The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/19/2023 - Water Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 19, 2023 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Online via Zoom or in person at 222 LaPorte Ave, Colorado River Community Room 01/19/2023 Agenda Page 1 of 4 This hybrid Water Commission meeting is available online via Zoom, phone, or in person at the address listed above. You may join the meeting beginning at 5 p.m. Participants should join at least 15 minutes prior to 5:30 p.m. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer or smartphone, and may join the meeting via Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/98568801045 Webinar ID: 985 6880 1045 (Using earphones with microphone will improve the audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chairperson will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: Please dial +1 346 248 7799 and enter Webinar ID 985 6880 1045. Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, when the Chairperson asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to press *9 to do this. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Water Commission. When you are called on, press *6 to unmute yourself. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PERSON: To participate in person, individuals should come to the Colorado River Community Room on the first floor of 222 LaPorte Ave and be prepared to follow strict social distancing guidelines. There may be needs to limit the number of individuals in the meeting room, and thus staging for individuals to speak may need to occur in the lobby or outside (weather permitting). Individuals who wish to speak will line up along the northern wall, maintaining physical distancing. The chairperson will call upon each participant to speak. (Continued on next page) WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 19, 2023 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Online via Zoom or in person at 222 LaPorte Ave, Colorado River Community Room 01/19/2023 Agenda Page 2 of 4 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION (3 minutes per individual) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 15, 2022 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Welcome and Introduction of New Water Commissioner i. James Madison Bishop b. Welcome and Introduction of New Water Utility Staff i. Senior Director, Integrated Water Operations: Jeremy Woolf Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Water Commission for its consideration must be emailed to KaMartinez@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general comments or comments on a specific agenda topic to KaMartinez@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Water Commission. WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 19, 2023 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Online via Zoom or in person at 222 LaPorte Ave, Colorado River Community Room 01/19/2023 Agenda Page 3 of 4 c. Staff Reports i. Financial Monthly Report (none this month due to year-end process) ii. Water Resources Monthly Report (meeting packet only) iii. Memo: 2022 Fall Water Quality Update – Upper Cache la Poudre Watershed (meeting packet only) iv. Water Resource Matters Study Report (meeting packet only) v. 1041 Regulation Update (Environmental Regulatory Affairs Division Staff & Kirk Longstein/Planning Department) (Presentation 10 minutes, Discussion 10 minutes) Information: https://www.fcgov.com/planning/1041-regulations vi. Director of Water: Staffing Updates (Jason Graham)(10 minutes) d. Regular Items i. City of Fort Collins Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance Update (Presentation 15 minutes, Discussion & Action 15 minutes) Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Sciences, Utilities Water Quality Services The project manager met with Water Commission on Sept. 16, 2021 to provide an update on development of the City’s Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Guidance and to seek feedback on the project team’s Urban Lakes Water Quality Policy development approach. At that time, Water Commission shared feedback that was used to inform development of the final draft policy. This follow-up presentation is intended to provide Water Commission with an overview of the project team’s policy development approach and to share final drafts of the policy and guidance. Staff seeks a formal motion by Water Commission to recommend that City Council formally adopt the policy. Council is scheduled to address this item on March 7. WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 19, 2023 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Online via Zoom or in person at 222 LaPorte Ave, Colorado River Community Room 01/19/2023 Agenda Page 4 of 4 8. COMMISSIONER REPORTS (Committees, Event attendance, etc.) 9. OTHER BUSINESS (Commissioner concerns, Announcements) a. Approval of 2022 Annual Report (Discussion and Action: 10 minutes) b. Discuss February 16 Election of New Officers (Discussion: 10 minutes) 10. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT MINUTES WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 15, 2022, 5:30-7:30 p.m. Hybrid in person at 222 LaPorte Ave and online via Zoom 12/15/202 2 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL • Commissioners Present: Jason Tarry (Chairperson), Greg Steed (Vice Chairperson), Jordan Radin, Kent Bruxvoort, Paul Herman, Tyler Eldridge, Randy Kenyon • Commissioners Absent - Excused: John Primsky, Rick Kahn • Staff Members Present: Matt Fater, Katherine Martinez, John Song, Jason Graham, Katie Collins, Danielle Reimanis, Kendall Minor, Mariel Miller • Members of the Public: None Commissioner Herman left the meeting at 6:57PM 3. AGENDA REVIEW • Chairperson Jason Tarry briefly summarized items on the agenda 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION • None 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIRPERSON TARRY ASKED FOR COMMENTS AND REVISIONS ON THE MONTH DAY MINUTES. Commissioner Herman moved to approve the November 17 minutes. Commissioner Eldridge seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 7-0 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Staff Reports (Attachments available upon request) i. Financial Monthly Report (meeting packet only) DRAFT MINUTES WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 12/15/2022 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 ii. Water Resources Monthly Report (meeting packet only) iii. Sprinkler Checkup Program Annual Report 2022 (meeting packet only) iv. Xeriscape & Soil Amendment Future Policies Direction Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist, presented a draft presentation for the Council work session in January to seek confirmation of direction to adopt later in 2023 regarding xeriscape and soil amendment code updates that support long-term water use reduction. Discussion Highlights A Commissioner inquired if there were any considerations about changing the cost structure of water to provide a stronger incentive for community members to deter from having grass. Ms. Collins responded that it was not something they’ve considered in the scope of this work but could look into as an opportunity. Another Commissioner pointed out that the efforts seem to be based on new development, but not for any policies or initiatives regarding City properties that also have Kentucky bluegrass, which could potentially be a representative or model of how to execute proper xeriscaping, as well as showcasing its attractiveness to encourage community members to consider for their own properties. Ms. Collins referenced the Municipal Sustainability Adaptation Plan that internally guides work towards more sustainability, including water use, with experts in the field in the Parks and Golf departments. The Commissioner added that they’d like to see it more on streetscapes due to their high visibility, and Commissioners provided sections of medians on Timberline, Mulberry, and Suniga Streets as examples. A Commissioner commented that Kentucky Bluegrass is simply the cheapest option for all developers to close out their projects, but those left with the consequences are community members, Homeowners Associations (HOAs), and the City. Another Commissioner pointed out the perception that the nomenclature could have and the similarity between the words “xeriscape” vs. “zero-scape” that could deter some community members, and suggested other names such as “Native-scape” to be encouraging to the public perspective. A Commissioner noted how hard it can be to change culture and referenced campaigns in the 1970s such as “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute” that shifted culture not by policing but by changing perspectives. Currently the perspective is that having green grass equates to luxury in this arid climate, and it would take a change of collective mindset to consider it otherwise. They also pointed out from the presentation that artificial turf may contribute DRAFT MINUTES WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 12/15/2022 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 to microplastics to the environment, while ethylene-based turf don’t shed as much. They also suggested promoting percentage moisture sensors that water lawns based on needs, in opposition to time-based sprinklers, as well as other options such as City-controlled sprinklers through Wi-Fi networks to minimize rates. Commissioners discussed various ways community members might feel discouraged from designing and implementing xeriscapes, and considered incentives, education, outreach, partnerships, templates, and narratives. They discussed at length about the impact of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUAS Standards) on development, xeriscapes, and water rates and usage, and whether the Commission could have any influence on the standards if they were to write a memo to City Council. 7. COMMISSIONER REPORTS None 8. OTHER BUSINESS • DRAFT 2022 ANNUAL REPORT • WATER COMMISSION ADMIN SUPPORT TRANSITION – KATHERINE MARTINEZ • JASON GRAHAM MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF WATER OPERATIONS – JEREMY WOOLF FROM THE CITY OF GREELEY WILL START ON JANUARY 9TH • 1041 REGULATIONS FEEDBACK 9. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING WATER COMISSIONER • COMMISSIONER RANDY KENYON 10. ADJOURNMENT 7:23 p.m. These minutes will be approved by the Water Commission on January 19, 2023. Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 700 Wood Street PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.212.2900 V/TDD: 711 utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 11, 2023 TO: Water Commission FROM: Michael Neale, MSc, Water Resources Engineer RE: December 2022 Water Resources Division Staff Report Purpose This memorandum is intended to update the Water Commission on water resource conditions for the City of Fort Collins Water Utility (Water Utility) over the month of December and provide updated outlook information. For additional information, please refer to the City’s website: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/water-status Water Resources Summary Supply and Demand • Water Supply – During the month of December, water supply consisted of 58% from Horsetooth Reservoir, and 42% from the Cache la Poudre River. • Water Demand – Demands within the Water Utility service area for the month of December and total for 2022: • Water demand for December was 100.5% of the projected demand. • Water demand for 2022 was 97.9% of the projected demand. Weather: https://climate.colostate.edu/ Measured at the Fort Collins weather station 053005 along with average normals from 1991-2020: • Mean daily high temperature recorded for the month: 42.9 oF. • 30-year average daily high temperature for the month is: 44.0 oF. • Total recorded monthly precipitation: 0.32 in. • 30-year average precipitation for the month: 0.47 in. • Total recorded monthly snowfall: 4.0 in. • 30-year average snowfall: 7.5 in. Snowpack: Natural Resources Conservation Service SNOTEL program percent of median snow water equivalent totals as of 01/11/2023: • Upper Colorado Basin: 127% of median. • Poudre Basin: 121% of median. Reservoir Storage: • Presented in the Northern Water District Storage and Delivery Report, as of January 1: • Colorado-Big Thompson project reservoirs (Granby, Carter, and Horsetooth): 76% full. • Horsetooth Reservoir: 50% full. • Joe Wright Reservoir: 66% full (108% of average based on 14 years of data). Cache la Poudre River flow: Graphical data for the Poudre River is available on-line at: • Cache La Poudre River at the Canyon Mouth https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/Stations/CLAFTCCO?params=DISCHRG • Cache