ease up on Estes Park tourists (/story/news/2020/06/27/opinion-estes-park-rejects-message-targeting-out-state-tourists/3260113001/)

The demand for recreational facilities has been growing for several years, Grey told the commissioners. The surge this spring and summer continues that trend.

“I think this is kind of a wake-up call,” Grey said. “Our population is not shrinking, and if we don’t have places to send people, we’re going to be seeing these problems moving forward in the next several years.”

Kevin Duggan is a senior columnist and reporter. Contact him at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]). Support his work and that of other Coloradoan journalists by purchasing a digital subscription today (https://offers.coloradoan.com/specialoffer?gps-source=CPNEWS&utm_medium=onsite&utm_source=news&utm_campaign=NEWSROOM&utm_content=KEVINDUGGAN).

Read or Share this story: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2020/07/03/colorado-fort-collins-horsetooth-reservoir-rise-visitation-boaters-camping/3254523001/

PayPalDiscover our money pools

Ad

SIGN UP




7/14/2020 co.larimer.co.us Mail - NISP


Rob Helmick <[email protected]>

NISP1 message

David Marvin <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:10 AMTo: [email protected]

Mr. Helmic,

The NISP pipeline may be routed through Cooperslew Open Space, immediately adjacent to Boxelder Estates in LarimerCounty. I have attached a letter that addresses our concerns. I have also sent an email with the letter to the PlanningCommission Board.

Let me know if you have any questions.

-- Dave Marvin

letter to planning commission on NISP.pdf45K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=5ad25453e9&view=att&th=1734e4e5d7b9bf99&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_kcm6xrgt0&safe=1&zw

To: Larimer County Planning Commission and Larimer County Commissioners From: Cooperslew Open Space Association Regarding: NISP Pipeline Date: July 14, 2020 Dear Planning Commission Board and Commissioners, Cooperslew Open Space Association is a Colorado non-profit entity that was formed for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining as Open Space a narrow five-acre strip of land immediately adjacent to the east side of Boxelder Estates, Larimer County, Colorado. The Association recently received notice that a portion of the pipeline for NISP could be placed within Cooperslew Open Space along its entire length from north to south. The construction of the pipeline within Cooperslew Open Space is of particular concern, as follows:

1. When you consider the surface disturbance that will result from installing a 54-inch pipeline, most of Cooperslew Open Space will be impacted. Consequently, the enjoyable use of Cooperslew by its current members (pedestrian use and riding horses) will cease, both during construction and potentially for a long time after reclamation.

2. Reestablishing grasses on areas disturbed by construction will be a slow process, particularly

since Cooperslew Open Space is not irrigated. This will further hinder/delay use of the area by members and may also impose an extraordinary expense on Cooperslew Open Space Association to control weeds until revegetation is successful, and to amend and reseed areas where it is not.

3. Drainage tiles underlay the entire Boxelder Estates subdivision, and from what we know,

Cooperslew Open Space. Pipeline construction has the potential to damage a portion of these tiles and thereby negatively affect drainage and potentially the groundwater irrigation wells in the area.

4. Construction noise and dust will impact Boxelder Estates, especially the Boxelder properties

immediately adjacent to Cooperslew Open Space.

5. Until revegetation efforts are successful, the aesthetics of Cooperslew Open Space will change dramatically because the current healthy grassland will be substantially disturbed by construction activity. This will be of major consequence to Boxelder homeowners immediately adjacent to the Open Space and could negatively affect property values.

6. The roads within Boxelder Estates are private and maintained by the Boxelder Estates

Homeowners Association. If NISP plans to use these roads for access to the pipeline ROW during construction, the impact to traffic flow and road surfaces in the subdivision would be substantial and unacceptable.

Thank you for considering our concerns. Respectfully, David W. Marvin President, Cooperslew Open Space Association

Documents Outlining Project Mitigation

NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN

A1

APPENDIX A – FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN SUMMARY TABLES

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o

f mitigated effects; see

text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation

Riparian Veg/Wetlands

Special Status Species

Stream Morphology

Terrestrial Wildlife

Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Aqua

tic Life

and

Stream M

orph

ology

AG‐01

Stream

Channel

and Habitat

Improvemen

t Plan

Fund stream channel and habitat

improvemen

t plan

$1,000,000a

XX

XX

XX

XX

AG‐02

Stream

Channel

and Habitat

Improvemen

ts

Construct stream channel

improvemen

ts (2.4 m

iles)

$1,800,000b

XX

XX

XX

X

AG‐03

Poudre River

Adaptive

Managem

ent

Program

Implemen

t and fund Poudre River

Adaptive M

anagem

ent Program

in

coordination with other Poudre River

stakeh

olders

Enhanced and accelerated

channel

restoration, aquatic habitat, riparian

vegetation, riverine special status

species, tem

perature and DO

concentrations

$5,930,000a

XX

XX

XX

X

AG‐04

Poudre Valley

Canal Diversion

Structure

Reconstruction

Reconstruct Poudre Valley Canal with

improvemen

ts in

sed

imen

t diversion,

fish passage, and boating safety

Minim

ization of reduced sed

imen

t

transport capabilities; enhance Poudre

River connectivity for aquatic

migration, enhance boater safety

$300,000b

XX

XX

X

Compen

sation for accelerated

degradation of channel

geomorphology, increased flooding

risk downstream

of I‐25, red

uced

Poudre River flows, red

uced aquatic

habitat, red

uced water availability for

riparian vegetation, red

uced habitat

for riverine special status species,

increased water tem

perature and DO

concentrations; Enhanced and

accelerated channel restoration,

aquatic habitat, riparian vegetation,

riverine special status species,

temperature and DO concentrations

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P

lan Summary Table ‐ B

y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

A2

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

AG‐05

Multi‐Objective

Diversion

Structure Retrofits

Construct m

ulti‐objective diversion

structure retrofits that include fish

passage, low flow conveyance and

flow m

onitoring capabilities (4 sites)

Enhance Poudre River connectivity for

aquatic m

igration, m

onitor and

administer flow releases

$1,200,000b

XX

X

AG‐06

Glade Reservoir

Fishery

Establish and m

aintain recreational

cool w

ater fishery at Glade Resevoir

Enhance regional recreational

opportunities

$4,070,000a

XX

X

AG‐07

SPWCP Diversion

Construction

Construct SPWCP diversion to avoid

fish entrainmen

t and allow fish

passage

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of

entrainmen

t of fish in

SPWCP

diversion structure and decreased

fish

migration past diversion

$300,000b

XX

X

AG‐08

Galeton Reservoir

Native Fish

Rearing

Make Galeton Reservoir available to

CPW for raising native warmwater fish

for reintroduction

Compen

sation for reduced habitat

availability and quality for native

warmwater fish

$100,000a

XX

AG‐09

Galeton Reservoir

Fish Screening

N/A

6

Stream

flow Com

mitm

ents

FW‐01

Avoid M

unroe

Canal Diversions

Avoid NISP‐related

diversions through

Munroe Canal

Avoidance of reduced Poudre River

flows, red

uced aquatic habitat,

reduced river‐based

boating days,

increased water quality concentrations

5c

XX

XX

XX

A3

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

FW‐02

Curtail D

iversions

for Non‐

Consumptive

Water Rights

Curtail N

ISP diversions for existing

Poudre River non‐consumptive water

rights (5‐50 cfs), including those for

Bellvue Fish Hatchery at W

atson Lake

5c

XX

XX

XX

X

FW‐03

Summer and

Winter Diversion

Curtailm

ents

Curtail diversions when

flow is less

than

50 cfs during the summer, and 25

cfs during the winter

5c

XX

XX

FW‐04

Conveyance

Refinem

ent ‐

Poudre River

Intake

Convey 18 cfs (winter) to 25 cfs

(summer) of deliveries to NISP

participants by releasing from Glade

Reservoir to the Poudre River, and

rediverting at Tim

nath Inlet; prior to

full buildout, convey a minim

um of

35% of NISP deliveries through

Poudre

River Intake

$24,520,000b

XX

XX

XX

X

FW‐05

Poudre River Flow

Augm

entation

Program

Assist with securing Flow

Augm

entation Protection for the

Poudre River

5c

XX

XX

XX

X

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of

reduced Poudre River flows below

Poudre Valley Canal diversion, red

uced

aquatic habitat, red

uced water

availability for riparian vegetation,

reduced habitat for riverine special

status species, increased water quality

concentrations and DO, red

uced river

recreational value, nonuse value

impacts; enhancemen

t of low flows in

conveyance refinem

ent reach

A4

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

FW‐06

Glade Reservoir

Enlargem

ent for

Water Quality

Purposes

N/A

6

FW‐07

Ram

p Hansen

Supply Canal

Releases

Work with CPW and water

commissioner to ram

p Hansen Supply

Canal releases

Enhancemen

t of aquatic habitat

5c

XX

XX

FW‐08

Peak Flow

Operations

Program

Curtail SPWCP exchanges for peak 3

days each year.

Bypass Grey Mountain water rights

based

on Tier (see

text for details):

• Tier 1 (>76% full and likely to fill) ‐

bypass during peak 3 days each year

• Tier 2 (>76% full, not likely to fill;

>50% full) ‐ bypass during peak 2 days

to m

eet 2,800 cfs for Tier 2a; bypass

up to 1,200 ac‐ft for Tier 2b

• Tier 3 (<50% full) ‐ no bypass, excep

t

bypass for peak 1 day if 2,800 cfs flow

trigger has not been m

et in

previous 3

years

(see

text for detailed tier

classifications and actions)

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of

reduced sed

imen

t transport capability,

reduced aquatic habitat

5c

XX

XX

X

FW‐09

Ram

p NISP

Diversions at PVC

Limit changes in NISP diversions at the

PVC headgate to no m

ore than

500 cfs

in 24 hours.

Avoidance and m

inim

inzation of

impacts on aquatic species.

5c

XX

X

A5

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

Noxious W

eeds

NW‐01

Noxious and

Invasive W

eed

Control Plan

Develop and im

plemen

t noxious weed

control plan during construction

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of

potential spread

of noxious weeds

during construction activities.

5c

XX

X

Recreatio

nRC‐01

Glade Reservoir

Recreation

Allow public access to Glade Reservoir

fishery; investigate opportunities for

recreation m

anagem

ent and develop

managem

ent plan that m

ay include

motorized boating, fishing and

camping

Enhanced regional recreational

opportunities

$200,000a

XX

X

RC‐02

Glade Reservoir

and State Land

Hunting Access

Provide replacemen

t access to State

Trust Lands near Glade Reservoir and

allow hunting access adjacent to Glade

Reservoir

Compen

sation for inundation of

existing access to State Trust Lands

west of Glade Reservoir, red

uced

hunter access and gam

e harvest near

GladeReservoir

5c

XX

XX

RC‐03

Glade Reservoir

Recreation and

Wildlife Adaptive

Managem

ent Plan Provide habitat for affected

wildlife

species while allowing the public to

have reasonable access for recreation

throughout the area

Enhanced regional recreational

opportunities

5c

XX

XX

RC‐04

Mitani‐To

kuyasu

State Wildlife Area

Rep

lace facilities at Mitani‐To

kuyasu

State Wildlife Area

$50,000b

XX

X

RC‐05

Land Acquisition

in Confluen

ce

Area

Provide partial funding for land

acquisition in

Poudre ‐ South Platte

confluen

ce area

$500,000a

XX

X

Compen

sation for loss of land and

impact on facilities at Mitani‐To

kuyasu

State Wildlife Area due to construction

of SPWCP infrastructure, w

ildlife

impacts at Galeton Reservoir

A6

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

RC‐06

Glade Reservoir

Poudre River

Recreator Parking

Construct parking lot at Glade

Reservoir complex for use by Poudre

River recreators

Compen

sation for drive‐by traffic at

Ted’s Place; enhanced regional

recreational opportunities

$40,000b

XX

XX

RC‐07

Glade Reservoir

Visitor's Cen

ter

Construct Visitor’s Cen

ter at Glade

Reservoir

Compen

sation for loss of prime

farm

land, geo

logic construction

disturbance, other gen

eral m

inor

environmen

tal effects

$940,000a

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ripa

rian Ve

getatio

nRV‐01

Riparian

Vegetation ‐

Cottonwood

Regen

eration

Areas

Develop cottonwood regen

eration

areas in 3 specific reaches (58 acres)

and adjacent to channel and habitat

improvemen

t reaches (2.4 m

iles)

Compen

sation for accelerated decline

of plains cottonwood, increased water

temperatures

$130,000b

XX

XX

RV‐02

Riparian

Vegetation ‐

Channel

Improvemen

ts

Reconnect channel to floodplain in

channel and habitat im

provemen

t

reaches, re‐establish connection with

backw

ater sloughs in W

indsor area

Compen

sation for adverse effects on

plant communities sensitive to alluvial

groundwater levels

$280,000b

XX

XX

XX

Special Status S

pecies

SS‐01

Preble's

N/A 7

SS‐02

Bald Eagle

Conduct surveys for bald eagles and

nests; m

eet CPW buffer req

uirem

ents;

take actions according to Bald Eagle

and Golden

Eagle Protection Act and

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MTB

A)

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of, and

compen

sation for, potential effects to

bald eagle

5c

XX

XX

SS‐03

Colorado Butterfly

Plant

Conduct surveys of Colorado

butteryfly plant for 2 years prior to

construction, implemen

t conservation

measures if needed

Avoidance of and compen

sation for

potential effects to Colorado butterfly

plant

5c

XX

X

A7

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

SS‐04

Ute Ladies'‐

Tresses Orchid

Conduct surveys for Ute ladies’‐tresses

orchid for 2 years prior to

construction, implemen

t conservation

measures if needed

Avoidance of and compen

sation for

potential effects to Ute ladies’‐tresses

orchid

5c

XX

X

SS‐05

Platte River Target

Species

Offset dep

letions through

mem

bership

in SPWRAP

Compen

sation for effects to Platte

River target species

$1,550,000b

XX

SS‐06

Black‐Footed

Ferret

Reevaluate and resurvey prairie dog

colonies potentially im

pacted during

construction

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of, and

compen

sation for, potential im

pacts

to black‐footed ferret

5c

XX

XX

SS‐07

Black‐Tailed

Prairie Dog

Relocate black‐tailed prairie dogs prior

to construction, follow CDOT

guidelines

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of

potential im

pacts to black‐tailed

prairie dog

5c

XX

X

SS‐08

Swift Fox

Survey for sw

ift fox den

sites,

coordinate conservation m

easures

with CPW

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of, and

compen


pacts

to swift fox

5c

XX

XX

SS‐09

Burrowing Owl

Resurvey prairie dog colonies for

proposed disturbances, coordinate

with CPW for any burrowing owls

found

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of, and

compen


pacts

to burrowing owl

5c

XX

XX

SS‐10

Other Riparian

Species

Implemen

t proposed m

itigation for

wetlands and riparian habitat to

ben

efit these species.