La Poudre River at Fort Collins https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/Stations/CLAFORCO?params=DISCHRG Drought Monitors: • Larimer County and Colorado https://climate.colostate.edu/drought_info.html As of January 3, Larimer County is not experiencing drought conditions. • Colorado and the USA https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ The Colorado River basin remains in severe drought conditions. Climate Outlook: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) climate outlooks for the northern Front Range and northern mountains, over the next three months: • Equal chances of above or below normal precipitation. • Equal chances of above or below normal temperature. Other Water Supply Considerations: • The Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) system is in a healthy state with 109% equivalent quota in project reserves, this on top of the initial quota allocation and carryover. See Northern Water January report below. • Water Resources Division is closely monitoring the hydrology of the Colorado River basin, the statewide and regional discussions around the Colorado River Compact, and any demand management action by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation in response to drought in the Colorado River basin. • Water Resources Division maintains close communication with Northern Water regarding any drought response or policy action affecting the CBT system. As of now, there is no indication of drought management action needed from Northern Water. • If we need to implement water restrictions, we have the Water Shortage Action Plan (WSAP) to guide our decisions and actions (fcgov.com/WSAP). City of Fort Collins Utilities Treated Water Monthly Summary 2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year to Date WTF Water Supply (MG) From Poudre 161.6 0.0 190.8 293.2 122.3 288.4 431.0 335.7 466.1 268.4 238.4 197.6 2,993.6 From Horsetooth 289.9 433.3 306.1 297.1 696.5 785.3 756.4 856.4 549.4 386.8 240.7 273.8 5,871.8 Total Raw Water 451.5 433.3 496.8 590.3 818.8 1,073.8 1,187.3 1,192.1 1,015.6 655.2 479.1 471.4 8,865.3 Demands (MG) WTF Production 436.0 415.4 468.3 557.2 780.5 1,025.9 1,134.5 1,143.8 974.0 630.4 465.1 463.9 8,494.9 Change in Storage -1.6 -1.0 4.0 4.7 -0.2 0.5 0.7 0.8 -2.2 -0.6 -4.3 -3.4 -2.8 Demand on WTF 437.6 416.4 464.4 552.5 780.7 1,025.4 1,133.8 1,143.0 976.3 630.9 469.4 467.4 8,497.7 From Soldier Canyon 21.8 7.1 14.4 48.7 174.5 307.9 348.5 321.7 263.9 74.4 6.9 16.3 1,606.1 To Soldier Canyon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 To FC-Lov/NWCWD -39.6 -33.2 -48.4 -96.0 -235.9 -407.7 -469.8 -456.3 -379.4 -137.9 -43.8 -45.0 -2,392.9 For City 419.8 390.3 430.4 505.3 719.3 925.6 1,012.4 1,008.4 860.8 567.4 432.5 438.6 7,710.8 Daily Deliveries to City (MG) Max During Month 14.8 15.7 14.8 24.3 29.7 35.7 37.4 35.9 35.3 24.4 16.4 15.4 37.4 Min During Month 12.1 13.4 12.7 13.9 18.2 21.9 25.8 27.7 21.5 14.3 11.5 11.9 11.5 Avg During Month 13.5 13.9 13.9 16.8 23.2 30.9 32.7 32.5 28.7 18.3 14.4 14.1 21.1 Monthly Deliveries (Ac-Ft) Projected 1,369 1,247 1,392 1,551 1,961 2,959 3,329 3,251 2,760 1,685 1,338 1,339 24,181 Actual 1,288 1,198 1,321 1,551 2,208 2,841 3,107 3,095 2,642 1,741 1,327 1,346 23,664 Ratio 94%96%95%100%113%96%93%95%96%103%99%101%98% Year to Date Deliveries (Ac-Ft) Projected 1,369 2,616 4,008 5,559 7,520 10,479 13,808 17,058 19,819 21,503 22,842 24,181 24,181 Actual 1,288 2,486 3,807 5,358 7,565 10,406 13,513 16,607 19,249 20,990 22,318 23,664 23,664 Ratio 94%95%95%96%101%99%98%97%97%98%98%98%98% Joe Wright SNOTEL site - Daily time series for water year 2023 C-BT Project Storage Lake Granby Storage in Lake Granby decreased 3,469 acre-feet last month Horsetooth Reservoir Storage in Horsetooth Reservoir decreased 768 acre-feet last month Carter Lake Storage in Carter Lake decreased 1,862 acre-feet last month January 1, 2023 481,536 53,847 77,588 192,127 Total Storage Granby Carter Horsetooth Empty 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 Acre‐FeetJanuary 1 Total Storage 481,536 54,597 Acre‐Feet 8240 8250 8260 8270 8280 8290 Elevation (ft)77,588 79,147 Acre‐Feet 5360 5380 5400 5420 5440 Elevation (ft)53,847 58,383 Acre‐Feet 5660 5680 5700 5720 5740 5760 5780 Elevation (ft) C-BT Project Allocated Water C-BT Active Storage C-BT Delivery Obligations Notes: January 1, 2023 1) Quota set at 40% 2) Carryover - Carryover will not be certified until April 30. Until that date, the Maximum Potential Carryover is reported for Carryover so that adequate supplies are set aside to fulfill all potential obligations. 3) Regional Pool - Additional water will accrue to the Regional Pool until April 30. The current volume reflects water supplies not eligible for the Carryover Program. 109%, Project Reserves 38%, Certified Quota 0%, Collateral 19%, Carryover 4%, Replacement and Contracts 3%, Windy Gap 65%, Empty Project Reserves Regional Pool Certified Quota Collateral Carryover Replacement and Contracts Windy Gap Empty % number represents equivalent quota 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 Acre-Feet Quota Delivered Remaining 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Acre-Feet Carryover Delivered Remaining Max Potential 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Acre-Feet Replacement Delivered Remaining 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Acre-Feet Regional Pool Delivered Remaining Unallocated C-BT Project Deliveries January 1, 2023 Deliveries by Area Deliveries by Use 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 20162017201820192020202120222023Acre-FeetAdams Tunnel Total YTD 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Acre-Feet C-BT Project Deliveries Includes Quota, Carryover, Regional Pool and Noncharge Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 47% 53% 0% December Carter Horsetooth Other 50% 50% 0% Water Year Carter Horsetooth Other 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Acre-FeetHorsetooth Carter Other 0% 100% December Agriculture M&I 0% 100% Water Year Agriculture M&I 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Acre-FeetAgriculture M&I Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 700 Wood Street PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6700 970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 – TDD utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 14, 2022 TO: Mayor Arndt and Councilmembers FROM: Jared Heath, Senior Watershed Specialist THROUGH: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director RE: 2022 Fall Water Quality Update – Upper Cache la Poudre Watershed Bottom Line: The Upper Cache la Poudre (CLP) Watershed Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program is a partnership between the cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, Thornton, and Soldier Canyon Drinking Water Authority. The goal of this monitoring effort is to assist the participants in meeting current and future drinking water treatment goals by reporting current water quality conditions and trends within the Upper CLP watershed. The attached water quality update provides a summary of weather, drought, streamflow, and water quality conditions monitored in the Upper CLP watershed during the 2022 fall season (September – November). Background: The seasonal water quality updates are designed to inform the Upper CLP Watershed Collaborative Monitoring Program partners, their customers, and other community stakeholders about the condition of our source watershed and the quality of the raw drinking water supply. This seasonal reporting effort began in 2015 to provide a succinct and timely summary of current-year conditions in the Upper CLP Watershed. Seasonal updates are published for the spring, summer, and fall seasons. In depth water quality reporting is done through annual and five-year technical reports. Water quality reports and seasonal updates are made publicly available on the Fort Collins Utilities website, fcgov.com /source-water-monitoring. Fall 2022 Highlights: Fall monitoring captures water quality conditions as streamflow on the Poudre River transitions to baseflow (or low flow). Water quality during this time of the year is generally stable throughout the watershed. Water releases from high elevation water storage reservoirs and storm events may cause changes in streamflow and water quality through September and early October, although these events are temporary. The Upper CLP watershed experienced near average air temperatures and below average precipitation over the fall 2022 season. Air temperature was 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than DocuSign Envelope ID: 0666654E-D08E-4467-809B-F56AD5D02FDE average. Precipitation measured below average over the fall season and drought conditions intensified across much of the Upper CLP watershed. Streamflow in the Poudre River near the canyon mouth was well below average and measured only 65% of average over the fall season. Water quality indicators measured at key long-term monitoring sites along the CLP River were within the range of values observed over the baseline period of record (2008 – 2012) suggesting normal water quality conditions over the fall season. CC: Jason Graham, Director of Water Utilities Jill Oropeza, Water Quality Services Director, Utilities Richard Thorp, Watershed Program Manager, Utilities Water Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 0666654E-D08E-4467-809B-F56AD5D02FDE Upper Cache la Poudre Watershed Collaborative Monitoring Program FALL 2022 WATER QUALITY UPDATE Source Water Monitoring The Upper Cache la Poudre (CLP) Watershed Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program was established in 2008 between the City of Fort Collins, the City of Greeley, and Soldier Canyon Water Authority, to help meet present and future drinking water treatment goals. The City of Thornton was added as a full partner in 2022. Water quality monitoring of our raw, CLP River drinking water supply is conducted from April through November. Monitoring sites are strategically located throughout the Upper CLP watershed. Water quality data provide valuable information about the health of our source watershed and quality of our raw water supply. The Fall 2022 Water Quality Update provides a seasonal summary of watershed conditions in the Upper CLP watershed by highlighting weather, drought, streamflow, and water quality conditions over the fall season (September – November). Routine water quality monitoring results are reported for six key monitoring sites located throughout the Upper Cache la Poudre watershed, which capture water quality conditions above and below major tributaries and near water supply intake structures (Figure 1). Present water quality conditions are compared to baseline water quality data, collected over the period of 2008 to 2012. Figure 1 – Upper Cache la Poudre Watershed Collaborative Monitoring Program water quality sampling sites and real-time water quality instrument locations. JWC - Joe Wright Creek above the confluence with the Poudre River PJW - Poudre River above the confluence with Joe Wright Creek PBR - Poudre River below Rustic PSF - Poudre River below the confluence with the Little South Fork PNF - Poudre River above the confluence with the North Fork at the City of Fort Collins’ Intake PBD - Poudre River below the confluence with the North Fork at the Bellvue Diversion Indian Meadows WQ Instrument Manners Bridge WQ Instrument DocuSign Envelope ID: 0666654E-D08E-4467-809B-F56AD5D02FDE 2 Temperature Air temperature measured at the Joe Wright Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) station over the 2022 fall season was 0.5°F warmer than the long-term average and ranked as the 17th warmest fall on record (out of 33 years). Monthly mean air temperature was well above average in September, near average in October, and below average in November. The month of September ranked as the second warmest on record, while the month of November ranked as the eighth coldest on record (Table 1). Temperature 2022 (ºF) Average (ºF) Departure (ºF)2022 Rank September 49.0 44.7 +4.3 2nd (H) October 35.0 34.7 +0.3 16th (H) November 22.0 24.8 -2.8 8th (C) Fall 35.3 34.9 +0.5 17th (H) Precipitation Precipitation measured at the Joe Wright SNOTEL over the 2022 fall season was below average and ranked as the 11th driest fall on record (out of 44 years). Precipitation was below average in all months. The month of October was particularly dry and ranked as the seventh driest on record. Precipitation measured only 51% of average in October (Table 2). Drought conditions returned to the Upper CLP watershed over the fall season due to well above average temperatures in September and below average precipitation measured from September – November. Drought conditions intensified from no drought at the start of the fall season to abnormally to moderately dry conditions throughout much of the CLP watershed by the end of the fall season (Figure 2). Total Precipitation 2022 (inches) Average (inches) % of Average 2022 Rank September 2.5 2.8 90%20th (W) October 2.0 3.9 51%7th (D) November 4.0 4.2 96%20th (D) Fall 8.5 10.8 78%11th (D) Table 1 – Monthly mean air temperatures measured at Joe Wright SNOTEL over the fall months of 2022 compared to the long-term average (1991 – 2020). Note: H = hottest and C = coldest Table 2 – Monthly accumulated precipitation totals measured at the Joe Wright SNOTEL over the 2022 fall season compared to the long-term average (1991 – 2020). Note: W = wettest and D = driest Figure 2 – Drought conditions for the state of Colorado as monitored by the United States Drought Monitor on August 30, 2022 (left) and November 29, 2022 (right). (Map source: droughtmonitor.unl.edu/) DocuSign Envelope ID: 0666654E-D08E-4467-809B-F56AD5D02FDE 3 Streamflow Conditions Streamflow at the Cache la Poudre River near the Canyon Mouth (CLAFTCCO) stream gage measured 11,887 acre-feet of water over the fall season, which was 65% of the long-term average (calculated over the 1881 – 2021 measurement period). The total amount of water measured well below average in all fall months, most notably in September when streamflow measured only 61% of average (Figure 3). Figure 3 – Streamflow conditions on the Poudre River over the 2022 fall season (left) and monthly total water volume measured over the fall season (right) compared to the long-term average. Water Quality Indicators The Upper CLP Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program uses several key water quality indicators, including pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity, which act as surrogates for other parameters (Table 3). These indicators provide a snapshot of water quality conditions and are useful for identifying trends or changes in water quality. Significant changes in these water quality indicators may provide an early warning of potential water pollution. Water Quality Indicator Explanation Temperature Water temperature influences other water quality parameters and is a major driver of biological activity and algal growth in rivers, including certain phytoplankton species that produce the taste and odor compounds, geosmin and 2-methlyisoborneol. pH pH is an important water quality parameter to monitor, because it influences the solubility and biological availability of chemical constituents, including nutrients and heavy metals. pH near 7 is considered neutral, with more acidic conditions occurring below 7 and more basic, or alkaline, conditions occurring above 7. Specific Conductivity Conductivity is an index of dissolved ionic solids in water. Conductivity is used as a general measure of water quality. Significant increases in conductivity can be used as an indicator of increased pollution. Turbidity Turbidity is monitored to track changes in water clarity. Clarity is influenced by the presence of algae and/or suspended solids introduced to surface waters through various land use activities, including runoff and erosion, urban stormwater runoff and drainage from agricultural lands. For water treatment, turbidity is an important indicator of the amount of suspended material that is available to harbor pollutants, such as heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens, nutrients and organic matter. Table 3 – Water quality indicators measured as part of the Upper CLP Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0666654E-D08E-4467-809B-F56AD5D02FDE 4 Fall monitoring captures water quality as streamflow on the Poudre River transitions to baseflow (or low flow) conditions. During this time of the year water quality is generally stable throughout the watershed. Water releases from high elevation water storage reservoirs and storm events may cause changes in streamflow and water quality through September and early October, although these events are temporary. Substantial water releases in the Upper CLP watershed typically cease (depending on demand) in October, and storm events this time of year are more uncommon, as precipitation in the Upper CLP shifts from rain to snow. Most water quality constituents begin to concentrate under baseflow conditions and water temperature decreases, especially in the higher elevations of the watershed. Joe Wright Creek Canyon Mouth Over the fall months of 2022, nearly all water quality indicators at key sites along the CLP River were within the baseline range of values (Figure 4). Water temperature was near or slightly above normal at all key monitoring sites – normal is defined as the median value over the baseline period of record. The pH was slightly below normal at higher elevation monitoring sites on Joe Wright Creek (JWC) and the Poudre River above Joe Wright Creek (PJW). The pH measured slightly above normal from the Poudre below Rustic (PBR) downstream to the City of Greeley’s raw water intake (PBD). Specific conductivity was higher than normal at all key sites. Values measured within the baseline range of values at all sites, except in the Poudre above Joe Wright Creek (PJW) where specific conductivity measured higher than the baseline max- imum. Turbidity measured within the baseline range of values at all monitoring sites, except in the Poudre below the South Fork (PSF) where turbidity measured higher than the baseline maximum at this monitor- ing site. Turbidity values at all sites were still low (<2 NTU) indicating normal water quality for this time of the year. Jordyn Geller, Watershed Technician with the City of Fort Collins, collects water samples from the Little South Fork Cache la Poudre River (SFM). Figure 4–Water quality indicator data collected at key monitoring sites over the 2022 fall monitoring season compared to baseline fall water quality. conditions. Fall 2022 Median Maximum Median Minimum Graphic Explanation Baseline data range based on long-term data record 2008-2012 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0666654E-D08E-4467-809B-F56AD5D02FDE 5 Post-Cameron Peak Wildfire Water Quality Impacts Water quality monitoring instruments were installed at two locations upstream of the Poudre supply intake facility in early April. The Poudre at Indian Meadows site is located one mile downstream of the Town of Rustic and the Manners Bridge site is located approximately one mile upstream of the City’s raw water intake (Figure 1). This monitoring system provides water treatment operations near real-time water quality data to quickly respond to changes in Poudre River water quality that result from runoff from the Cameron Peak burn area or other upstream events. The summer monsoon began to wane in August. Post-fire impacts from the Cameron Peak Wildfire, such as flooding, debris flows, and erosion, were not observed over the fall season and did not appear to impact Poudre River water quality as can be seen in daily average turbidity measurements from the Indian Meadows and Manners Bridge Water Quality Alert Systems (Figure 5). FCGOV.COM/WATER-QUALITY Learn More Figure 5 – Daily average turbidity measured in the Poudre River at the Indian Meadows and Manners Bridge Water Quality Alert Systems over the fall season. Daily average values were calculated from data collected at 15-minute intervals. November data are not displayed because the instruments had already been removed from the river for the season. A photo comparison of the Poudre River near the Indian Meadows Water Quality Alert System highlights the difference in turbidity during snowmelt runoff in June and baseflows in September. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0666654E-D08E-4467-809B-F56AD5D02FDE 1 2 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Overview of Water Service in the Growth Management Area ................................................................. 3 History of Regional Water Collaboration .................................................................................................. 4 Drivers for Regional Water Collaboration ................................................................................................. 5 Study Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 7 Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Phase 1: Discovery ................................................................................................................................ 7 Phase 2: Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 8 Phase 3: Outputs ................................................................................................................................... 9 Study Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Current State of Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA ................................................... 9 City and Utilities Staff Responses .......................................................................................................... 9 District Responses ............................................................................................................................... 13 Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA .................................... 13 Solutions to Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA ..................................................................... 18 High-Benefit Solutions ........................................................................................................................ 19 Low-Resource Solutions ...................................................................................................................... 19 Reflections & Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 19 References .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A: Stakeholder List Appendix B: Interview Template Appendix C: Solutions Evaluation 3 Introduction Overview of Water Service in the Growth Management Area Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) is one of six water service providers currently serving the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) (Figure 1). This situation arose from decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s, when property owners in unincorporated areas north and south of Fort Collins requested that the City extend water service into those areas to facilitate development. The City determined that the expansion was beyond their financial capabilities and denied the service requests. Therefore, Title 32 special utility districts were formed to provide the services. 1 The City has since annexed or included in the GMA areas that are now served by other water service providers (City of Fort Collins, 2015). Figure 1. Water Service in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Significant differences exist among the water service providers in terms of mission, organizational size, staffing, and financial resources. Utilities is currently the largest water provider in the GMA (Table 1). 1 The other water providers are commonly referred to as “the Districts,” even though not all are legally defined as Title 32 special districts. 