Compen

sation for potential im

pacts to

common gartersnake, northern

leopard frog, smokey‐eyed

brown

butterfly, two‐spotted

skipper,

American

currant

5c

XX

XX

SS‐11

Bell's Twinpod

Conduct surveys in potential habitat

prior to construction, reestablish

populations where im

pacts are

unavoidable

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of, and

compen


pacts

to Bell’s twinpod

5c

XX

XX

SS‐12

Townsend's Big‐

Eared Bat

Protect entrance to exisiting cave

Avoidance of potential im

pacts to

Townsend's Big‐Eared

Bat

5c

XX

A8

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

Terrestrial and

Avian

Wild

life

TW‐01

U.S. 287 ‐ Big

Gam

e Underpass

and Fen

cing

Construct one big‐gam

e underpass,

and iden

tify other crossings that could

potential be designed

to

accommodate wildlife movemen

t

$500,000b

XX

X

TW‐02

U.S. 287 ‐ Big

Gam

e Movemen

t

Adaptive

Managem

ent Plan

Monitor road

kills for 10 years and

implemen

t adaptive m

anagem

ent

actions as needed

$280,000a

XX

X

TW‐03

Migrating Birds

and Raptors ‐

Surveys and No

Work Zones

Survey and m

ark active nests to

establish no‐w

ork zones during

breading seasons in

accordance with

MBTA

5c

XX

XX

TW‐04

Migrating Birds

and Raptors ‐

Vegetation

Clearing

Conduct vegetation clearing during

nonbreed

ing season, w

hen

possible in

accordance with M

BTA

5c

XX

XX

TW‐05

Migrating Birds

and Raptors ‐

Buffer Zones

Follow CPW recommen

ded

buffer

zones and seasonal restrictions within

certain distances of nest sites for

raptors in

accordance with M

BTA

.

Follow M

BTA

regulations and permits

for inciden

tal or unavoidable takes

5c

XX

XX

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of, and

compen

sation for, potential effects on

migrating birds, raptors, amphibians,

reptiles and other wildlife

Compen

sation for potential im

pacts to

big gam

e migration in

the area

inundated

by Glade Reservoir and

affected

by U.S. 287 realignmen

t;

enhanced opportunities for big‐gam

e

migration across U.S. 287 corridor,

enhanced habitat protection west of

Glade Reservoir

A9

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

TW‐06

Wildlife Habitat ‐

Glade Reservoir

Conservation

Mitigation

Conserve approximately 1,080 acres of

land owned

or required

for purchase

surrounding Glade Reservoir as wildlife

habitat using a conservation easem

ent

or other legal instrumen

t; see

TW‐07

for additional commitmen

ts

Compen

sation for loss of winter range

big‐gam

e habitat at Glade Reservoir

$2,920,000b

XX

X

TW‐07

Wildlife Habitat ‐

Glade Reservoir

Conservation

Enhancemen

t

Acquire and conserve approximately

300 acres of additional land

surrounding Glade Reservoir as wildlife

habitat using a conservation easem

ent

or other legal instrumen

t; engage in

conserving additional land west of

Glade for big‐gam

e habitat, allow use

of Glade conserved

land for GOCO

match, and consent to GOCO

requirem

ents

Enhancemen

t of regional big‐gam

e

habitat at Glade Reservoir

$810,000a

XX

X

Water Qua

lity

WQ‐01

Glade Reservoir ‐

Multi‐Level O

utlet

Tower

Construct m

ulti‐level outlet tower at

Glade Reservoir to convey Poudre

River releases

$1,000,000b

XX

XX

X

WQ‐02

Glade Reservoir ‐

Release Structure

Aeration

Construct Glade Reservoir release

structures with baffling to provide

aeration

$200,000b

XX

X

Avoidance and m

inim

ization of

potential increases in tem

perature,

DO, copper, m

anganese, nutrients and

selenium, and other conservative

constituen

ts especially during times of

reduced flows; enhancemen

t of

temperature and DO (through

introduction of cooler water) in

Poudre River

A10

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

WQ‐03

Eaton Draw W

ater

Quality Wetlands

Construct approximately 10 acres of

wetlands in Eaton Draw to red

uce

ambient water quality concentrations

in Lower Poudre River

Compen

sation for potential increased

WQ concentrations in Poudre River

near Greeley , increased

sedim

entation in

lower Poudre, direct

impacts to 0.3 acres of wetlands at

Galeton Reservoir; enhancemen

t of

WQ concentrations in Poudre River

near Greeley

$1,340,000b

XX

XX

WQ‐04

Stream

flow and

Water Quality

Monitoring

Establish/enhance streamflow and

water quality monitoring network

Compen

sation for general water

quality effects, m

onitoring required

to

implemen

t provisions of this

mitigation plan

$2,310,000b

XX

XX

XX

WQ‐05

Coalition for the

Poudre River

Watershed

Provide funding and participate in

Coalition for the Poudre River

Watershed

Enhancemen

t of general water quality,

aquatics, vegetation, noxious weeds,

recreation, riparian resources

$750,000b

XX

XX

XX

WQ‐06

Stream

Temperature

Mitigation

Red

uce or curtail N

ISP diversions if and

as necessary to prevent new

or

exacerbated

tem

perature standard

exceed

ances

Avoidance and m

inim

zation of

potential increases in stream

temperature, D

O

5c

XX

XX

WQ‐07

Mercury

Bioaccumulation

Mitigation

Support m

onitoring and m

anagem

ent

by CPW, provide Fish Consumption

Advisory Signage as needed

Mitigation for potential

bioaccumulation of mercury in

fish

tissue in Glade Reservoir and Glade

Reservoir forebay

$220,000a

XX

XX

X

Total

$53,240,000

Notes:

1 Green

shaded

rows indicate that the measure is entirely an enhancemen

t mesaure. Green

shading in Enhancemen

t column only indicates the mitigation m

easure has an enhancm

ent

componen

t.

A11

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Mitigatio

nRe

sources Involved

Measure

No.

Mitigatio

n an

d/or

Enha

ncem

ent

Measure 1

Mitigatio

n an

d/or Enh

ancemen

t Co

mmitm

ent 2

Resource Con

side

ratio

ns

(see

Tab

le A.2 fo

r com

plete list o


text fo

r de

scrip

tion of enh

anced resources)

Capitalized

Co

st 3

Cost

Note

4

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation

Enhancement 1

Aquatic Life

Recreation



Stream Morphology


Water Quality

Wetlands

Other

Table A1

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y Mitigatio

n Ac

tion Ite

m

7 Because Preble’s M

eadow Jumping Mouse habitat m

itigation is covered under fed

eral statute with specific jurisdictional req

uirem

ents, these mitigation activities are not further covered

under this State FWMEP.

6 AC‐09 and FW‐06 were not carried forw

ard to final m

itigation plans ‐ see text for explanation.

3 Capitalized

cost is the sum of the capital cost plus any annual operations and m

aintenance costs capitalized

over the life of the commitmen

t, or 50 years for those commitmen

ts that are

perpetual.

2 The description of mitigation commitmen

ts is at a summary level ‐ see

text for details of the commitmen

t. The text shall take preceden

t over any discrep

ancies between this table and

the text.

a = cost is a firm not‐to‐exceed m

onetary commitmen

t in this amount, see

text for details.

b = approximate im

plemen

tation or construction cost of this commitmen

t

c = im

plemen

tation cost has not been quantified

.5 Im

plemen

tation cost has not been quantified

.

4 Cost notes:

A12

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects

Alternative 2 (Propo

sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW

CP – Reclamation Ac

tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

1Surface Water

Poud

re River

‐ Average diversion of 35

,100

AFY at Poudre Valley Canal (Poudre Valley Canal) to Glade Reservoir.

‐ Flows in 1.48 m

ile river reach between Poudre Valley Canal and Hansen Supply Canal would be greater (average 8,200 AFY) than

No Reclamation Action Option.

‐ Due to exchanges with CB‐T, average red

uction of 7,700 AFY in

releases to Poudre River at Hansen Supply Canal.

‐ Flows in Poudre River downstream

of Hansen Supply Canal essen

tially sam

e for Reclamation Action and No Reclamation Action

Options due to releases from Glade Reservoir for Reclamation Action Option.

‐ Diversions would primarily red

uce peak flows during May and June in years with average to above average flows.

‐ Red

uced flows between Poudre Valley Canal and Larim

er‐W

eld and New

Cache headgates due to direct flow and storage

exchanges during April‐October (irrigation season).

‐ Flow augm

entation program

would release water from Glade Reservoir to m

aintain flow of 10 cfs at downstream

side of Larimer‐

Weld Canal headgate from November 1 through

April 30 and Sep

tember 1 through

Sep

tember 30.

South Platte River

‐ Average diversion of 28

,400

AFY just downstream

of confluen

ce of Poudre and South Platte Rivers.

‐ Diversions would be lim

ited

to a m

axim

um of 200 cfs and could occur in all months when

water rights are in

priority.

‐ Change in

flow would be less than

10% of average monthly flows at Kersey Gage.

Horsetooth Re

servoir

Variations in water levels would be similar to existing conditions.

Carter Lake

Variations in water levels would be similar to existing conditions.

FW‐01; FW‐02;

FW‐03; FW‐04;

FW‐05; FW‐08

2Nutrie

nts

Ammonia and total phosphorus increases may be measurable below W

WTPs due to red

uced river flows, m

ay exceed standard at

some locations in Segmen

t 12 of Poudre River and 1b on South Platte River (standards are exceed

ed under Curren

t Conditions for

these nutrients).

WQ‐03; W

Q‐04

3Metals

Increases and decreases in

metal concentrations due to flow changes may not be measurable. Med

ium chance of copper and

dissolved

manganese standard exceedance in

Segmen

t 10 of Poudre River. Med

ium chance of exceed

ing total phosphorus

standard and a high potential for continued

exceedance of selenium standard in

Segmen

t 11 of Poudre River. Iron, ammonia, total

phosphorus, and selen

ium concentrations curren

tly exceed

standards in Segmen

t 12 of Poudre River and likely to rem

ain above

standards. Iron, total phosphorus, and sulfate concentrations remain above standard in

Segmen

t 1b of South Platte River.

Ammonia and dissolved

manganese have a med

ium chance of exceed

ing standard in

Segmen

t 1b of South Platte River.

FW‐03; W

Q‐01;

WQ‐04; W

Q‐07

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

Surface Water

Surface Water Qua

lity

Poud

re and

Sou

th Platte River C

onstitu

ents

A13

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

4Temperature

Adverse effects on stream tem

perature possible in

sen

sitive reaches of Segm

ent 10 and Segmen

t 11 including key months of July

and August. Flow augm

entation program

would provide net ben

efit in

parts of Segm

ents 10 and 11 (from 0.37 m

iles upstream

of

Larimer County Canal to Tim

nath Inlet headgate) in key m

onths of March and Sep

tember.

AG‐01; A

G‐02;

FW‐04; W

Q‐01;

WQ‐02; W

Q‐04;

WQ‐06

5

Dissolved Oxygen

Diversions at Poudre Valley Canal could exacerbate occasionally observed

DO issues in

July and August in

Segmen

t 11. Flow

augm

entation would likely provide DO ben

efit November through

April and in

Sep

tember. Aeration of releases from Glade

Reservoir should also help m

aintain DO concentrations within standards.