4 According to the City Plan Trends and Forces Report (City of Fort Collins, 2018), “most of the vacant land in the GMA is not served by City sewer and water utilities,” meaning that much of the future growth in the GMA is expected to be served by the other water providers (i.e., Districts). Table 1. Current Service Population for Water Service Providers That Serve Within the GMA (CDPHE, 2022) Water Provider 2022 Service Population* Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) 179,901 Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) 51,500 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) 20,503 Northern Colorado Water Association 4,550 West Fort Collins Water District 4,000 Spring Canyon Water and Sanitation District 2,120 Sunset Water District 425 * In 2022, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) changed guidance and service population estimates now include transient populations e.g., people coming into and out of the service area for the day for work). The service population provided is for the water provider’s entire service territory, not just the portion within the Fort Collins GMA. History of Regional Water Collaboration Utilities has a history of valuing regional water collaboration. The 2012 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy highlights regional collaboration as one of six policy elements (e.g., water use efficiency, water supply acquisition, water supply reliability, treated and raw water quality, use of surplus raw water, and regional collaboration) (City of Fort Collins, 2012). The regional collaboration policy element emphasizes the importance of good relationships with regional entities and the coordination of efforts to achieve mutual goals where possible. Significant milestones in regional water collaboration include the following: • Various water treatment, supply, conservation, and infrastructure sharing/sales agreements (over many years) between the City and other water providers. • Long-standing (but periodic) meetings with staff of the City and Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority entities (ELCO, FCLWD, and NWCWD) on treatment and water resource issues (informally known as the Regional Water Collaboration Committee). • In 2015, City Council directed staff to pursue regional collaboration opportunities with ELCO and FCLWD, including ways to address water supply requirements for affordable housing. • In 2016-2017, a regional water steering committee was chartered and met, but then dissipated, seemingly due to lack of progress and staffing transitions. • In 2018, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) participated in the Growing Water Smart program to work on integrated water and land use planning issues. • In 2019-2020, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and NWCWD worked collaboratively on the Horsetooth Outlet Project. Also, the first Regional StratOp meeting was held to discuss Northern Colorado water issues. • In 2021-2022, Utilities initiated this study to evaluate water resource matters in the GMA that arise from having multiple water service providers. Also, Larimer County initiated a regional 5 water existing conditions report. A second Regional StratOp meeting was convened by the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado with representatives from Larimer and Weld Counties, municipalities, and water providers. Drivers for Regional Water Collaboration The City has adopted a broad suite of climate, sustainability, water, and housing goals that sometimes lead to competing priorities (e.g., increased costs of new water supplies and affordable housing); that sometimes require coordination among multiple agencies to achieve (i.e., the City reviews and approves new development but the Districts set water supply requirements and development fees). Utilities, as a part of the City organization, is better able to support a broad range of objectives, though staff are mindful that Utilities’ funds are constrained in how they can be used to be “neutral to the ratepayer” as required in the City’s charter and municipal code (City of Fort Collins, 2022). Districts are more singularly focused on providing their customers reliable, high quality water service. Examples of regional water issues that affect the City and Utilities include the following: • Water to support new development is increasingly expensive and complex. Water supplies have gotten significantly more expensive over the past ten years (Error! Reference source not found.). The Colorado Real Estate Journal reports that “[i]n response to high prices and limited remaining supply, the volume of CBT trades recently has declined. CBT units will continue to be desirable assets with transfers to municipal use, but the pricing is likely to continue to diverge from the costs of alternative water sources and from being affordable for new development. In short, CBT prices are becoming less relevant as the remaining inventory winds down (Colorado Real Estate Journal, 2020).” • The cost of water is driving up the cost of development: Water supply costs can constitute a significant portion of the cost of new development. Utilities recently analyzed typical water supply costs for different development types and water service providers as part of the water supply requirements update and reported the following results (City of Fort Collins, 2021b): o Water supply costs for a typical single-family home in Northern Colorado: $14,900- $31,700 o Water supply costs for a multi-family development in Northern Colorado: $250,182- $961,000 o Water supply costs for a 4,300 sq ft office (or ¾” commercial tap) in Northern Colorado: $3,600-$44,000 o Water supply costs for a 2,800 sq ft restaurant (or ¾” commercial tap) in Northern Colorado: $39,400-$85,000 • Housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable: “Fees for infrastructure, water, and development review continue to rise as resources become scarcer and development challenges become more complex. In 2015, the average cost to build a unit of housing was about $278,000, while today it costs close to $330,000. Median income households can only afford a home priced at about $330,000. Developers build housing for a profit and thus cannot build new homes for purchase for less than $330,000 without some form of subsidy (Fort Collins, 2021a).” • Infrastructure maintenance and failures impact multiple water service providers. Though water service providers are separate legal entities, they increasingly rely on common water sources and infrastructure. Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD all rely on a combination of Poudre River water and Colorado-Big Thompson Project water for their water supplies. When Northern Water and the US Bureau of Reclamation needed to upgrade the Soldier Canyon Outlet Works at Horsetooth Reservoir, “several years of coordination were required to make this work 6 (Northern Water, 2020).” Potential failures of shared infrastructure (e.g., pipelines) could also have regional effects. Figure 2. Water right sales in the Northern Front Range over the past 10 years (Colorado Real Estate Journal, 2020). Green dots represent Colorado-Big Thompson share transactions; blue dots represent sales of other water rights. Developers, residents, and businesses are also affected by having multiple water service providers in the GMA. Developers experience differences in water supply requirements, infrastructure standards, and costs. Residents and businesses experience differences in water billing rates, customer options, water restrictions, and more. Study Overview Objectives Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Resources Division staff found they were spending significant time attempting to address regional water issues as they arose on an ad hoc basis; so, in 2020 Utilities initiated the Water Resource Matters in the GMA study to: • Improve understanding of regional water matters and improve alignment across City and Utilities organizations. • Better understand the perspectives of District water providers and other stakeholders working in the GMA about what it is like to work with the City and Utilities organizations on water- related matters. • Systematically evaluate the challenges and opportunities that arise from having multiple water service providers in the Fort Collins GMA. Note that since Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD are the largest water services providers in the GMA, they were a key focus of the study. Sanitation districts were not a focus of this effort. 7 Stakeholder Engagement Four stakeholder groups were formed to provide direction and gather the input needed to achieve the study objectives: • The Utilities project manager met routinely with the consultant team to provide direction on the day-to-day study execution. • A core team was formed to serve as an advisory board and provide direction on key decisions. Core team members included the Utilities project manager and representatives from Water Resources, Water Conservation, Economic Health Office, and Utilities leadership. • A City working group was formed, with more than 60 representatives from the City and Utilities, to provide input through interviews, polling, and large group meetings. • An external stakeholder group was consulted for input through interviews, polling, and large group meetings. Representatives included the Fort Collins Water Commission (previously, the Water Board), Chamber of Commerce (COC) Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC), and staff and board members affiliated with ELCO, FCLWD, and Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority. Appendix A contains a list of stakeholders along with their roles in the study. Approach Phase 1: Discovery In the Discovery phase, Brendle Group gathered input from the City working group and the external stakeholder group through interviews, polling, and large group meetings. An interview template was developed to illuminate the challenges and opportunities that arise from having multiple water providers serving the GMA (Appendix B). Sixty-one (61) City and Utilities staff and seven (7) representatives from the Districts provided input through a series of 18 facilitated interviews and polling questions. Additionally, Brendle Group made presentations to and sought input from the Fort Collins Water Board, ELCO board, FCLWD board, and COC LLAC. Information collected through the interview, polling, and presentation process was compiled into a Microsoft Excel-based evaluation framework. The evaluation framework contained: • Matter Categories: The “matter categories” are topical groupings of the types of water matters identified in the interviews. The categories are used to group and filter the full register of matters on the “register of matters” worksheet. Additionally, the “matter categories” worksheet shows linkages to potential types of solutions. • Register of Matters: The “register of matters” worksheet contains a compilation from the interview process, including a unique matter number, a matter category to help filter and sort distinct types of matters, a matter description, and documentation of the source interviews that raised the matter. Most matters represent challenges that arise from having multiple water service providers in the GMA, but occasionally they represent opportunities that arise. • Solution Categories: Like the matters categories, the “solution categories” represent topical types of solutions that are used to group and synthesize the full register of solutions. • Register of Solutions: The “register of solutions” worksheet contains a compilation from the interview process, including a unique solution number, a solution category, a solution description, and documentation of the source interviews that raised the solution. Because the interview content focused more on matters than on solutions, the solution register may be 8 incomplete and/or may contain solutions that are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. Additional research and engagement may be necessary to identify an exhaustive list of solutions or to further vet the feasibility of identified solutions. • Case Studies: The “case studies” worksheet compiles examples and case studies that were mentioned during the interview process as examples from within the City or Utilities organizations, case studies showing desirable outcomes, or case studies showing adverse outcomes. Results from the Discovery phase are discussed in the Study Outcomes section, under Current State of Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA and Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA. Phase 2: Evaluation In the Evaluation phase, Brendle Group worked with the core team to develop a scoring rubric to help evaluate the identified solutions. The scoring rubric considers resource needs, benefits to the City and Utilities organizations, benefits to external organizations, and benefits to the community (Table 2). Low score values are associated with undesirable conditions (high resource needs and/or low benefits) and high score values are associated desirable conditions (low resource needs and/or high benefits). Table 2. Solution Evaluation Scoring Rubric Resources Score Value Description 1 High - needs a new funding and/or hiring strategy for additional investment of staffing and financial resources 2 Medium - can be accomplished with additional staff time, consultant support, or budget offer that can be allocated through annual budgeting 3 Low - can be accomplished within existing staff time and operating budgets Benefits to City/Utilities Organization Score Value Description 1 Low - Benefits a relatively contained portion of the City and Utilities organization 2 Medium - Benefits most of the City and Utilities organization 3 High - Directly supports City and Utilities achieving currently established strategic goal Benefits to External Organizations Score Value Description 1 Low - Helps external organizations be better informed about City and Utilities operations and initiatives 2 Medium - Opens opportunity for external organizations to be consulted and provide feedback on City and Utilities operations and initiatives 3 High - Directly related to business operations of external organizations Benefits to Community Score Value Description 1 Low - Residents and businesses indirectly benefit from better functioning government and utility services 2 Medium - Residents and businesses directly benefit within a single service area (e.g., the Fort Collins Utilities service area) 3 High - Residents and businesses directly benefit across multiple service areas 9 Each member of the core team independently ranked the solutions, using the scoring rubric. Scores were synthesized across core team members, using totals and average values. The solutions that rise to the top depend on the priorities of the City and Utilities organizations. For example, is the City interested in low-resource quick wins? Or does the City want to make investments to achieve strategic outcomes? Results from the Evaluation phase are discussed in the Study Outcomes section, under Solutions to Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA. The completed “solution evaluation” is provided as Appendix C. Phase 3: Outputs Study outputs include work products and materials to support City and Utilities staff in understanding and presenting about water resource matters in the GMA. Key work products and educational materials are appended to this study report: • Appendix A: Water Resource Matters Study: Stakeholder List • Appendix B: Water Resource Matters Study: Interview Template • Appendix C: Water Resource Matters Study: Solutions Evaluation Study Outcomes Current State of Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA City and Utilities Staff Responses Sixty-one (61) City and Utilities staff members provided input via polling. At the time the Water Resource Matters study was being conducted, significant staffing transitions were occurring in the City and Utilities, including several long-tenured staff members with a significant amount of institutional knowledge or history promoting regional water collaboration (Figure 3). As new staff are onboarded, it will be important to educate them about the issues and opportunities that arise from having multiple water service providers in the GMA and to transition relationship management with regional partners. Figure 3. City and Utilities staff polling results: How long have you been with the Fort Collins organization? 10 Utilities and City staff reported a moderate impact to their job functions from having multiple water service providers in the GMA (Figure 4). Multiple departments reported being significantly impacted, all in the Utilities organization (e.g., Water Resources, Watershed, Water Quality, Water Treatment, Water Conservation). At least one department in the City organization reported being highly impacted but not daily (e.g., Social Sustainability). Figure 4. City and Utilities staff polling results: How much is your job function affected by having multiple water providers in the GMA? Almost everyone within the City and Utilities was satisfied with internal collaboration with Utilities (Figure 5), reporting that Utilities staff serve as excellent resources for answering questions, working together, and finding creative solutions. It was common for interviewees to comment that being within the same organization helps collaboration and that continued education on these topics is needed within and across the organization. Figure 5. City and Utilities staff polling results: How satisfied are you with your ability to collaborate with Utilities? 11 However, City and Utilities staff reported a much lower level of satisfaction in their ability to collaborate with the Districts (Figure 6). Cited reasons for lower levels of satisfaction include: • Different organizational structures, mission, values • Lack of relationships (especially proactive and ongoing, versus as needed or under emergency conditions) • Lack of a clear point of contact and/or District responsiveness • Lack of understanding on District decision-making processes, structures, and timelines It should be noted that a few departments were satisfied with their interactions with the Districts. Figure 6. City and Utilities staff polling results: How satisfied are you with your ability to collaborate with the Districts? City and Utilities staff reported a mix of whether their department has the staffing, budget, and knowledge needed to effectively address water-related matters now (Figure 7). Most staff expect their staffing, budget, and knowledge needed to address water-related matters to grow in the future (Figure 8). 12 Figure 7.City and Utilities staff polling results: How would you describe your department’s staffing, budget, and knowledge resources to effectively address water-related matters now? Figure 8. City and Utilities staff polling results: How would you anticipate your department’s staffing, budget, and knowledge resource needs to address water-related matters changing in the future? City and Utilities staff report a mix of whether their department has the influence and support needed to address water-related matters (Figure 9). Staff report that they commonly receive special requests that they feel pressured to solve, even if the requests are technically outside of the purview of the City or Utilities. Also, because these requests lack a standardized response process, they take significant staff time to review and formulate a response. Staff expressed that they lack a clear understanding of who is the City’s decisionmaker in regional water matters, what the desired ultimate outcome is, and what tradeoffs the City and Utilities may be willing to make. Staff worry about potential negative blowback on the City and Utilities when developers and residents experience “unexpected surprises.” Staff expressed appreciation for the Water Resource Matters study, liked being included in interviews, and think now is the time to address regional water matters. 13 Figure 9. City and Utilities polling results: Do you feel your department has the influence and support needed to address water- related matters? District Responses Seven staff members from the Districts (ELCO (2), FCLWD (3), Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority (2)) provided input via polling questions. A summary of responses received from provider staff are contrasted with responses received from City and Utilities staff in Figure 10. A few takeaways include: • On average, polling results show District staff reported being more affected by having multiple water service providers in the GMA than City and Utilities staff did. • District staff and City/Utilities staff report similarly neutral feelings about their ability to collaborate with each other – leaving significant room for improvement. • District staff, on average, report a lower level of satisfaction with the engagement and support they receive from the City. • District staff, on average, report a neutral-to-negative opinion about working in the Fort Collins GMA compared to other jurisdictions. Figure 10. Polling results: Comparing District staff input with City/Utilities staff input Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA Through the Discovery phase, Brendle Group identified and cataloged 167 distinct water-related matters, grouped into 16 categories (Figure 11). Dark blue boxes in Figure 11 represent the matter categories that contain the most frequently cited matters (i.e., the most common matters). 14 Figure 11. Matter Categories (dark blue boxes denote matter categories with the most cited matters) Table 3 includes a brief description of each matter category as well as a few examples of matters that fall within the category. Table 3. Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA Matter Category Category Description Example Matters Competition Water rights are scarce, competitive, expensive. Water rights are scarce, so the market is sometimes cooperative but often competitive and challenging to navigate, especially in water court. Scarcity affects the Districts’ ability to acquire new rights, primarily via dedication from developers. The Districts have expressed some concern that the City (especially Natural Areas) will use its resources to outbid the Districts in water right acquisitions. Prices are increasing – C-BT Project units are the most expensive, followed by North Poudre Irrigation Company shares, and then other Poudre basin ditch and reservoir shares. Water court proceedings are inherently full of conflict and can impact organizational relationships. 15 Matter Category Category Description Example Matters Coordination City relationships with the Districts vary. The City cannot control whether Districts take an active (collaborate) or passive (inform) role. Different departments interface with different Districts, even beyond the GMA boundary. Fort Collins can give the impression of deciding on and delivering the message, and then forcing alignment with the Districts, rather than engaging in authentic collaboration. Customer Experience Customers have different experiences across water service providers (Utilities and the other Districts) It is challenging to align communications and campaigns with exactly the right audience. Customers receive the same bill inserts regardless of which combination of services they receive from the City. Residents across the GMA have different water conservation incentive opportunities based on their water service provider. Development The City has land use authority across the GMA, yet development review and approval processes, standards, and fees vary across water service providers. Because a single provider does not serve the full GMA, it opens the door to special requests. Developers pressure City staff to solve problems that arise from differences across providers. Differing fees and standards confuse City staff, developers, and contractors. District water supply requirements make innovative and affordable housing approaches time consuming and unpredictable to get to approval. City as a Customer City departments as a major water user must navigate the cost and service differences across providers. City properties, especially parks and natural areas, are situated in District service areas. The City irrigates newly planted trees (using trucked water pulled from hydrants) and almost 1,000 acres of parks. The City is a paying customer of potable water service providers (~20% of park use) and raw water suppliers (~80% of park use). Education & Advocacy There is a need to educate the public on water resource matters in the GMA. Turf conversion incentive programs are becoming more common beyond Utilities’ service area. For example, Northern Water now offers a landscape transformation program. 16 Matter Category Category Description Example Matters The public and developers are increasingly accepting of low water using landscapes and other water conservation measures. Future Challenges Water related matters will grow and evolve in the future. Staff are not sure how to manage future water requests from surrounding communities since Fort Collins has more senior and reliable water rights than other communities. Development in northwest Fort Collins has not been an issue to date, but development may increase in the future. Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) The City/Utilities and Districts formally work together through IGAs. Utilities provides water services (treatment and/or supplies) under various IGAs (e.g., ELCO, FCLWD, WFCWD). Utilities ends up serving as a peaking plant for FCLWD, especially in summer. This results in operational complexity for staff and hidden energy costs for the City. City labs provide water quality testing for other Districts under a fee-for-service model. Infrastructure & Service Areas Providing water service requires infrastructure. Provider operations impact each other due to common water sources, infrastructure proximity, etc. Service boundaries are not always clear. Staff time is wasted on figuring out which District(s) can serve customers, especially when on the boundary. It is difficult to properly size infrastructure because of changing water use patterns. Water service providers do not want to undersize or oversize infrastructure or leave infrastructure unused. Infrastructure from various organizations exists in proximity, which causes issues during maintenance and construction. Denser development plans are exacerbating this issue. Joint Programs & Projects The City/Utilities and Districts work together on some program and projects. Utilities provides staff time to offer the sprinkler check-up program across the GMA, and the Districts reimburse Utilities for the program. Revenues go back into the water fund. Utilities and the Districts coordinate on river operations, as they are diverting at the same time under different water rights. 