WQ‐02; W

Q‐04

6Crop

Yield

Elevated

salinity and selen

ium concentrations in Galeton Reservoir releases to canals would result in

decrease in crop yields where

water used for irrigation.

SE‐01; SE‐02

7

Chan

ge in flow

regime

Mean flow red

uced 20‐30

% m

id‐April to m

id‐July. D

uration of flows at or above 1,000 cfs red

uced 30‐35

%.

2% flow red

uced 10‐30%. 10‐year flood peak reduced up to 21%

.

Lapo

rte Re

ach:

1, 2, and 5% exceedance flows reduced 11‐26

%. Lower flows (10 and 25% flows) red

uced 16‐28

%.

Fort Collins R

each: Winter low flows increased up to 35% from flow augm

entation. 1, 2, and 5% flows reduced 13

‐47%

. Lower

flows (10 and 25% flows) red

uced 12‐41

%.

2‐year flood red

uced 19‐36

% in

Fort Collins and upper Tim

nath reaches. 25‐year flood red

uced up to 10%

in Fort Collins.

Timna

th, W

indsor, G

reeley Upstream, G

reeley Cha

nnelize

d, and

Greeley Reaches: Im

pact greatest on 5% exceedance flows,

reduced 25‐42

%. Impact on floods up to 25‐year flood reasonably uniform

, with 2, 10, and 25‐year flood peaks all reduced 16‐21

%.

AG‐01; A

G‐02;

FW‐08

Chan

nel M

orph

ology an

d Sedimen

t Transpo

rt

Larim

er‐W

eld an

d New

Cache

Can

al

A14

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

8Fining

of surficial m

aterial

At 55% of cross sections duration of flows that flush river bed

fines red

uced 5‐50%

. For remaining 45% of cross sections no flushing

or no change in

duration of flushing flows.

Lapo

rte Re

ach: 15 flushing even

ts under Curren

t Conditions lasting 132 days total red

uced to 10

flushing even

ts lasting 94

days

total (26‐year period of record)

Fort Collins R

each: 23 flushing even

ts under Curren

t Conditions lasting 325 days total red

uced to 1

6 flushing even

ts lasting 22

2 days total (26‐year period of record)

Timna

th, W

indsor, G

reeley Upstream, G

reeley Cha

nnelize

d, and

Greeley Reaches: 18 flushing even

ts under Curren

t Conditions

lasting 292 days total for Windsor reach red

uced to 19

flushing even

ts lasting 21

8 days total (26‐year period of record)

AG‐01; A

G‐02;

AG‐04; FW‐08

9Loss of m

orph

olog

ic

complexity

Duration of bed

material m

ovemen

t reduced on average 21%

and up to 40%

in some locations. Tem

poral variability of habitats

reduced throughout. Spatial variability red

uced downstream

of I‐25.

Lapo

rte Re

ach: Channel has barely responded

to historical changes in flow regim

e over last two cen

turies. A

ny change predicted to

be similarly constrained

by lack of sedim

ent supply.

Fort Collins R

each: Effective discharge of 2,000 cfs rem

ains unchanged from Curren

t Conditions hydrology. Channel capacity similar

unless quantity or size distribution of available sed

imen

t changes. Curren

t channel still undergoing slow adjustmen

t in response to

historical changes in flow regim

e. Any change would be increm

ental to that existing response.

Timna

th, W

indsor, G

reeley Upstream, G

reeley Cha

nnelize

d, and

Greeley Reaches: Complexity of in‐channel m

orphologic features

already low in

reaches downstream

of I‐25 from sand dep

osition smothering bed

and red

ucing magnitude and frequen

cy of pool

and riffle sequen

ces. Further channel contraction would exacerbate this condition.

AG‐01; A

G‐02;

FW‐08

A15

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

10

Chan

nel con

tractio

n

Sedim

ent transport potential red

uced throughout river. Capability of river to m

ove bed

material red

uced 12

‐31%

(upstream

of I‐

25) and 8‐18%

(downstream

of I‐25). Propen

sity toward channel contraction throughout system

but mainly downstream

of I‐25

where material of relevant size fraction available for dep

osition and bio‐geo

morphic feedback loops would prevail. Likely

acceleration of channel contraction would lead

to increased frequen

cy of flooding downstream

of 1‐25.

Lapo

rte Re

ach:

Channel capacity similar to Curren

t Conditions unless quantity or size distribution of available sed

imen

t changes.

Fort Collins R

each: Channel capacity similar under Curren

t Conditions unless quantity or size distribution of available sed

imen

t

changes.

Timna

th Reach: Channel contraction would occur as exten

sion of processes already underway by dep

osition on bars, islands,

riffles, and channel m

argins.

AG‐01; R

V‐02;

FW‐08

11

South Platte River

Minor effects to river m

orphology and sed

imen

t transport. Channel‐form

ing flows (1.5‐year peak flows of 3,858 cfs) would be

reduced from ~ 3% to less than

1% of the time. Scouring flows eq

uivalen

t to 25‐year peak flows would continue to occur.

N/A

12

Groun

d Water

Minim

al effects to ground water from red

uced river flows and associated

changes in river stage. Greatest changes would be within

50 feet of Poudre River. M

inim

al seepage from reservoir to alluvium could increase water availability to vegetation. No im

pacts on

ground water quality.

13

Geology

Disturbance from construction activities and excavation of sand, gravel, and bed

rock for Glade Dam

and Galeton Dam

embankm

ents, foundation, and rip rap. Excavation and rem

oval of Paleo

zoic and M

esozoic sed

imen

tary rocks associated

with the

U.S. 287 realignmen

t. excavation of sand, gravel, and bed

rock for Glade Dam

and Galeton Dam

embankm

ents, foundation, and rip

rap.

Excavation and rem

oval of Paleo

zoic and M

esozoic sed

imen

tary rocks associated

with the U.S. 287 realignmen

t.

GC‐04; R

C‐07

14

Prim

e Farm

land

if Irrig

ated

(acres lost)

686

RC‐07

15

Perm

anent impa

cts o

n all

vegetatio

n (acres)

3,895

N/A

Groun

d Water

Geo

logy

Vegetatio

n

Prim

e Farm

land

if Irrig

ated

(acres lost)

A16

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

16

Perm

anent impa

cts o

n na

tive plan

t com

mun

ities

(acres)

2,857

N/A

17

Irrigated

agricultural lan

ds

dry up

(acres)

0N/A

18

Noxious W

eeds

Increased distribution and cover by noxious weeds due to construction disturbance. Periods of prolonged low water levels at Glade

and Galeton Reservoirs would allow for noxious weeds to colonize the drawdown area to construction disturbance. Periods of

prolonged low water levels at Glade and Galeton Reservoirs would allow for noxious weeds to colonize the drawdown area.

NW‐01

19

Wetland

s (perm

anent

direct effe

cts) (a

cres)

44

WL‐01; W

L‐02;

WQ‐03

20

Wetland

s (tempo

rary

direct effe

cts) (a

cres)

8GC‐01

21

Wetland

s from Irrig

ation

Dry‐up

(perman

ent

indirect effe

cts) (a

cres)

0N/A

22

Wetland

s from Pou

dre

Valley Ca

nal lining

(perman

ent ind

irect

effects) (a

cres)

0

N/A

23

Wetland

s from Pou

dre

River flow cha

nges

(indirect effe

cts) (a

cres)

9RV‐01; R

V‐02

24

Waters (perm

anent d

irect

effects) (a

cres)

12

GC‐01

25

Waters (tempo

rary dire

ct

e ffects) (a

cres)

3GC‐01

26

Ripa

rian shrublan

d an

d woo

dlan

d (perman

ent

direct effe

cts) (a

cres)

112 (inundation and construction)

AG‐01; R

V‐01

27

Ripa

rian shrublan

d an

d woo

dlan

d(tempo

rary

direct effe

cts) (a

cres)

8AG‐01; R

V‐01;

GC‐01

Noxious W

eeds

Wetland

s and

Other W

aters

Ripa

rian Re

sources

A17

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

28

Permanen

t – 3,995

29

Temporary – 782

30

Permanen

t – 3,789

31

Temporary – 647

32

Winter Range Permanen

t

Local Effect (%

)16

33

Permanen

t – 228

34

Temporary – 173

35

Permanen

t – 70

36

Temporary – 152

37

Permanen

t – 2,057

38

Temporary – 582

39

Permanen

t – 416

40

Temporary – 192

41


t

Local Effect (%

)8

42

Permanen

t – 421

43

Temporary – 203

44

Permanen

t – 2,256

45

Temporary – 335

46

Permanen

t – 2,256

47

Temporary – 295

48


t

Local Effect (%

)25

49

Permanen

t – 2,254

50

Temporary – 256

51

Permanen

t – 1,928

52

Temporary – 204

53

Winter Concentration Area

Permanen

t Local Effect (%

)31

TW‐01; TW‐02;

TW‐06

RC‐05

RC‐05

Severe W

inter Range

(acres)


(acres)

Pron

ghorn

White‐Tailed De

er

Overall Range (acres)

Winter Range (acres)

Concentration Area (acres)


Severe W

inter Range

(acres)


(acres)

Wild

life

Mule De

er Overall Range (acres)



A18

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

54

Permanen

t – 2,043

55

Temporary – 386

56

57

58

Permanen

t – 186

59

Temporary – 101

60

Permanen

t – 2

61

Temporary – 8

62

Permanen

t – 124

63

Temporary – 75

64


Permanen

t Local Effect (%

)13

65

Migratory bird

s and

raptors, amph

ibians and

reptiles, and

other wildlife

(acres)

Loss of 44

acres of wetlands, 12 acres of aquatic habitat, 537

acres of shrublands, 29 acres of riparian woodlands, and 2,929

acres

of grassland habitat.

Mortality and nest destruction could occur during construction.

Temporary im

pacts include disturbance of vegetation and increased noise and human

presence.

Red

uctions in streamflows on Poudre and South Platte Rivers not anticipated

to cause loss of riparian and/or wetland habitat. 9

acres of wetland habitat along banks could experience change in

species composition.

TW‐03; TW‐04;

TW‐05

66

Segm

ent A

Fish: Minor adverse im

pact to adult trout due to red

uced runoff flows, negligible im

pacts to other species/life stages

Macroinverteb

rates: M

inor adverse im

pact with changes in species composition due to red

uced peak flows

Periphyton and Plants: Minor adverse im

pact with increases in filamen

tous green algae

due to red

uced peak flows

AG‐01; A

G‐02;

AG‐04; FW‐02;

FW‐03; FW‐04;

FW‐08; FW‐09

TW‐01; TW‐02;

TW‐06

Elk


(acres)


Overall Range Permanen

t

Local Effect (%

)18


Severe W

inter Range

(acres)

Migratory bird

s and

raptors, amph

ibians and

reptiles, and

other wildlife

Aqua

tic Biological R

esou

rces

Poud

re River Fish

, Macroinvertebrates, Periphyton, and

Plants

A19

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

67

Segm

ent B

Fish: Minor to m

oderate ben

eficial impact to m

ost species of fish with augm

ented low flows

Macroinverteb

rates: Ben

eficial impact to abundance, m

inor adverse im


uced

peak flows



tous green algae

due to red

uced peak flows

AG‐01; FW‐03;

FW‐04; FW‐05;

RV‐01; R

V‐02;

FW‐08; FW‐09

68

Segm

ent C

Fish: Negligible im

pact to m

ost species, m

oderate adverse im

pact to trout with red

uced runoff flows and higher tem

peratures

Macroinverteb

rates: M

inor adverse im


uced peak flows



tous green algae

due to red

uced peak flows

AG‐01; FW‐02;

FW‐03; FW‐08;

FW‐09

69

Segm

ent D


pact for some species with red

uctions in runoff flows, negligible im

pact for others

Macroinverteb

rates: M

inor adverse im


uced peak flows



tous green algae

due to red

uced peak flows

AG‐01; FW‐03;

RV‐01; R

V‐02;

FW‐08; FW‐09

70

Segm

ent E


pact for most species with red

uced runoff flows

Macroinverteb

rates: M

inor adverse im


uced peak flows



tous green algae

due to red

uced peak flows

AG‐01; FW‐03;

FW‐08; FW‐09

71

Segm

ent F


pact for most species with red

uced runoff flows

Macroinverteb

rates: M

inor adverse im


uced peak flows



tous green algae

due to red

uced peak flows

AG‐01; FW‐03;

FW‐08; FW‐09

72

Negligible

AG‐07

South Platte River Fish

, Macroinvertebrates, Periphyton, and

Plants

A20

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

73

Preble’s m

eado

w jumping

mou

se

Permanen

t loss of 53

acres of known Preble’s habitat. Tem

porary disturbance to 24

acres of Preble’s habitat. Potential disturbance

of Preble’s beh

avior due to increased noise and human

presence and physical harm to individual Preble’s from construction

machinery and future recreational activities at Glade. Changes in flows in Poudre River unlikely to affect Preble’s habitat.