17 Matter Category Category Description Example Matters Leadership City Council and staff may have limited understanding of regional water issues. City leadership and staffing changes make it difficult to institutionalize foundational knowledge of water matters and maintain strong relationships with the Districts. Elected Council member positions have minimal requirements, none of which relate to water, which means that Councilmembers may have little knowledge of water matters. Mission & Values The City/Utilities and Districts have different organizational missions and values. As water service providers, Utilities and the Districts are in some cases more aligned than are the City and Utilities. The providers’ top priority is to maintain reliable and high-quality water for current and future customers. Modeling & Analysis The City can do a better job of including more detailed technical analysis and modeling of water matters in City plans and operations. City plans have not historically included much water-related technical analysis. Utilities has a long-term planning model but not a more real-time operations model to guide operational decisions. Models cover Utilities service area rather than city boundaries or GMA. Organizational Structure and Resources The City/Utilities and District organizations vary in size and resources. Projects involving the Districts are a complexity and resource multiplier for the City. As smaller organizations, Districts have fewer financial and staffing resources. Districts have independent, politically elected boards whose members have different personalities, leadership styles, and objectives. Planning & Policy Alignment The City/Utilities and Districts have different plans and policies at play in the GMA. Perception that water supply requirements may not be keeping up with water use and development trends. City staff are responsible for municipal code enforcement. The water waste ordinance lives in Chapter 26, which is specific to Utilities’ service area. Districts deal with more than one land use authority. Aligning with the City may cause misalignment with other City and county authorities. 18 Matter Category Category Description Example Matters Resilience Having multiple providers in the GMA creates opportunities for water system redundancy and resiliency. Interconnects between water service providers support operations such as emergency water exchanges when needed. Climate change impacts will affect water availability and service levels, water uses and levels, and operations for all providers. Hazards (e.g., wildfires) and damages are increasing in the Poudre watershed, but there are decreasing resources to address the impacts. Joint projects benefit all providers that use a common water source such as the Poudre. Solutions to Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA Like the identification and cataloging of water-related matters in the GMA, Brendle Group also documented 106 potential solutions identified during the Discovery phase in the evaluation framework (Appendix C). The solutions were grouped into categories, some of which are internal to the City/Utilities and some which require partnership with the Districts. Solution categories that apply within the City and Utilities: • Organizational Structures and Resources: Align organizational structures and allocate resources to effectively address regional water matters. • City Operations, Plans, and Policies: Address regional water matters in all relevant operations, models, plans, policies, and standards. • Education: Educate staff, leadership, elected officials, developers, and utility customers to elevate awareness and understanding of regional water matters. • Infrastructure and Service Area Resilience: Manage the service area and infrastructure to improve regional efficiency and resiliency, where feasible. Solution categories that apply in partnership between the City/Utilities and the Districts: • Account/Relationship Management: Foster proactive, frequent, transparent communication between the City and the Districts, at the staff and Board/Council levels. • Planning and Policy Alignment: Align policies and standards across the GMA, where feasible. • IGAs: Use formal agreements (IGAs) to clarify roles and responsibilities on joint projects. • Joint Programs and Projects: Build up the portfolio of joint projects, where applicable. • Advocacy: Identify regional water needs and advocate together. • Central or Regional Authority: Create a regional water authority or work together through existing regional entities. • Water Sharing & Banking: Establish new models for water banking or sharing of water resources. The following sections present two sets of recommended solutions that represent high-benefit solutions and low-resource solutions, respectively, based on the scoring evaluation process described in Phase 2: Evaluation. The full register of solutions is included in the evaluation framework in Appendix C. 19 High-Benefit Solutions • Support District strategies to increase raw water storage (where not in contradiction to Council direction). • Develop an emergency plan IGA to have in place if/when it is needed. • Explore establishment of a water bank program to buy raw water rights that can later be dedicated to help subsidize affordable housing or other community-benefitting projects. • Exempt some water provider projects from potential 1041 permitting regulations. • Expand conservation program offerings across the GMA through stacked incentives or shared program delivery (like the sprinkler checkup program). Low-Resource Solutions • Development Review o Work with Districts to educate and align on development review processes and expectations for comments and reviews. o Gather information and develop a handout of District requirements and costs - to provide during the development review process. • Planning & Analysis o Quantify water impacts of long-range plans. o Across the GMA, conduct better assessments of future water demands as well as water supply and infrastructure constraints. o Include Districts in upcoming City/Utilities projects, such as the Water Efficiency Plan Update and the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy update. • Boards & Leadership o Regularly attend District board meetings (City staff and/or Council members). o Recruit individuals with water expertise to run for boards and commissions. Reflections & Recommendations The City has been providing reliable water service since 1882. The City ‘s 2022 Strategic Plan (City of Fort Collins, 2022) reinforces this commitment through strategic goals to provide and maintain reliable utility services and infrastructure that directly preserve and improve public health and community safety (SAFE 5.5) and to provide a resilient, reliable, and high-quality water supply (ENV 4.4). Even in the face of population growth and water stress from a changing climate, these strategies are implemented through watershed protection, long-term storage, balancing water supplies and demands, meeting evolving regulatory standards, and recognizing that water is a finite resource. All these strategies benefit from regional water collaboration between the City/Utilities and the Districts. In addition to the Water Resource Matters study, Fort Collins has been contributing to other important regional water collaboration efforts. Fort Collins can leverage existing efforts for building organizational relationships and identifying water-related matters that are more amenable to regional collaboration: • The South Platte Basin Roundtable, which focuses on identifying projects and processes to close the gap between projected water supplies and demands. Fort Collins participates in the Roundtable. • The Community Foundation of Northern Colorado convened Regional StratOp conversations that included Larimer and Weld Counties, communities, and water service providers. Fort Collins and the Districts participated in the May 16, 2022, meeting. • Larimer County completed a foundational project to establish regional water existing conditions and will likely continue with water planning efforts and collaboration in the future. Fort Collins 20 staff reviewed the existing conditions report and participated in a public open house. The Districts were also invited to review the report and attend the open house. • The Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board and Open Lands Advisory Board worked to bridge agricultural-municipal water use and promote water-sharing pilots. Fort Collins and the Districts lease surplus water to the agricultural sector. Water sharing between agriculture and municipal uses is a regional issue. • The “Poudre Runs Through It” group brings together diverse stakeholders who have a vested interest in the Poudre River. Fort Collins and District staff participate in this group. • Northern Water started a regional water efficiency program in 2018 for all allottees. Fort Collins and the Districts’ residents and businesses are eligible for these programs since they all own C- BT Project units. New staff, some of whom may not be familiar with Colorado water issues and/or having multiple service providers in the GMA, are joining the City and Utilities in leadership roles. City and Utilities leaders need to be educated about regional water issues, as well as understand Utilities’ and Districts’ water resources portfolios and needs, so they have the context needed to provide direction to staff about the scope of engagement, desired outcomes, and willingness to make tradeoffs to support regional water outcomes. New staff bring fresh perspectives and as the City/Utilities organization rebuilds, there may be an appetite to engage in new ways to address regional water matters. The City and Utilities are working on key projects where regional water collaboration would be beneficial, including water supply adequacy determinations, the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy update, the Water Efficiency Plan update, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, and potential annexation. Each project can be viewed as an opportunity to improve the understanding of water matters across the GMA and to strengthen relationships with the Water Districts. Regional water issues are complex. Piloting solutions incrementally may be more effective than trying to implement all solutions and tackle all water matters (e.g., affordable housing projects, education, and training efforts) at once. Initial solutions should address a shared purpose and goals between the City/Utilities and water service providers - to build trust and establish a successful foundation for future collaboration endeavors. The Water Resource Matters study focused on regional water issues from the water utility perspective. Breaking down silos between these utilities within the City/Utilities organization, as well as fostering regional collaboration with the Districts, support industry best practices around integrated water resources management (also known as One Water). Utilities recently underwent a One Water organizational assessment, which may help break down silos, and increase alignment and collaboration for the benefit of regional water, wastewater, and stormwater issues, along with community resilience. 21 References City of Fort Collins. (2012). Resolution 2012-099 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Adopting a Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. Fort Collins. Retrieved Nov 19, 2021, from https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/wsdm-policy.pdf?1608579448. City of Fort Collins. (2015, Jul 14). Water Supply Planning in the Growth Management Area. https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2518928&dt=AGENDA+ITEM&doc_download _date=JUL-14-2015&ITEM_NUMBER=01. City of Fort Collins (2018). https://ourcity.fcgov.com/560/widgets/4617/documents/2046 City of Fort Collins. (2020). 2022 Strategic Plan. https://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/files/22-24167- 2022-strategic-plan-web.pdf?1657127490. City of Fort Collins. (2021a). Housing Strategic Plan. https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/0203-20201- adoption-draft-housing-strategic-plan.pdf?1612539185. City of Fort Collins. (2021b, Nov 2). Agenda Item Summary: First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2021, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Miscellaneous Water Fees and Charges, Including the Water Supply Requirement Fee. Ordinance 10824 - Utility Rates - Water Supply Requirements ORD (fcgov.com). City of Fort Collins. (2022). Article XII. Municipal Public Utilities, Section 6. Municipal utility rates & finances. https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=FOCOCH_ARTXIIMUPUUT _S6MUUTRAFI. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). (2022). Web Drinking Water Info. https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/18DpQAMm-riBo5DfqEUCgDqMspPPhu- Ul/page/q5Fz?params=%7B%22df12%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE %2580%2580A%22,%22df5%22:%22exclude%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2 580Non- Public%22,%22df24%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580NIT RATE%22,%22df27%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580No% 22%7D. Colorado Real Estate Journal. (2020, Aug 31). Northern CO needs new water market benchmarks. https://crej.com/news/northern-co-needs-new-water-market-benchmarks/. Northern Water. (2020, Nov 5). Northern Water, Reclamation Complete Soldier Canyon Dam Work. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/soldier-canyon-complete.pdf?1605024566. Appendix A: Stakeholder List Name Title Organization Department/Division Type Role Meagan Smith Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities Water Resources Division internal project manager Liesel Hans Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations internal core team Donnie Dustin Utilities Water Resource Manager Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group Susan Smolnik Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group Tony Spencer Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group Mariel Miller Interim Water Conservation Manager Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Team internal project manager (back up) Abbye Neel Water Conservation Sr Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Team internal core team Eric Olson Lead Technician Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group Katie Collins Lead Technician Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group Kelly Doyle Water Conservation Assistant Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group Alice Conovitz Water Conservation Analyst Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group Kurt Friesen Director City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group Suzanne Bassinger Engineer City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group Matt Day Sr Architect, Landscape City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group Cameron Gloss Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group Ryan Mounce Planner/Sr Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group Kelly Smith Planner/Sr Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group John Stokes Interim Director City of Fort Collins CS - Community Services internal City working group Julia Feder Manager, Environmental Planning City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group Jen Shanahan Sr Specialist City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group Bernadette Kuhn Planner City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group Dave Myers Manager/Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group Jill Oropeza Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Quality Services Division internal City working group Richard Thorp Lead Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Watershed Program internal City working group Jared Heath Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Watershed Program internal City working group Mark Kempton Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations internal City working group Ken Morrison Manager, Plant Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations / WTF internal City working group Ross Lamb Supervison, Plant Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations / WTF internal City working group Kelly DiMartino Deputy City Manager City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal core team Darin Atteberry City Manager City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal City working group Tyler Marr Deputy Director City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal City working group Eric Potyondy Asst City Attorney (Water Attorney)City of Fort Collins City Attorney's Office internal City working group Carrie Daggett City Attorney City of Fort Collins City Attorney's Office internal City working group Mike Calhoon Director City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group Robert Crabb Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group Jill Wuertz Sr Specialist City of Fort Collins CS, Parks Kendra Boot Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Parks, Forestry internal City working group LeaAnn Haisch Sr Supervisor City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group Kevin Williams Sr Supervisor City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group Paul Sizemore Interim Deputy Director, PDT, CDNS City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS - Community Development & Neighborhood Services internal City working group Dean Klinger Deputy Director, PDT City of Fort Collins PDT internal City working group Meaghan Overton Sr Planner (new Housing Manager)City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group Rebecca Everette Sr Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group Clark Mapes Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group Rich Anderson Sr Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group Russ Hovland Supervisor City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review Dave Betley Manager, Civil Engineering City of Fort Collins PDT, Engineering internal City working group Josh Birks Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Economic Health internal City working group Lucinda Smith Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group Michelle Finchum Interim Manager, Env Sustainability City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group Clay Frickey Redevelopment Program Manager City of Fort Collins Economic Health/Urban Renewal Authority internal core team Lindsay Ex Interim Housing Manager City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services (Aff Housing Task Force)internal City working group Katy McLaren Lead Climate Specialist City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group Sue Beck-Ferkiss Lead Specialist City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services (Aff Housing Task Force)internal City working group Beth Sowder Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Social Sustainability internal City working group Theresa Connor Interim Executive Director Fort Collins Utilities Utilities internal City working group Matt Fater Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Engineering)internal City working group Andrew Gingerich Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group Wes Lamarque Engineer Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering Development Review internal City working group Wes Watkins Manager, Water Field Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group James Carder Manager, Water Field Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group Mark Cassalia Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Customer Accounts internal City working group Gretchen Stanford Manager (Soon to be Interim Deputy Director)Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Public Engagment internal City working group Lori Clements Sr Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Customer Care & Technology (CCT)internal City working group Diana Royval Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Communications and Marketing internal City working group Jason Graham Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Reclamation & Biosolids internal City working group Ken Sampley Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Utility Engineering (Stormwater/Floodplain/Dev Review)internal City working group Lance Smith Director Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group Joni Crist Utilities Rate Analyst Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group Jill White Utilities Rate Analyst Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group Mike Schied General Manager ELCO staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders Randy Siddens District Engineer ELCO Staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders Melissa Tremlling Adminsitrative Manager ELCO Staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders Chris Matkins General Manager FCLWD staff Fort Collins-Loveland Water District external external stakeholders Brittany Lamb FCLWD staff Fort Collins-Loveland Water District external external stakeholders Richard Raines Water Resources Manager Tri-Districts Tri-Districts external external stakeholders Chris Harris Treatment Manager Soldier Canyon Water Treatment AuthorityTri-Districts external external stakeholders Fort Collins Executive Lead Team internal internal stakeholders Fort Collins Water Commission external external stakeholders Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Commitee external external stakeholders ELCO Board external external stakeholders FCLWD Board external external stakeholders Appendix B: Interview Template Water Resource Matters in the Growth Management Area XXX Interview, MMM DD, HH-HH Interview Partici pants List here Pr oject Background This study aims to illuminate the challenges , opportunitie s, and barriers that arise from having multiple water providers serving the Gr owth Management Area (GMA). As you participate in t his interview , please consider the interactions and dynamics that arise internally between the City organization and Fort Collins Utilities, as well as externally between your department and other water providers. Interview Prepar ation Ahead of your inter view, please think about the follow ing questions: • What challenges and opportunities have you seen or experie nced from having multiple water providers in the GMA ? • How do water matters relate to your department’s goals an d objectives? Interv iew Ground Rules • This interview is our major opportunity to speak in detail so please give us as much information as you can. • We intend to record the interview for notetaking purposes only – the recordings will not be shared outside of the advisory team. • While y our input will inform the study findings, we don’t intend to attribute input or findings to specific individuals. Findings may be summarized by department. • We’ll ask you to answer a few polling questions in ad dition to open -ended questions. • We ask for honesty and transp arency, even about sensitive and challengin g topics. • You’ll be given the opportunity to engage in the study again through 2 large group meetings at project milestones and by review ing substantive study deliverables. • You can contact Meagan S mith or Amy Volckens at any time to provide additional input or ask questions. Interview Questions Part 1: Team & Project Introductions (10 min) Part 2: Scope Identification (15 min) • What functions of your department involve water-related matters? Please consider both day-to-day and lon g-term planning functions. • What situations has your department faced from having multiple water providers in the GMA? • Which water prov iders does your department interact with ? How would you characterize the in teractions (frequenc y, importance, tone, etc .)? • In your department’s work on the city’s strategic objectives (e.g., affordable housing, climate action, sustainability goal s), what water -related matters emerge? • Do water matters present opportunities or barriers in achieving your department ’s goals and objectives ? Part 3: Opportunity and Barrier I dentifi cation (25 min) • When your department is w orking on water -related matters: • What would you like to preserve? • What would you like to achieve? • What would you like to avoid? • What do you see changing in the future? • What solutions should the City and Utilities organizations consider? Part 4: Interview Closing and Project Lookahead (10 min) • Please share any writte n responses you’ve prepared. • How can this project help you r department? • What would yo u want to know from other project participants? • Are you aware of leading cities o r best practices that w e should consi der? • Are there any questions you would like to go back to, or any final comments? Part 5: Po lling Questions (10 min) • We'll ask you to navigate to menti.com, enter a code, and answer 7 short questions. Appendix C: Solutions Evaluation App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total 5-n City Plans and Policies Exempt FCU and other water providers from potential 1041 permitting regulations. The City has been working on 1041 regulations as a more comprehensive review process to the more routinely used site plan advisory review (SPAR) process.2.50 2.81 2.79 2.01 2.53 2.53 2.57 2.71 2.69 40.00 11-a Modeling and Analysis Apply metrics to long-range planning to analyze and characterize water impacts.2.25 2.78 2.50 2.19 2.43 2.43 2.28 2.64 2.50 38.00 14-a Resilience / Water Sharing & Banking City supports District strategies to increase available storage for dry-years (e.g., CBT carryover program, store water in gravel pits, NISP, etc.) where not in contradiction to Council direction.2.38 2.30 2.71 2.30 2.42 2.42 2.39 2.28 2.62 38.00 5-h City Plans and Policies Consider Districts in Water Supply and Demand Management Policy update to clarify review and approval processes, clarify how FCU should support the Districts, and allocate adequate staff and financial resources to handle requests outside of FCU service area. 2.25 2.41 2.21 2.23 2.27 2.27 2.29 2.41 2.29 37.00 6-k Coordination and Communication Require City council members (especially members whose wards overlap District service areas) or other senior city staff to regularly attend District board meetings. 