SS‐01

74

Bald eag

le

Permanen

t im

pacts of 21

acres and tem

porary im

pacts of 13

acres of winter concentration area. Less than

1 acre of nest buffer

permanen

tly affected

and 8 acres tem

porarily affected. Pipeline construction im

pacts could result in

nest abandonmen

t or

decreased

nesting success if conducted

during sensitive breed

ing and nesting periods. Glade Reservoir could provide additional

summer foraging habitat, especially if stocked

with fish. G

aleton Reservoir could provide additional summer foraging habitat.

SS‐02

75

Colorado

butterfly plant

(CBP

)

No effect. No known populations occur in study area and is unlikely to occur in study area. Changes in flows in Poudre River

unlikely to affect CBP.

SS‐03

76

Ute ladies’‐tresses orchid

(ULTO)

No effect. None found during surveys of study area. N

o known populations occur in study areas and is unlikely to occur in SPWCP

pipeline study area. G

lade to Horsetooth pipeline route less than

1 m

ile from curren

tly known populations of ULTO. Prior to

construction, U

LTO habitat assessm

ents and/or final surveys would be conducted

for potentially im

pacted suitable habitat not

previously evaluated

. Changes in flows in Poudre River unlikely to affect ULTO.

SS‐04

77

Black‐tailed prairie

dog

an

d bu

rrow

ing ow

lPermanen

t im

pacts on 367

acres of prairie dog habitat, m

ostly from construction of Galeton Reservoir.

SS‐07; SS‐09

78

Swift fo

xPermanen

t im

pacts on 1,928

acres of overall sw

ift fox range (0.3 to 1.0 home ranges/pair).

SS‐08

79

Common

gartersna

ke and

no

rthern leop

ard frog

Permanen

t loss of 44

acres of wetland habitat, 11 acres of aquatic habitat, and 28 acres of riparian woodland habitat (gartersnake

only). Tem

porary im

pacts on 8 acres of wetland habitat, 3 acres of aquatic habitat, and 8 acres of riparian woodland (gartersnake

only).

SS‐10

80

Smokey‐eyed brow

n bu

tterfly, two‐spotted

skipper, an

d Am

erican

curran

t

No effect.

SS‐10

81

Bell’s twinpo

dPermanen

t loss of 29

acres and tem

porary im

pacts on 45 acres from western realignmen

t of U.S. 287.

SS‐11

82

Brassy m

inno

w and

common

shiner

No effect

N/A

83

Iowa da

rter

Negligible excep

t Segm

ent B, w

hich would be moderate ben

eficial

FW‐03; FW‐04

Special Status S

pecies

A21

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

84

Boating (kayaking an

d cano

eing

)

If Glade is m

anaged

for recreation, new

flat water boating opportunities would exist, a m

ajor ben

eficial effect.

No public access planned

at Galeton Reservoir.

Poudre River Segmen

t A: N

egligible effects.

Poudre River Segmen

t B: M

oderate to m

ajor effects with 3 to 7 few

er boating days per m

onth (total of 19 few

er days over May‐

August period) based

on target flows of 150 cfs or greater.

Poudre River Segmen

ts C, D

, E, and F: N

o effects.

FW‐02; FW‐03;

FW‐04; R

C‐06;

FW‐08

85

Fishing

If Glade is m

anaged

for recreation, w

ould provide a new

fishery, a m

ajor ben

eficial effect.

No public access planned

at Galeton Reservoir.

Poudre River Segmen

t A: R

eductions in habitat for brown and rainbow trout would be a minor adverse effect on fishing.

Poudre River Segmen

t B: A

ugm

ented winter flows would result in

minor ben

eficial effects on recreational fishing.

Poudre River Segmen

ts C, D

, E, and F: N

egligible effects.

AG‐02; FW‐02;

FW‐03; FW‐04;

RC‐06; FW‐08

86

Hunting

Loss of 34

0 acres of Poudre River State Trust Land, w

hich is m

anaged

for hunting and fishing by CPW. Construction of Glade

Reservoir m

ay im

prove habitat, therefore im

proving hunting opportunities.

Loss of 21

acres of Mitani‐To

kuyasu SWA. Mule deer and white‐tailed deer winter range m

ay be affected

at SPWCP forebay, thus

affecting nearby big gam

e hunting.

Pronghorn winter and severe winter range and m

ule deer winter range affected at Galeton Reservoir and m

ay have an

effect on

nearby big gam

e hunting. Construction of Galeton Reservoir m

ay im

prove waterfowl habitat in

area, which m

ay im

prove nearby

hunting opportunities.

RC‐02; R

C‐04;

RC‐05

87

Other Recreationa

l Activities

Construction of Glade to Horsetooth pipeline would tem

porarily disrupt dispersed recreational uses along its alignmen

t.

Red

uctions in flows on Poudre River not expected to affect aesthetic qualities of riparian habitat of Poudre River, Poudre River

Trail, or natural areas.

Construction of Galeton Reservoir m

ay im

prove habitat in

area, which m

ay im

prove nearby wildlife view

ing or photography

opportunities.

Construction of SPWCP pipelines is not expected to affect recreation resources.

N/A

Recreatio

n Re

sources

A22

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

88

Cultu

ral Resou

rces

2 known cultural resources and an estim

ated

35 NRHP eligible sites affected by construction of Glade Dam

and Reservoir and

associated

facilities or would be inundated

by reservoir.

7 known cultural resources and 7 unrecorded

cultural resources would be affected

by western realignmen

t of U.S. 287. Of the

known cultural sites, 3

of these are eligible sites, 1

is not eligible, and 3 have not been assessed.

15 known cultural resources occur within areas that would be disturbed

by construction of Galeton Dam

and Reservoir and

associated

facilities or would be inundated

by reservoir. Of these 15 sites, 13 have not had

an official determination and m

ay be

eligible for listing in NRHP and two are not eligible.

CR‐01; C

R‐02;

CR‐03

89

Paleon

tological Resou

rces ‐

U.S. 287

Adverse im

pacts on subsurface fossils in

areas underlain by Class 5 geo

logic units (M

orrison Form

ation). A

dverse im

pacts on

potentially substantial vertebrate, inverteb

rate, plant, and trace fossils possible in

Class 3 geo

logic units (Niobrara Form

ation,

Ben

ton Group, D

akota Group, U

ndivided

Jelm, and Sundance Form

ations). A

dverse im

pacts on potentially substantial vertebrate,

inverteb

rate, plant, and trace fossils unlikely but possible in

Class 2 geo

logic units (Lykins Form

ation). A

dverse im

pacts consist of

destruction of fossils by breakage and crushing during construction‐related

ground disturbance.

CR‐04; C

R‐05

90

Aesthetics a

nd Visu

al

Resources

Change in

landscape from terrestrial to open

water for Glade and Galeton Reservoirs. Reservoir dam

s would change curren

t visual

character of sites.

One‐third of Mitani‐To

kuyasu SWA would be replaced by Galeton forebay resulting in substantial red

uction in

scenic quality.

Realignmen

t of U.S. 287 would create contrast in scenic quality elem

ents where it cuts through

hogback form

ation.

VS‐01

91

Traffic Volum

es

Existing traffic patterns not expected to change so red

uced traffic volumes along SH

14 between Overland Trail and Ted

’s Place. If

recreation provided

at Glade Reservoir m

inor seasonal fluctuations in veh

icle volumes can

be anticipated

. red

uced traffic volumes

along SH

14 between Overland Trail and Ted

’s Place.

If recreation provided

at Glade Reservoir m

inor seasonal fluctuations in veh

icle volumes can

be anticipated

.

GC‐03

92

Existing Ro

adways

7‐m

ile portion of U.S. 287 relocated. New

alignmen

t 2.3 m

iles shorter. Location of Galeton Reservoir would not infringe on or

disturb any existing roadways. 2.3 m

iles shorter. Location of Galeton Reservoir would not infringe on or disturb any existing

roadways.

GC‐05

Cultu

ral R

esou

rces

Paleon

tological R

esou

rces

Aesthe

tics a

nd Visua

l Resou

rces

Traffic

and

Transpo

rtation

A23

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

93

Current T

ravel Patterns

New

U.S. 287 alignmen

t would be about 2.3 m

iles shorter.

Access to Bonner Spring Ranch Road

may be affected

by realignmen

t and new

access would be provided

. Pipeline construction

would potentially tem

porarily disrupt some transportation, dep

ending upon alignmen

t.

GC‐01; G

C‐03

94

Site Access

Construction of Galeton Reservoir would req

uire extension an existing roadway or construction of a private drive for purposes of

accessing and m

aintaining facility.

GC‐01

95

Agriculture

Portion of Munroe Canal inundated

by Glade Reservoir. Canal would be realigned

with Poudre Valley Canal or routed under Glade

Reservoir.

GC‐01

96

Grazin

g

Grazing permittee would lose use of District lands at Glade Reservoir.

26 acres of BLM

land used for grazing inundated

by Glade Reservoir.

About 36 acres of grazing lease affected

on State Land Board lands at Galeton Reservoir site.

GC‐01

97

Access

CSU

and Poudre School D

istrict access road

into State Trust Land inundated

.

Existing access to Bonner Springs Ranch residen

tial area from south altered

by U.S. 287 realignmen

t. Construction of SPWCP

forebay would inundate a portion of access road

and parking area of Mitani‐ Tokuyasu SWA.

RC‐02; G

C‐03;

RC‐04

98

Utilities

Two towers on Platte River Power Authority 230‐kV transm

ission line relocated. R

ealignmen

t of four H‐ fram

e structures and 0.6

miles of a 69‐kV electric transm

ission line owned

by Poudre Valley REA

. Proposed Cheyen

ne‐To

tem gas pipeline is shown to

partially parallel SPWCP pipelines and cross proposed Galeton Reservoir forebay.

Thirty‐one producing oil and gas wells are within Galeton Reservoir footprint. District would relocate any well that would interfere

with reservoir operations. D

istrict anticipates all wells would be abandoned

by operator before Galeton Reservoir was built.

GC‐01; H

Z‐02

99

Natural Areas

Reservoir Ridge Natural A

rea temporarily affected during construction of Glade to Horsetooth pipeline.

GC‐01

100

Urban

/Residentia

l

2 residen

ces inundated

during construction of Glade Reservoir and 1 residen

ce located within 500 feet of the reservoir.

Construction of Glade to Horsetooth pipeline and other pipelines could potentially tem

porarily affect some urban

and residen

tial

uses, dep

ending upon final alignmen

ts.

LU‐01; G

C‐01

Land

Use

A24

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

101

Indu

stry

No im

pact to industry.

N/A

102

Water Rates/Affordability

Minor im

pact on rates and affordability for some Participants.

RC‐07

103

Population growth

No effect.

N/A

104

Recreation Resources

Major im

pact on boating recreational value in Fort Collins. M

oderate im

pact on recreational value of Poudre River Trail in Fort

Collins. N

o effect on fishing recreation values.

FW‐02; FW‐03;

FW‐04

105

Property Values

No effect in Fort Collins. Potential m

inor effects downstream

of I‐25 due to changes in flood risks.

AG‐01

106

Water/W

astewater

Treatm

ent Costs

No effect.

N/A

107

Other Socioeconomic

Effects

Likely no additional effect on Fort Collins economy/economic developmen

t. Potential m

ajor im

pact on nonuse values associated

with Poudre River for Fort Collins residen

ts.

FW‐03; FW‐04

108

Regional Recreation

Resources

Major ben

efit from recreation at Glade Reservoir.

N/A

109

Irrigated Agriculture‐

Related

Economy

No effect under average conditions. M

inor effect under potential worst‐case conditions due to increased salinity associated

with

the SPWCP ditch exchange.

SE‐02

110

Road

Relocation Effects

Moderate to m

ajor im

pact on gasoline station and cam

pground at Ted’s Place. No net effect on value of residen

tial properties.

RC‐06

111

Construction Effects

Construction stimulus paid for by regional residen

ts over future years. No net effect.

N/A

112

Agricultural‐related

economy

Estimated

annualim

pactonagricultural‐relatedeconomicoutputinthestudyarea

ofapproximately$34millionandan

estimated

reductioninagriculture‐relatedem

ploym

entofabout291jobsassociated

withgrowth

onto

agriculturallandsandtheirconversion

to m

unicipal uses.

N/A

113

Hazardou

s Site

s

ProposedGladeReservoirforebay

locatednearAtlas

“E”Missile

Site

13andknownTC

Eplumeassociated

withmissile

site.

Curren

tlynodetectableTC

Ewithin

footprintofproposedforebay.SoilcontainingTC

Enotexpectedwithin

proposedfootprintof

forebay. As contaminant mass continues to naturally atten

uate TC

E plume will continue to decrease in size.

HZ‐01

Hazardo

us Site

s

Socioe

cono

mic Resou

rces

Stud

y area

Broa

der S

tudy Area

Poud

re River Com

mun

ities

A25

NORTH

ERNINTEGRATEDSU

PPLYPROJECT

FISH

ANDW

ILDLIFEM

ITIGATIONANDEN

HANCEM

ENT PLAN

Row

Resource

Summary of Effects


sed Ac

tion Glade

and

SPW


tion Option) 2

Mitigatio

n Measure No.

Table A2

. Mitigatio

n an

d En

hancem

ent P


y SD

EIS Re

source Effect

1

114

Noise

Increased noise associated

with reservoir and pipeline construction and realignmen

t of U.S. 287 would occur in localized

areas

temporarily.

GC‐01

115

Air Q

uality

Same as Alternative 1.

AQ‐01; G

C‐01

116

Energy Use/G

reenho

use

Gases

Electrical energy used to pump water up to reservoirs and for conveyance of water and for SPWCP exchange; includes additional

pumping of water to Carter Lake.

Projected

annual electricity req

uirem

ents at full utilization = 48,135,987 KwH

Projected

annual carbon dioxide em

issions at full utilization (English tons) = 37,259

EG‐01

117

Constructio

n Du

ratio

n6 years.

GC‐01; G

C‐02;

GC‐03; G

C‐04

118

Townsend's b

ig‐eared

bat

The inundation by Glade Reservoir of approximately seven m

iles of U.S. H

ighway 287, includes the ‘loss’ by flooding of the State

Land Board parcel (T9N, R

70W, S36) which contains a known roost site for the To

wnsend’s big‐eared

bat (Corynorhinus

townsendii), a State Species of Special Concern. CPW suggests that further ground surveys for additional roost sites should be

conducted

across the area to be inundated

, and compen

satory m

itigation for loss of these sites should be considered

if the project

is approved.

SS‐12

Notes:

1 2 3

Dark gray shading indicates those effects from SDEIS 4‐109 that are not covered under this Fish and W

ildlife Mitigation and Enhancemen

t Plan. See Conceptual M

itigation Plan

(SDEIS Appen

dix F) for mitigation inform

ation on these item

s.

Source of table is SDEIS Table 4‐109 for Alternative 2 (Northern W

ater's Preferred

Alternative)

Effects were not included

in the SD

EIS, but were commen

ts and/or proposed m

itigation m

easures by CDNR.

Other CPW

Effects 3

Noise

Air Q

uality

Energy Use/G

reen

house Gases

Constructio

n Duration

A26

Servi

ce La

yer C

redits

: Esri

, HER

E, Ga

rmin,

(c) O

penS

treetM

ap co

ntribu

tors,

and t

he G

ISus

er co

mmun

ity

§

§

§

§

!@

Õ

§

Big Th

omps

on R

iver

South P

latte River

£ ¤34

Watso

nLa

ke

Larimer &

Weld Cana

l

New C

ache

Cana

l

Poud

re Va

lley Ca

nal

Seam

anRe

servo

ir

§̈ ¦25

£ ¤34

£ ¤85

£ ¤287

£ ¤287

¬ «14

¬ «14

¬ «392

¬ «1

¬ «257

Horse

tooth

Rese

rvoir

Glad

eRe

servo

ir(P

ropo

sed)

Galet

onRe

servo

ir(P

ropo

sed)

Cons

tructi

on R

elated

Glad

e Res

ervoir

Com

plex

Cons

tructi

on R

elated

U.S.

287 R

ealig

nmen

t

Cons

tructi

on R

elated

SPWC

P

Cach

e la P

oudre

Rive

r

Y !@

x

x6

6

6

!&

J°

J°

z

z

{

_̀

#

×

\

\

!F

¡¿

!F

!Q

¡

¡

¡

&

&

à

à

x

¡¿

\

z

9

9

9

# *

Nunn

Gill

Ault

Eaton

Pierce

Kerse

y

Wind

sor

Timna

th

Luce

rne

Gree

ley

Love

land

Seve

ranc

e

Maso

nville

Poud

re Pa

rk

Fort

Collin

s

Ü0

510

2.5Mi

les

Larimer CountyWeld County

US 287 Realignment

Stre

amflo

w Co

mittm

ents

- Rea

ches

Avoid

NISP

relat

ed di

versi

ons (

FW-01

)Lo

w Flo

w div

ersion

curta

ilmen

ts (FW

-03)

Conv

eyan

ce R

efine

ment

(FW-04

)St

reamf

low C

ommi

tmen

ts - P

oints

9No

n-Con

sump

tive W

ater R

ights

(FW-02

)

# *Ra

mp H

anse

n Sup

ply C

anal

Outle

t(FW

-07)

Othe

r Aqu

atic a

nd W

etlan

d Com

mitm

ents

- Rea

ches

Strea

m Ch

anne

l and

Hab

itat

Impro

veme

nt Pla

n, Ad

aptiv

e Man

agem

ent

(AG-

01, A

G-03

)Str

eam

Chan

nel Im

prove

ments

(AG-

02)

Ripari

an Im

prove

ments

(RV-0

1, RV

-02)

Othe

r Aqu

atic a

nd W

etlan

d Com

mitm

ents

- Poin

ts§

Poud

re Va

lley C

anal

Dive

rsion

Rec

onstr

uctio

n(A

G-04

)

§Mu

lti-Ob

jectiv

e Dive

rsion

Stru

cture

Retro

fits(A

G-05

)

!kRe

creati

onal

Fishe

ry(A

G-06

)

!@Fis

h Scre

ens

(AG-

07)

YNa

tive F

ish R

earin

g(A

G-08

)

XWGl

ade O

utlet

Towe

r (W

Q-01

)

kjGl

ade R

eleas

e Stru

cture

(WQ-

02)

ÕWe

tland

s-Eato

n Draw

(W

Q-03

)

NISP

Mitig

ation

Plan

Summ

ary M

ap

* Mitig

ation

Item

Numb

er in

paren

thesis

corre

spon

ds to

Mitig

ation

Item

Numb

er in

Mitig

ation

Plan

scecil

Stamp

Handouts from NISPWAE

Nor

ther

n W

ater

Nor

ther

n In

tegr

ated

Sup

ply

Proj

ect

Colla

bora

ting

in a

shift

aw

ay fr

om th

e ‘b

uy-a

nd-d

ry’

appr

oach

that

has

stre

ssed

our

agr

icul

ture

com

mun

ities

As

par

t of a

long

-ter

m st

rate

gy th

at’s

cons

isten

t with

the

goal

s and

prin

cipl

es

esta

blish

ed in

the

Colo

rado

Wat

er P

lan,

Nor

ther

n W

ater

and

the

NIS

P pa

rtici

pant

s ar

e w

orki

ng to

impl

emen

t var

ious

mea

sure

s – in

clud

ing

a co

llabo

rativ

e eff

ort

with

the

New

Cac

he a

nd L

arim

er &

Wel

d di

tch

syst

ems –

that

will

pro

vide

su

pple

men

tal w

ater

to a

ppro

xim

atel

y 50

0,00

0 re

siden

ts in

Nor

ther

n Co

lora

do

whi

le a

lso h

elpi

ng p

rese

rve

tens

of t

hous

ands

of i

rriga

ted

farm

acr

es.

With

out t

hese

inno

vativ

e ap

proa

ches

, the

regi

on is

on

pace

to s

ee h

undr

eds

of th

ousa

nds

of ir

rigat

ed a

cres

drie

d up

by

mid

-cen

tury

.

NIS

P: S

trivi

ng to

dev

elop

a

Wat

erSe

cure

futu

re

for N

orth

ern

Colo

rado

’s

com

mun

ities

and

farm

sTo

avo

id w

ater

per

man

ently

leav

ing

farm

s in

the

New

Cac

he a

nd L

arim

er &

Wel

d sy

stem

s,

Nor

ther

n W

ater

and

the

NIS

P pa

rtic

ipan

ts a

re e

xplo

ring

purc

hase

s of

land

and

wat

er

from

will

ing

selle

rs in

the

two

syst

ems,

as w

ell a

s loo

king

at v

ario

us o

ther

ave

nues

to k

eep

wat

er

on th

e fa

rms.

This

will

hel

p en

sure

thos

e su

pplie

s rem

ain

avai

labl

e fo

r the

NIS

P ex

chan

ges.

Rath

er th

an “b

uy-a

nd-d

ry,”

this

is an

out

side

-the

-box

, “bu

y-an

d-su

pply

” ap

proa

ch to

add

ress

tig

hten

ing

supp

lies.

Farm

s in

the

New

Cac

he a

nd L

arim

er &

Wel

d sy

stem

s pur

chas

ed b

y N

orth

ern

Wat

er a

nd th

e N

ISP

pa

rtici

pant

s will

rem

ain

in p

rodu

ctio

n th

roug

h:

• Lim

ited

land

-use

eas

emen

ts o

n th

e pr

oper

ty

• Lea

se-b

ack

agre

emen

ts

• Oth

er a

rran

gem

ents

that

will

requ

ire c

ontin

ued

irrig

atio

n on

thos

e fa

rms

Furth

erm

ore,

the

purc

hase

of a

ny ir

rigat

ed la

nds w

ill b

e do

ne w

ith th

e go

al to

eve

ntua

lly re

turn

the

op

erat

ions

to p

rivat

e ow

ners

hip.

We

are

also

exp

lorin

g ag

reem

ents

in w

hich

New

Cac

he a

nd L

arim

er &

Wel

d sh

areh

olde

rs c

ould

be

co

mpe

nsat

ed fo

r giv

ing

Nor

ther

n W

ater

and

the

NIS

P pa

rtici

pant

s firs

t prio

rity

in b

uyin

g th

eir l

and

and

wat

er a

sset

s if t

hey

are

plan

ning

to se

ll th

em in

the

futu

re.

Nor

ther

n W

ater

and

the

NIS

P pa

rtici

pant

s are

also

exp

lorin

g

vario

us o

ptio

ns to

kee

p su

pplie

s in

the

ditc

h sy

stem

s and

av

aila

ble

for t

hese

exc

hang

es, t

o he

lp e

nsur

e a

Wat

erSe

cure

fu

ture

for N

orth

ern

Colo

rado

.

Wat

er q

ualit

y qu

estio

ns a

ddre

ssed

W

ater

qua

lity

and

agro

nom

y ex

perts

hav

e ex

amin

ed th

e w

ater

qua

lity

issue

s, an

d w

ith p

rope

r wat

er

blen

ding

, no

impa

cts o

n cr

op y

ield

s wou

ld o

ccur

in n

early

all

antic

ipat

ed o

pera

ting

cond

ition

s, an

d on

ly m

inor

impa

cts o

n sp

ecifi

c cr

ops i

n so

me

inst

ance

s. N

ISP

parti

cipa

nts w

ould

cer

tain

ly fa

ctor

any

su

ch im

pact

s on

crop

s int

o m

itiga

tion

and

com

pens

atio

n pa

ckag

es, a

nd N

orth

ern

Wat

er w

ill a

lso

cont

inue

mon

itorin

g w

ater

qua

lity

long

into

the

futu

re to

add

ress

any

pot

entia

l iss

ues.

We

enco

urag

e an

yone

who

wan

ts to

lear

n m

ore

to g

o to

ww

w.g

lade

rese

rvoi

r.org

, or

con

tact

Gre

g D

ewey

at N

orth

ern

Wat

er a

t 970

-622

-230

0 or

gde

wey

@no

rthe

rnw

ater

.org

.

The

NIS

P ex

chan

ges:

A w

in-w

in fo

r the

farm

sTh

e N

ISP

wat

er e

xcha

nges

are

des

igne

d to

be

a w

in-w

in fo

r the

farm

s in

the

two

ditc

h sy

stem

s, in

that

:• S

hare

hold

ers

mai

ntai

n co

ntro

l of t

heir

wat

er, a

nd w

ater

will

con

tinue

flow

ing

to th

e fa

rms

• Com

pens

atio

n fro

m th

e N

ISP

parti

cipa

nts w

ill e

nhan

ce th

e lo

ng-t

erm

via

bilit

y of

thos

e ag

ope

ratio

ns• T

he d

itch

syst

ems w

ill re

ceiv

e ad

ditio

nal w

ater

late

r in

the

grow

ing

seas

on• T

hese

exc

hang

es w

ill n

ot re

duce

the

valu

e of

thei

r wat

er s

hare

s• T

hese

exc

hang

es h

ave

been

adj

udic

ated

and

app

rove

d by

the

wat

er c

ourt,

and

will

not

sub

ject

the

tw

o sy

stem

s’ w

ater

righ

ts to

a c

hang

e ca

se

Onc

e co

nstru

cted

, the

Nor

ther

n In

tegr

ated

Su

pply

Pro

ject

will

con

sist o

f: • G

lade

Res

ervo

ir no

rthw

est o

f For

t Col

lins,

whi

ch w

ill d

iver

t wat

er fr

om th

e Po

udre

Riv

er

• Gal

eton

Res

ervo

ir ea

st o

f Aul

t, w

hich

will

stor

e w

ater

pip

ed fr

om th

e So

uth

Plat

te R

iver

• Pip

elin

es, p

ump

plan

ts a

nd o

ther

infra

stru

ctur

e ne

eded

for o

pera

tions

40,0

00 a

cre-

feet

of

add

ition

al w

ater

will

be

m

ade

avai

labl

e an

nual

ly fo

r 15

rapi

dly

grow

ing

co

mm

uniti

es a

nd w

ater

dis

tric

ts

acro

ss n

orth

ern

Colo

rado

A ke

y co

mpo

nent

of N

ISP

will

be

wat

er

subs

titut

ions

and

exc

hang

es, i

n w

hich

N

orth

ern

Wat

er a

nd th

e N

ISP

parti

cipa

nts w

ill

wor

k w

ith th

e N

ew C

ache

and

Lar

imer

& W

eld

ditc

h sy

stem

s. N

ISP

will

pro

vide

new

wat

er

supp

lies t

o th

e di

tch

syst

ems i

n or

der t

o al

low

Gl

ade

Rese

rvoi

r to

stor

e w

ater

, by

exch

ange

, fo

r the

com

mun

ities

in n

eed

of th

ose

supp

lies.

In re

turn

, the

NIS

P pa

rtici

pant

s will

pro

vide

co

mpe

nsat

ion

for t

he tw

o pa

rtic

ipat

ing

ditc

h sy

stem

s, in

clud

ing:

•

Mon

etar

y pa

ymen

ts

•

Add

ition

al w

ater

sup

plie

s fr

om

Gal

eton

Res

ervo

ir

•

Ditc

h-sy

stem

impr

ovem

ents

NIS

P at

a g

lanc

e

Furth

erm

ore,

with

out N

ISP,

the

com

mun

ities

par

ticip

atin

g in

the

proj

ect w

ill m

ost l

ikel

y be

left

to

purc

hase

mor

e w

ater

from

exi

stin

g fa

rms a

nd ra

nche

s – n

eedi

ng to

dry

up

over

64,

000

acre

s of

irrig

ated

fa

rmgr

ound

to a

ttain

the

amou

nt o

f wat

er th

at N

ISP

wou

ld p

rovi

de.

Fort

Collin

s

Love

land

Gree

ley

Gla

de R

eser

voir

170,

000

acre

-feet

Gal

eton

Res

ervo

ir45

,600

acr

e-fe

et

Win

dsor

Eato

nAult

Hors

etoo

thRe

serv

oir

Larim

er &

Wel

d Ca

nal

Poud

re V

alle

y Ca

nal

Gal

eton

Pipe

line

New

Cac

he C

anal

Cach

e la

Pou

dre

Rive

r

Sout

h Plat

te Riv

er

Big

Thom

pson

Riv

er

1414

85

8525

34

34

287

U.S.

Hig

hway

287

Re

alig

nmen

t

25

Wel

lingt

on

Seve

ranc

e

NIS

P D

eliv

ery

Pipe

line

In a

dditi

on to

fillin

g Ga

leto

nRe

serv

oir,

a ne

wpi

pelin

e sy

stem

will

also

del

iver

Gale

ton

wat

er to

the

New

Cac

hean

d La

rimer

&

Wel

d ca

nals,

toco

mpe

nsat

e th

efa

rms i

n th

ose

syst

ems.

Abo

ut 2

5,00

0 ac

re-f

eet w

ould

be

exch

ange

d an

nual

ly b

etw

een

the

ditc

h co

mpa

nies

and

NIS

P pa

rtici

pant

s.

This

is N

OT

an a

ltern

ativ

e tra

nsfe

r met

hod,

or A

TM, a

s the

y’re

ofte

n ca

lled.

Far

ms

part

icip

atin

g in

the

NIS

P ex

chan

ges

will

rece

ive

wat

er e

ach

and

ever

y ye

ar.

With

this

arra

ngem

ent,

the

New

Cac

he a

nd L

arim

er &

Wel

d sh

areh

olde

rs c

ould

rece

ive

mor

e w

ater

for

irrig

atio

n th

an th

ey c

urre

ntly

rece

ive.

NIS

P is

expe

cted

to re

ceiv

e its

Rec

ord

of D

ecisi

on fr

om th

e Ar

my

Corp

s of E

ngin

eers

in 2

020,

and

follo

win

g fin

al d

esig

n an

d co

nstru

ctio

n, th

e ex

chan

ges

coul

d be

ope

ratio

nal b

y ab

out 2

027.

The

appr

oxim

atel

y 90

,000

irrig

ated

acr

es u

nder

the

New

Cac

he

and

Larim

er &

Wel

d sy

stem

s are

est

imat

ed to

pro

vide

m

ore

than

$30

0 m

illio

n in

agr

icul

tura

l pro

duct

ion

annu

ally

.

All o

f nor

ther

n Co

lora

do w

ill b

enefi

t fro

m k

eepi

ng m

ore

irrig

ated

acr

es in

pro

duct

ion.

O

ur a

gricu

lture

indu

stry

em

ploy

s tho

usan

ds o

f loc

al re

siden

ts a

nd fe

eds e

ven

mor

e, w

hile

our

farm

s and

ra

nche

s also

offe

r qua

lity-

of-li

fe a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal e

nhan

cem

ents

with

ope

n sp

ace

and

wild

life

habi

tat

– al

l of w

hich

Nor

ther

n W

ater

and

the

NIS

P pa

rticip

ants

wan

t to

pres

erve

for f

utur

e ge

nera

tions

.

Wat

er w

ill b

edi

verte

d vi

api

pelin

e fro

m th

e So

uth

Plat

te R

iver

to

fill

Gale

ton

Re

serv

oir.

How

will

thes

e N

ISP

exch

ange

s w

ork?

A li

ke a

mou

nt

of w

ater

fo

rego

ne b

y th

e N

ew C

ache

and

La

rimer

& W

eld

syst

ems

wou

ld

be e

xcha

nged

up

into

Gla

de

Rese

rvoi

r.

NIS

P’s 4

01 W

ater

Qua

lity

Cert

ifica

tion

As p

art o

f NIS

P’s a

ppro

val p

roce

ss, t

he S

tate

of

Colo

rado

gra

nted

a 4

01 W

ater

Qua

lity

Certi

ficat

ion

to

the

proj

ect i

n Ja

nuar

y 20

20. T

he st

ate

conc

lude

d

that

no

signi

fican

t wat

er q

ualit

y de

grad

atio

n is

ex

pect

ed b

ecau

se o

f NIS

P, a

nd

“the

com

mitm

ents

for

miti

gatio

n an

d w

ater

qu

ality

impr

ovem

ent

mea

sure

s ar

e su

ffici

ent

to re

sult

in p

ositi

ve

net e

ffec

ts.”

The

com

mitm

ents

out

lined

in th

e

NIS

P 40

1 Ce

rtific

atio

n in

clud

e lo

ng-t

erm

M

ON

ITO

RIN

G, R

EPO

RTIN

G a

nd

MO

DEL

ING

, to

help

mai

ntai

n an

d ev

en

enha

nce

the

heal

th o

f the

Pou

dre

Rive

r.

We’

ll co

llabo

rate

with

loca

l and

regi

onal

pa

rtner

s to

impl

emen

t MIT

IGAT

ION

and

A

DA

PTIV

E M

AN

AGEM

ENT

mea

sure

s th

at w

ill fu

rther

enh

ance

the

Poud

re

Rive

r – a

n ec

olog

ical

ly v

ibra

nt st

ream

–

for l

ocal

resid

ents

and

wild

life.

The

NIS

P pa

rtici

pant

s are

com

mitt

ed

to c

ontri

butin

g m

illio

ns o

f dol

lars

in

FUN

DIN

G to

impl

emen

t the

se e

fforts

, as

wel

l as o

ther

s, so

the

Poud

re R

iver

ca

n co

ntin

ue se

rvin

g as

a re

liabl

e an

d sa

fe w

ater

supp

ly fo

r yea

rs to

com

e.

The

401

Wat

er Q

ualit

y

Certi

ficat

ion

was

issu

ed

follo

win

g th

e St

ate’

s yea

r-lo

ng

revi

ew o

f an

exte

nsiv

e N

ISP

ap

plic

atio

n, w

hich

con

sider

ed

publ

ic c

omm

ents

.

The

certi

ficat

ion

outli

nes 3

0 co

nditi

ons i

n

whi

ch N

orth

ern

Wat

er a

nd th

e N

ISP

pa

rtici

pant

s will

impl

emen

t a w

ide

arra

y of

m

easu

res a

nd p

roce

sses

to e

nsur

e, fo

r yea

rs

to c

ome,

that

the

proj

ect’s

ope

ratio

ns w

on’t

ne

gativ

ely

affec

t the

Pou

dre

Rive

r’s h

ealth

, an

d th

at a

ny p

oten

tial i

mpa

cts c

an b

e m

itiga

ted.

Lear

n m

ore

at

glad

erer

eser

voir.

org

Spri

ng

Cre

ek

Cach

e la

Po

udre

Riv

er

Cach

e la

Po

udre

Rive

r

Sout

h Pl

atte

Rive

r

Boxe

lder

Cree

kH

orse

toot

hRe

serv

oir

Poud

rePa

rk

Bellv

ueLa

porte

Nor

th F

ork

Cach

e la

Pou

dre

Dry

Cree

k

Foss

il Cr

eek

34

Sout

h Fo

rkCa

che

la P

oudr

e

Fort

Colli

ns

Gree

ley

Sprin

gCr

eek

Gla

deRe

serv

oir

NIS

P D

eliv

ery

Pipe

line

25

25

High

way

34

High

way

14

25

25Tem

pera

ture

mon

itorin

g sit

es (1

2)Ar

seni

c an

d co

pper

mon

itorin

g sit

es (5

)E.

col

i mon

itorin

g sit

es (3

) Aq

uatic

life

mon

itorin

g sit

es (4

)

Nut

rient

mon

itorin

g sit

es (4

)M

ercu

ry fi

sh ti

ssue

sam

plin

g sit

es (2

)N

ew re

serv

oir r

outin

e m

onito

ring

sites

(6)

(2 fo

reba

y sit

es, 2

rese

rvoi

r site

s and

2 ri

ver s

ites)

Impl

emen

ting

Stre

am a

nd

Hab

itat I

mpr

ovem

ents

Alon

g w

ith m

onito

ring,

fund

ing,

m

itiga

tion

and

othe

r mea

sure

s, th

e 40

1 Ce

rtific

atio

n co

nditi

ons c

all f

or

impl

emen

ting

a m

ile o

f stre

am a

nd

habi

tat e

nhan

cem

ents

alo

ng th

is st

retc

h of

the

river

.

Fund

ing

for N

ew W

ater

Qua

lity

Enha

ncem

ent

Opp

ortu

nitie

s

As p

art o

f NIS

P’s 4

01 W

ater

Qua

lity

Certi

ficat

ion

co

mm

itmen

ts, t

he N

ISP

parti

cipa

nts w

ill c

ontri

bute

$1

.5 m

illio

n fo

r E. c

oli r

educ

tion

mea

sure

s an

d st

udie

s, a

nd $

925,

000

for n

utrie

nt re

duct

ion

m

easu

res

and

stud

ies.

Gal

eton

Re

serv

oir

Gal

eton

Pi

pelin

e

NIS

P’s

401

Wat

er Q

ualit

y M

onito

ring

Com

mitm

ents

Som

e of

thes

e si

tes w

ill re

mai

n in

ope

ratio

n fo

r dec

ades

.

Build

ing

Upo

n Po

udre

Riv

er H

ealth

Co

mm

itmen

ts A

lread

y In

Pla

ce

Man

y of

thes

e 40

1 W

ater

Qua

lity

Certi

ficat

ion

co

mm

itmen

ts c

ome

in a

dditi

on to

ext

ensiv

e

ongo

ing

mea

sure

s. N

orth

ern

Wat

er, f

or e

xam

ple,

al

read

y co

llect

s abo

ut 2

50 sa

mpl

es e

ach

year

as p

art

of it

s reg

ular

Pou

dre

Rive

r mon

itorin

g eff

orts

, with

an

ann

ual c

ost o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

$450

,000

.

NIS

P’s

Ada

ptiv

e

Man

agem

ent

Prog

ram

As p

art o

f mea

sure

s out

lined

in N

ISP’

s 401

Wat

er Q

ualit

y Ce

rtific

atio

n an

d its

Fish

and

Wild

life

Miti

gatio

n an

d

Enha

ncem

ent P

lan,

an

Adap

tive

Man

agem

ent p

rogr

am w

ill

be im

plem

ente

d, in

whi

ch N

orth

ern

Wat

er w

ill c

olla

bora

te o

n riv

er h

ealth

initi

ativ

es w

ith C

olor

ado

Park

s and

Wild

life,

the

Colo

rado

Wat

er Q

ualit

y Co

ntro

l Div

ision

, and

oth

er p

artn

ers.

An

unpr

eced

ente

d

oppo

rtun

ity fo

r col

labo

ratio

n

focu

sed

on th

e he

alth

of t

he P

oudr

e Ri

ver

Impr

oved

Wat

er Q

ualit

y

•

En

hanc

ed P

oudr

e Ri

ver R

ecre

atio

n

•

Be

tter

Aqu

atic

Hea

lth

In

crea

sed

Floo

d Re

silie

nce

•

Impr

oved

Wild

life

Hab

itat

The

Nor

ther

n In

tegr

ated

Sup

ply

Proj

ect i

s a w

ater

-sto

rage

end

eavo

r tha

t will

hel

p ra

pidl

y gr

owin

g Fr

ont R

ange

com

mun

ities

mee

t the

ir fu

ture

wat

er

need

s, w

hile

also

impl

emen

ting

prot

ectio

ns fo

r the

env

ironm

ent a

nd w

ildlif

e, c

reat

ing

new

recr

eatio

n op

portu

nitie

s, an

d he

lpin

g pr

eser

ve o

ur lo

cal

farm

s. Ad

ditio

nally

, thr

ough

this

Adap

tive

Man

agem

ent p

rogr

am, N

ISP

will

also

impl

emen

t an

arra

y of

com

pone

nts t

hat w

ill h

elp

furth

er d

evel

op a

n

ecol

ogic

ally

vib

rant

and

resil

ient

Pou

dre

Rive

r cor

ridor

, by

utili

zing

exist

ing

and

new

par

tner

ship

s in

a ho

listic

app

roac

h to

the

river

’s he

alth

.

Lear

n m

ore

at g

lade

rese

rvoi

r.org

Fort

Collin

s Love

land

Gree

ley

Gla

de R

eser

voir

170,

000

acre

-feet

Gal

eton

Res

ervo

ir45

,600

acr

e-fe

et

Win

dsor

Eato

nAult

Hors

etoo

thRe

serv

oir

Larim

er &

Wel

d Ca

nal

Poud

re V

alle

y Ca

nal

Gal

eton

Pipe

line

New

Cac

he C

anal

Cach

e la

Pou

dre

Rive

r

Sout

h Plat

te Riv

er

Big

Thom

pson

Riv

er

1414

85

8525

34

34

287

U.S.

Hig

hway

287

Re

alig

nmen

t

25

Wel

lingt

on

Seve

ranc

e

NIS

P D

eliv

ery

Pipe

line

Key

Ada

ptiv

e M

anag

emen

t Co

mm

itmen

ts fr

om N

ISP’

s Fi

sh a

nd W

ildlif

e M

itiga

tion

and

Enha

ncem

ent P

lan

• $1

mill

ion

for R

iver

Mas

ter P

lan

deve

lopm

ent

• $5.

9 m

illio

n in

tota

l cos

ts to

impl

emen

t var

ious

Ada

ptiv

e

M

anag

emen

t mea

sure

s• M

onito

ring

of p

oten

tial i

mpa

cts

fro

m A

dapt

ive

Man

agem

ent

m

easu

res a

nd N

ISP

oper

atio

ns

• 2.4

mile

s of s

tream

-cha

nnel

impr

ovem

ent p

roje

cts (

two

1.2-

mile

stre

tche

s), w

here

floo

d

plai

n-ch

anne

l con

nect

ivity

rest

orat

ion

will

take

pla

ce, a

s

wel

l as 5

4 to

tal a

cres

of r

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n im

prov

emen

ts in

the

surro

undi

ng a

rea,

incl

udin

g

co

ttonw

ood

rege

nera

tion

• 48

tota

l acr

es a

cros

s tw

o sit

es

of

ripa

rian

vege

tatio

n

im

prov

emen

ts

The

Adap

tive

Man

agem

ent p

rogr

am’s

vario

us

mon

itorin

g, fu

ndin

g, m

itiga

tion

and

enha

ncem

ent m

easu

res w

ill b

e

impl

emen

ted

acro

ss a

42-

mile

str

etch

of t

he P

oudr

e Ri

ver,

fro

m it

s mou

th a

t the

can

yon

to it

s con

fluen

ce w

ith th

e So

uth

Plat

te R

iver

.

The

mea

sure

s ide

ntifi

ed in

the

Adap

tive

Man

agem

ent p

rogr

am o

nly

acco

unt f

or a

por

tion

of th

e N

ISP

com

pone

nts t

hat w

ill b

enefi

t the

regi

on’s

w

ater

shed

and

eco

syst

em. T

hrou

gh a

ll of

its v

ario

us p

rogr

ams,

NIS

P is

all t

oget

her c

omm

ittin

g ne

arly

$60

mill

ion

tow

ard

miti

gatio

n an

d

enha

ncem

ent f

or th

e lo

cal e

nviro

nmen

t and

wild

life.

Key

Ada

ptiv

e M

anag

emen

t Co

mm

itmen

ts fr

om N

ISP’

s 40

1

Wat

er Q

ualit

y Ce

rtifi

catio

n

• $1.

5 m

illio

n fo

r E.C

oli r

educ

tion

mea

sure

s

and

stud

ies

• $92

5,00

0 fo

r nut

rient

redu

ctio

n m

easu

res

an

d st

udie

s• M

onito

ring

of p

oten

tial i

mpa

cts f

rom

Adap

tive

Man

agem

ent m

easu

res a

nd

N

ISP

oper

atio

ns

• 10

acre

s of w

etla

nds e

nhan

cem

ents

for w

ater

qua

lity

impr

ovem

ents

• 1

mile

of s

tream

-cha

nnel

enh

ance

men

ts

fo

r tem

pera

ture

impr

ovem

ents

Fish

Lad

ders

• C

otto

nwoo

d Re

gene

ratio

n •

Cre

atio

n of

Wet

land

s to

Impr

ove

Wat

er Q

ualit

y St

orm

wat

er S

yste

m U

pgra

des

• C

hann

el R

econ

figur

atio

n fo

r Hab

itat E

nhan

cem

ents

Se

dim

ent M

anag

emen

t •

Dev

elop

men

t of a

Tem

pera

ture

Ref

uge

Two

rese

rvoi

rs th

at w

ill h

elp

Nor

ther

n Co

lora

do

mee

t its

futu

re w

ater

nee

dsN

ISP

will

supp

ly 1

5 w

ater

pro

vide

rs w

ith 4

0,00

0 ac

re-f

eet o

f new

, rel

iabl

e w

ater

sup

plie

s.

Nor

ther

n W

ater

is p

ursu

ing

perm

ittin

g, d

esig

n an

d co

nstru

ctio

n of

this

estim

ated

$1.

2 bi

llion

pro

ject

on

beh

alf o

f the

par

ticip

ants

, who

will

be

prov

idin

g w

ater

to n

early

hal

f a m

illio

n re

siden

ts b

y 20

50.

The

proj

ect’s

mai

n co

mpo

nent

s inc

lude

:• T

wo

new

rese

rvoi

rs (G

lade

Res

ervo

ir no

rthw

est o

f For

t Col

lins,

and

Gale

ton

Rese

rvoi

r nor

thea

st o

f Gre

eley

)• P

ipel

ines

to d

eliv

er w

ater

to th

e pa

rtici

pant

s and

for w

ater

exc

hang

es w

ith tw

o irr

igat

ion

com

pani

es• F

ive

pum

p pl

ants

Curr

ent s

tatu

s an

d up

com

ing

timel

ine

2017

– A

ppro

val o

f Fish

and

Wild

life

Miti

gatio

n an

d En

hanc

emen

t Pla

n 20

18 –

Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct S

tate

men

t rel

ease

d

2020

– A

ntic

ipat

ed 4

01 W

ater

Qua

lity

Certi

ficat

ion

Perm

it fro

m th

e St

ate

of C

olor

ado

2020

– A

ntic

ipat

ed R

ecor

d of

Dec

ision

and

404

Per

mit

from

the

U.S.

Arm

y Co

rps o

f Eng

inee

rs

2019

-202

2 –

Proj

ect d

esig

n to

be

final

ized

2023

-202

7 –

Antic

ipat

ed c

onst

ruct

ion

date

s 20

28 –

Firs

t wat

er st

ored

in G

lade

Res

ervo

ir

Nor

ther

n In

tegr

ated

Sup

ply

Proj

ect

NISP

Fort

Collin

s

Love

land

Gree

ley

Gla

de R

eser

voir

170,

000

acre

-feet

Gal

eton

Res

ervo

ir45

,600

acr

e-fe

et

Win

dsor

Eato

nAult

Hors

etoo

thRe

serv

oir

Larim

er &

Wel

d Ca

nal

Poud

re V

alle

y Ca

nal

Gal

eton

Pipe

line

New

Cac

he C

anal

Cach

e la

Pou

dre

Rive

r

Sout

h Plat

te Riv

er

Big

Thom

pson

Riv

er

1414

85

8525

34

34

287

U.S.

Hig

hway

287

Re

alig

nmen

t

25

Wel

lingt

on

Seve

ranc

e

NIS

P D

eliv

ery

Pipe

line

Gro

win

g co

mm

uniti

es ta

king

div

erse

ste

ps to

mee

t fut

ure

dem

ands

Cent

ral W

eld

Coun

ty W

ater

Dist

rict

•

Dac

ono

•

Eato

n

•

Er

ieEv

ans

•

Fire

ston

e

•

Fo

rt C

ollin

s-Lo

vela

nd W

ater

Dist

rict

•

F

ort L

upto

n Fo

rt M

orga

n

•

Fr

eder

ick

•

Lafa

yett

e

•

Le

ft H

and

Wat

er D

istric

t M

orga

n Co

unty

Qua

lity

Wat

er D

istric

t

•

Sev

eran

ce

•

W

inds

or

Thes

e 11

fast

-gro

win

g co

mm

uniti

es a

nd fo

ur w

ater

dist

ricts

cur

rent

ly s

erve

wat

er to

abo

ut 2

50,0

00

resi

dent

s, w

ith th

at e

xpec

ted

to d

oubl

e by

205

0. In

add

ition

to N

ISP,

they

are

em

brac

ing

cons

erva

tion

effor

ts, r

euse

and

oth

er o

ppor

tuni

ties t

o m

eet t

heir

futu

re w

ater

dem

ands

, hav

ing

alre

ady

colle

ctiv

ely

redu

ced

thei

r per

cap

ita w

ater

con

sum

ptio

n by

nea

rly 3

0 pe

rcen

t sin

ce 2

000.

A p

roje

ct th

at a

ligns

with

the

goal

s of

the

Colo

rado

Wat

er P

lan

The

Colo

rado

Wat

er P

lan

rein

forc

ed th

e ne

cess

ity o

f add

ition

al w

ater

stor

age

to h

elp

mee

t the

stat

e’s f

utur

e w

ater

gap

. The

gap

is th

e di

ffere

nce

betw

een

the

estim

ated

futu

re w

ater

dem

ands

and

exi

stin

g su

pplie

s by

the

year

206

0.

The

Colo

rado

Wat

er P

lan

iden

tifies

the

need

for 4

00,0

00 a

cre-

feet

of a

dditi

onal

sto

rage

st

atew

ide.

NIS

P ca

n pl

ay a

role

in m

eetin

g a

port

ion

of th

e im

pend

ing

wat

er g

ap in

Col

orad

o.

The

plan

also

iden

tifies

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

and

incr

ease

d w

ater

tran

sfer

s bet

wee

n th

e ag

ricul

tura

l and

m

unic

ipal

sect

ors a

s add

ition

al so

lutio

ns to

hel

p m

eet t

he im

pend

ing

gap.

Brin

ging

new

recr

eatio

n op

port

uniti

es to

the

regi

onIn

add

ition

to n

eede

d w

ater

stor

age

and

envi

ronm

enta

l-pro

tect

ion

mea

sure

s, N

ISP

will

brin

g ne

w re

crea

tion

oppo

rtuni

ties t

o N

orth

ern

Colo

rado

, with

a re

crea

tion

conc

ept p

lan

that

cal

ls fo

r mot

oriz

ed a

nd

non-

mot

oriz

ed b

oatin

g, fi

shin

g, c

ampi

ng, h

ikin

g an

d bi

king

at G

lade

Res

ervo

ir.

Gla

de R

eser

voir

5 m

iles

long

•

280

feet

at i

ts d

eepe

st17

0,00

0 ac

re-f

oot c

apac

ity (s

light

ly la

rger

than

Hor

seto

oth

Rese

rvoi

r)

• Thi

s res

ervo

ir w

ill b

e lo

cate

d ea

st o

f Aul

t and

nor

thea

st o

f Gre

eley

.

• Wat

er w

ill b

e di

verte

d fro

m th

e So

uth

Plat

te R

iver

dow

nstre

am fr

om G

reel

ey a

t hig

h flo

w ti

mes

.• G

alet

on R

eser

voir

wat

er w

ill b

e de

liver

ed to

the

Larim

er-W

eld

and

New

Cac

he d

itch

com

pani

es in

exc

hang

e

fo

r a p

ortio

n of

the

Poud

re R

iver

wat

er th

ey c

urre

ntly

use

. (Ab

out h

alf o

f NIS

P’s p

lann

ed d

iver

sion

from

the

Poud

re R

iver

incl

udes

wat

er th

at’s

alre

ady

been

div

erte

d fo

r dec

ades

by

thes

e tw

o di

tch

com

pani

es.)

A p

roje

ct th

at w

ill a

lso

he

lp p

rote

ct lo

cal f

arm

sIn

ord

er to

fill

Glad

e Re

serv

oir,

NIS

P w

ill st

rate

gica

lly u

tilize

wat

er e

xcha

nges

with

the

Larim

er-W

eld

and

New

Ca

che

ditc

h co

mpa

nies

in W

eld

Coun

ty, b

oth

of w

hich

hav

e se

nior

righ

ts o

n th

e Po

udre

Riv

er. I

n re

turn

, the

N

ISP

parti

cipa

nts w

ill p

rovi

de c

ompe

nsat

ion

for t

he tw

o pa

rtici

patin

g di

tch

com

pani

es, i

nclu

ding

:• M

onet

ary

paym

ents

• Add

ition

al w

ater

sup

plie

s fr

om G

alet

on R

eser

voir

• Ditc

h-sy

stem

impr

ovem

ents

Add

ition

ally

, the

ditc

h-co

mpa

ny s

hare

hold

ers

will

mai

ntai

n co

ntro

l of t

heir

wat

er a

nd w

ater

w

ill c

ontin

ue fl

owin

g to

thei

r far

ms

and

ranc

hes,

whi

le th

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

from

the

NIS

P

part

icip

ants

will

enh

ance

the

long

-ter

m v

iabi

lity

of th

ose

ag o

pera

tions

.

Furth

erm

ore,

with

out N

ISP,

the

com

mun

ities

par

ticip

atin

g in

the

proj

ect w

ill m

ost l

ikel

y be

left

to p

urch

ase

mor

e w

ater

from

exi

stin

g fa

rms a

nd ra

nche

s — n

eedi

ng to

dry

up

mor

e th

an 6

4,00

0 ac

res o

f irri

gate

d fa

rmgr

ound

to a

ttain

the

amou

nt o

f wat

er th

at N

ISP

wou

ld p

rovi

de.

Gal

eton

Res

ervo

ir 2

mile

s lo

ng

•

85

feet

at i

ts d

eepe

st45

,600

acr

e-fo

ot c

apac

ity

• Gla

de w

ill b

e lo

cate

d no

rthw

est o

f For

t Col

lins n

ear t

he in

ters

ectio

n of

U.S

. Hig

hway

287

and

Sta

te H

ighw

ay 1

4.

• The

rese

rvoi

r will

div

ert w

ater

from

the

Poud

re R

iver

dur

ing

mos

tly h

igh-

flow

tim

es.

• The

pro

ject

will

use

the

alre

ady

exist

ing

Poud

re V

alle

y Ca

nal n

ear t

he c

anyo

n m

outh

to d

iver

t wat

er fr

om th

e

riv

er to

the

Glad

e Re

serv

oir f

oreb

ay. A

s par

t of N

ISP,

the

PVC’

s div

ersio

n st

ruct

ure

will

be

upgr

aded

. • T

he re

serv

oir s

ite is

div

ided

by

U.S.

Hig

hway

287

, and

ther

efor

e, a

bout

seve

n m

iles o

f the

hig

hway

will

be

relo

cate

d to

the

east

.Yo

u ca

n le

arn

mor

e ab

out N

ISP

at w

ww

.gla

dere

serv

oir.o

rg.

The

NIS

P Fi

sh a

nd W

ildlif

e M

itiga

tion

and

Enha

ncem

ent P

lan

– ap

prov

ed b

y th

e Co

lora

do P

arks

and

Wild

life

Co

mm

issio

n, C

olor

ado

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion

Boar

d an

d Go

v. Jo

hn H

icke

nloo

per i

n 20

17 –

incl

udes

an

arra

y of

co

mpo

nent

s tha

t will

ben

efit o

ur e

nviro

nmen

t and

loca

l wild

life.

Nor

ther

n W

ater

has

also

mad

e ad

ditio

nal

envi

ronm

enta

l com

mitm

ents

in it

s Con

cept

ual M

itiga

tion

Plan

that

are

incl

uded

in th

e Fi

nal E

nviro

nmen

tal

Impa

ct S

tate

men

t.

Ove

rall,

NIS

P is

com

mitt

ing

near

ly $

60 m

illio

n to

war

d m

itiga

tion

and

enha

ncem

ent f

or th

e lo

cal

envi

ronm

ent a

nd w

ildlif

e. T

hese

mea

sure

s inc

lude

:

With

NIS

P br

ingi

ng so

man

y be

nefit

s to

the

regi

on, t

he p

roje

ct h

as e

arne

d su

ppor

t fro

m n

umer

ous e

ntiti

es a

nd in

divi

dual

s.

The

Nor

ther

n In

tegr

ated

Sup

ply

Proj

ect:

A

wat

er-s

tora

ge p

roje

ct th

at w

ill h

elp

rapi

dly

grow

ing

Fron

t Ran

ge

com

mun

ities

mee

t the

ir fu

ture

wat

er n

eeds

, whi

le a

lso im

plem

entin

g pr

otec

tions

for t

he e

nviro

nmen

t and

wild

life,

cre

atin

g ne

w re

crea

tion

oppo

rtuni

ties,

and

help

ing

pres

erve

our

loca

l far

ms a

nd ra

nche

s.

Nor

ther

n In

tegr

ated

Sup

ply

Proj

ect

PUBL

IC O

FFIC

IALS

U.S.

Sen

. Cor

y Ga

rdne

r •

U

.S. R

ep. K

en B

uck

•

Sta

te S

en. R

andy

Bau

mga

rdne

rSt

ate

Sen.

John

Coo

ke

•

Stat

e Se

n. D

on C

oram

•

St

ate

Sen.

Kev

in G

rant

ham

•

St

ate

Sen.

Che

ri Ja

hnSt

ate

Sen.

Kev

in L

undb

erg

•

Sta

te S

en. V

icki

Mar

ble

•

Sta

te S

en. K

evin

Prio

la

•

Stat

e Se

n. Je

rry S

onne

nber

g St

ate

Rep.

Jon

Beck

er

•

Stat

e Re

p. P

erry

Buc

k

• S

tate

Rep

. Ste

ve H

umph

rey

•

Sta

te R

ep. H

ugh

McK

ean

Stat

e Re

p. B

ob R

anki

n

• S

tate

Rep

. Lor

i Sai

ne

•

Stat

e Re

p. Y

eulin

Will

ett

Form

er U

.S. S

en. H

ank

Brow

n

• D

on A

men

t, fo

rmer

stat

e ag

ricul

ture

com

miss

ione

r

LOCA

L PU

BLIC

ATIO

NS

Erie

Rev

iew

•

Fo

rt Co

llins

Col

orad

oan

•

For

t Mor

gan

Tim

es

•

Gree

ley

Trib

une

Lafa

yette

New

s •

L

ongm

ont T

imes

-Cal

l •

L

ost C

reek

Gui

de

•

Loui

svill

e Ti

mes

Love

land

Rep

orte

r-H

eral

d

• W

inds

or B

eaco

n

AGRI

CULT

URE

ORG

AN

IZAT

ION

S Co

lora

do F

arm

Bur

eau

•

Roc

ky M

ount

ain

Farm

ers U

nion

•

Co

lora

do L

ives

tock

Ass

ocia

tion

Colo

rado

Cor

n Gr

ower

s Ass

ocia

tion

•

Col

orad

o Ca

ttlem

en’s

Asso

ciat

ion

Rock

y M

ount

ain

Agrib

usin

ess A

ssoc

iatio

n

• W

este

rn S

ugar

Coo

pera

tive

Colo

rado

Sug

arbe

et G

row

ers A

ssoc

iatio

n

• B

ould

er-S

t. Vr

ain

Valle

y Co

unty

Far

m B

urea

uCo

lora

do A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Whe

at G

row

ers

•

Col

orad

o Eg

g Pr

oduc

ers A

ssoc

iatio

nCo

lora

do P

ork

Prod

ucer

s Cou

ncil

•

Lar

imer

Cou

nty

Farm

Bur

eau

•

Wel

d Co

unty

Far

m B

urea

u

CHA

MBE

RS O

F CO

MM

ERCE

Be

rthou

d Ar

ea C

ham

ber

•

Car

bon

Valle

y Ch

ambe

r •

E

rie C

ham

ber

•

Eva

ns A

rea

Cham

ber

Fort

Colli

ns C

ham

ber

•

For

t Lup

ton

Cham

ber

•

For

t Mor

gan

Cham

ber

•

Gre

eley

Cha

mbe

rLa

faye

tte C

ham

ber

•

Lon

gmon

t Are

a Ch

ambe

r •

M

ead

Area

Cha

mbe

r •

W

inds

or C

ham

ber

BUSI

NES

S O

RGA

NIZ

ATIO

NS

Acce

lera

te C

olor

ado

•

Act

ion

22

•

Asso

ciat

ed G

ener

al C

ontra

ctor

s of C

olor

ado

Colo

rado

Ass

ocia

tion

of C

omm

erce

& In

dust

ry

•

Colo

rado

Con

tract

ors A

ssoc

iatio

nFo

rt Co

llins

Boa

rd o

f REA

LTO

RS

•

Fron

t Ran

ge D

istric

t, Co

lora

do C

ount

ies,

Inc.

Mor

gan

Coun

ty E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

t Cor

pora

tion

•

Nor

ther

n Co

lora

do H

ome

Build

ers A

ssoc

iatio

nN

orth

ern

Colo

rado

Leg

islat

ive

Allia

nce

•

Pou

dre

Valle

y RE

A

• P

rogr

essiv

e 15

•

Un

ited

Pow

erUp

stat

e Co

lora

do E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

t •

W

eld

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent G

roup

W

eld

Coun

ty B

uild

ers A

ssoc

iatio

n In

c.

• W

eld

Coun

ty C

ounc

il

WES

T SL

OPE

ORG

AN

IZAT

ION

S Co

lora

do R

iver

Dist

rict

• C

lub

20

• S

outh

wes

tern

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion

Dist

rict

• U

te W

ater

Con

serv

ancy

Dist

rict

COU

NTY

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

S

Mor

gan

Coun

ty C

omm

issio

ners

•

W

eld

Coun

ty C

omm

issio

ners

WAT

ER D

ISTR

ICTS

Ce

ntra

l Col

orad

o W

ater

Con

serv

ancy

Dist

rict

•

Low

er S

outh

Pla

tte W

ater

Con

serv

ancy

Dist

rict

Nor

ther

n Co

lora

do W

ater

Con

serv

ancy

Dist

rict

•

St.

Vrai

n &

Lef

t Han

d W

ater

Con

serv

ancy

Dist

rict

CON

SERV

ATIO

N D

ISTR

ICTS

Boul

der V

alle

y Co

nser

vatio

n D

istric

t •

L

ongm

ont C

onse

rvat

ion

Dist

rict

•

Wes

t Gre

eley

Con

serv

atio

n D

istric

tBi

g Th

omps

on C

onse

rvat

ion

Dist

rict

•

For

t Col

lins C

onse

rvat

ion

Dist

rict

NIS

P En

dors

emen

ts

A p

roje

ct th

at w

ill h

elp

mai

ntai

n th

e Po

udre

Riv

er’s

stre

amflo

ws

and

prot

ect o

ur e

nviro

nmen

t and

wild

life

Stre

amflo

w C

omm

itmen

ts

• Wat

er re

leas

es fr

om G

lade

Res

ervo

ir of

18

cubi

c

fe

et p

er se

cond

in th

e w

inte

r and

25

cfs i

n th

e

su

mm

er, w

hich

will

elim

inat

e ex

istin

g dr

y-up

poi

nts

in th

e riv

er th

roug

h do

wnt

own

Fort

Colli

ns a

nd

im

prov

e st

ream

flow

s yea

r-ro

und.

• Cur

taili

ng d

iver

sions

whe

n Po

udre

Riv

er fl

ows a

re

le

ss th

an 5

0 cf

s in

the

sum

mer

and

less

than

25

cfs i

n

the

win

ter.

Flus

hing

Flo

w C

omm

itmen

ts• C

omm

itmen

ts in

whi

ch G

lade

Res

ervo

ir w

on’t

dive

rt

Po

udre

Riv

er w

ater

dur

ing

peak

flow

s in

2/3

of

ye

ars,

and

will

byp

ass d

iver

sions

for u

p to

thre

e

da

ys –

equ

ival

ent t

o as

muc

h as

6,0

00 a

cre-

feet

in

m

ost y

ears

.• T

he p

roje

ct’s

stre

amflo

w c

omm

itmen

ts w

ill re

sult

in li

ttle

to n

o di

vers

ions

dur

ing

peak

flow

con

ditio

ns

in

90

perc

ent o

f yea

rs.

Stre

am C

hann

el C

omm

itmen

ts

• Bui

ldin

g by

pass

/fish

pas

sage

stru

ctur

es a

t

four

div

ersio

n da

ms t

hrou

gh F

ort C

ollin

s and

at th

e Po

udre

Val

ley

Cana

l div

ersio

n at

the

cany

on m

outh

.• S

tream

cha

nnel

impr

ovem

ents

on

two

reac

hes

th

at c

over

2.4

mile

s.• C

omm

itmen

ts o

f nea

rly $

8 m

illio

n fo

r cha

nnel

and

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n im

prov

emen

ts.

Oth

er C

omm

itmen

ts

• Wild

life

habi

tat c

onse

rvat

ion

cove

ring

abou

t

1,40

0 ac

res a

roun

d Gl

ade

Rese

rvoi

r.• W

etla

nds a

nd e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s miti

gatio

n.• R

ecre

atio

n/fis

hery

ben

efits

at G

lade

Res

ervo

ir.

Picture of the Power Line Area