2.50 2.31 2.10 2.11 2.26 2.26 2.40 2.28 2.15 37.00 5-g City Plans and Policies Consider Districts in Water Efficiency Plan update to emphasize regional delivery of conservation programs and goals, to support allocating adequate staff and financial resources to handle requests outside of FCU service area.2.13 2.02 2.27 2.55 2.24 2.24 2.26 2.16 2.30 37.00 7-c Education Develop a "decision tree" handout for development review with important District info, to include the right info in development review letters, and help avoid developers being surprised. Get District info about what info is provided for their service area. Could include water supply requirements, impact fees, conservation programs. Assess FCU and District websites and how accessible this info currently is. 2.38 2.55 2.49 2.55 2.49 2.49 2.23 2.53 2.53 36.00 11-b Modeling and Analysis Conduct better analysis and estimation of water demands of new development across the GMA to inform long-range land use changes and proactively identify water supply and infrastructure constraints. For example, further investigate ELCO's water supply needs as the District service area that has the potential for the most greenfield development. The ongoing CWCB/CSU project is developing a tool to estimate raw water needs for different development types for ELCO and FCLWD. FCU also has a demand modeling tool that could be integrated with the Districts' tools (once available). 2.13 2.52 2.46 2.26 2.34 2.34 2.12 2.45 2.44 36.00 Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits Page 1 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 13-a Planning and Policy Alignment City to work with Districts in developing strategic & master plans to ease demands and special requests on City staff. City needs to stay aware of how master plans they create impact the cost of development in other utilty service areas. This will allow anticipation of impacts to the development community across the GMA.2.13 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.15 2.15 2.20 2.21 2.22 36.00 15-a Water Sharing and Banking Establish a water bank to buy raw water rights that can later be dedicated to subsidize affordable housing or other equitable development projects. There are legal considerations to a program like this.2.25 2.03 1.91 2.40 2.15 2.15 2.31 2.10 2.09 35.00 5-p City Plans and Policies Increase trust and collaboration through inclusive and authentic engagement of Districts in City planning efforts. Where plans affect District service areas, Districts should be invited to the planning process as a key stakeholder. City's outreach approach should be more proactive and collaborative and accommodate District specific water focus (versus general public engagement) and preferences for participation (staff vs Board level). 2.00 2.25 2.41 1.83 2.12 2.12 2.07 2.31 2.33 35.00 8-e IGAs / Coordination and Communication Develop an emergency plan IGA to have in place when it is needed (water supply disruptions, fire flows, etc). At times, emergency situations provided opportunities to innovate. Success in coordinating well on emergency situations may lead to better collaboration on longer-range items. Include terms for testing interconnects and other preventative maintenance activities. 1.63 2.20 2.23 2.26 2.08 2.08 1.81 2.19 2.19 35.00 12-m Organizational Structures and Resources Fund a joint fellow or staff member to design a community-wide water coordination program (possibly funded by COVID recovery and/or foundations).2.25 2.53 2.47 2.41 2.42 2.42 2.17 2.39 2.38 34.00 12-e Joint Programs and Projects Can City model of Natural Areas supplementing Utility conservation programs be applied to other District service areas (ideally within the GMA only), such as a piggyback rebates?2.38 1.92 2.16 2.43 2.22 2.22 2.27 2.02 2.15 34.00 10-b Joint Programs and Projects FCU could administer a XIP program like the sprinkler checkups which are offered outside the GMA as long as all hard (rebates) and soft (staff time) costs are reimbursed. Not sure if this idea has been discussed with the Districts before. 2.25 2.16 2.05 2.43 2.22 2.22 2.26 2.15 2.14 34.00 4-d City Operations Limit turf to recreational fields and limit supplemental irrigation to greatest extent possible in parks. Application rate is 2 ac-ft/ac-yr through waterwise design principles. 2.38 2.42 1.97 1.97 2.19 2.19 2.25 2.34 2.09 34.00 10-a Joint Programs and Projects Actively engage the Districts to align their conservation programs with FCU and expand across their full service areas. PRPA's Efficiency Works could serve as a good model. 2.25 2.28 1.94 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.22 2.22 2.08 34.00 Page 2 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 6-b Coordination and Communication City meet with District staff to educate about development review processes and timelines and better communicate rounds of review and deadlines. City to also develop a better understanding of District development review processes, to better advise developers 2.63 2.08 2.09 1.85 2.16 2.16 2.46 2.09 2.09 34.00 5-q City Plans and Policies Invest in regional and integrated approaches for all water-related matters (i.e., One Water) that consider a broad range of co-benefits and trade-offs (e.g., mutual parks/recreation, land use and other co-benefits). Begin with internal alignment, then eventually work to expand across the GMA. Alternatively, work first towards regional collaboration with all surrounding municipal providers who face similar challenges, then move to working with the Districts as single-purpose organizations.1.63 2.45 2.13 2.15 2.09 2.09 1.72 2.41 2.17 34.00 6-g Coordination and Communication Develop a more formalized/regular process to improve alignment between City/FCU and Districts on long-range water planning issues (two-way communication) and build relationships.2.13 2.14 2.16 1.93 2.09 2.09 2.07 2.16 2.16 34.00 12-d Organizational Structures and Resources Increase outreach and recruitment to encourage knowledgeable representatives to run for and serve on District boards and the FC Water Commission (ex. Nick Armstrong on Box Elder board)2.38 2.55 2.37 2.16 2.36 2.36 2.25 2.36 2.22 33.00 5-b City Plans and Policies Include District Boards as direct stakeholders in discussions about Land Use Code amendments. All development projects must conform to Land Use Code, irrespective of the water provider. The forthcoming Land Use Code updates affect water resource matters in the GMA, for example: promote conservation, redefine 2.13 2.02 2.39 2.32 2.21 2.21 2.14 2.03 2.27 33.00 13-d Planning and Policy Alignment Develop a common definition of waterwise landscaping and irrigation for common areas and front yards across providers. Use conservation as an opportunity to build bridges across providers.1.88 2.36 2.28 2.19 2.18 2.18 1.89 2.24 2.22 33.00 1-a Account Management Centralize water provider relationship management (to Districts, irrigation companies) to allow for building long-term beneficial relationships.2.25 2.28 2.19 1.72 2.11 2.11 2.09 2.18 2.16 33.00 11-d Modeling and Analysis Develop a joint long-term planning model for use by FCU and water districts that covers the GMA.1.75 2.34 2.14 2.03 2.06 2.06 1.81 2.28 2.15 33.00 11-c Modeling and Analysis Develop a joint long-term operations model for use by FCU and water districts that covers the GMA. This is especially helpful where the City is adjusting operations based on the operations of other Districts (which seems to happen ever summer as FCU serves as peaking plant)1.88 2.36 2.28 1.69 2.05 2.05 1.92 2.27 2.25 33.00 12-g Organizational Structures and Resources Change the City Charter to allow City council representatives to sit on District boards. It currently violates a Charter provision precluding Councilmembers from holding elected office other than on Council. It would be helpful to keep City informed through board representation by council, staff, or water commission reps, while being aware that Board decisions must be made in the best interest of Districts.2.13 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.04 2.04 2.14 2.03 2.03 33.00 11-e Modeling and Analysis Incorporate more analytical impacts of water issues in future planning efforts (e.g., E. Mulberry Plan, Natural Areas Master Plan) to address issues like volume of water, price of water, location of water, how conservation fits in, etc. and determine whether/how we can meet demands of a growing population with current (finite) supply.1.63 2.45 2.26 1.79 2.03 2.03 1.78 2.28 2.24 33.00 Page 3 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 5-u City Plans and Policies Use the General Fund to subsidize affordable housing developments in District service areas, i.e., through raw water dedication, reimbursement to offset water rights and tap fee costs, or other non-water related subsidies or benefits.1.63 2.08 1.84 2.44 2.00 2.00 1.86 2.13 2.01 33.00 5-s City Plans and Policies Update and standardize policies and processes for City to use when reviewing special requests. Develop higher-level policies for water issues that are District and developer neutral (rather than incremental through individual development projects). EG, water affordability, asking for FCU service outside of FCU service boundaries, integrated water and land use 2.00 2.13 1.89 1.88 1.97 1.97 1.98 2.09 1.97 33.00 13-c Planning and Policy Alignment Coordinate an affordable housing water policy or agreement across water providers to standardize review processes, fees, and/or raw water options for affordable housing developments.2.00 1.63 1.70 2.54 1.97 1.97 2.08 1.75 1.77 33.00 13-f Planning and Policy Alignment Encourage ELCO and FCLWD to develop water shortage action plans. Parks operates in all water provider districts and is interested in planning for how to alter operations during restrictions scenarios. Without action plans in place, Parks does not know how to plan. 2.38 1.80 1.90 1.76 1.96 1.96 2.31 1.85 1.96 33.00 9-c Infrastructure and Service Area Management Work with Districts to firm up service boundaries at an address/parcel level and trade service areas where it makes sense. Be mindful of difference between jurisdictional boundaries (potentially flexible) and infrastructure boundaries (once something is in the ground, less flexible). Some infrastructure mapping, including irrigation, has been done by Parks and between FCU and ELCO. 1.75 2.47 2.40 1.95 2.14 2.14 1.86 2.34 2.32 32.00 5-v City Plans and Policies Explore the implications to demands and revenues of and consider buying back water from customers that do large scale turf conversions (HP, Woodward, CSU, HOAs).2.00 2.25 1.78 2.38 2.10 2.10 1.96 2.18 1.83 32.00 3-d Central or Regional Authority Form a regional water authority by separating FCU from the City and merging with the Districts. 1.50 2.19 1.96 2.58 2.06 2.06 1.68 2.17 1.95 32.00 3-e Central or Regional Authority Leverage Northern Water as a common wholesaler to Utilities and the Districts for leadership in program delivery (indoor CII audits, outdoor audits) and other appropriate regional collaboration topics 1.88 1.98 1.98 2.11 1.99 1.99 1.88 1.99 1.99 32.00 Page 4 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 5-f City Plans and Policies City to move towards integrated water management planning (aka One Water) as wastewater has a similar issue with fragmented service areas, water conservation strategies naturally tie in to green stormwater solutions and watershed health/water quality 1.88 2.36 1.53 1.97 1.93 1.93 1.95 2.30 1.71 32.00 12-n Organizational Structures and Resources Have formal assigned job responsibilities for City staff that include: relationship management with the Districts, attending District board meetings, and highlighting when water resource matters in the GMA arise, akin to Legal's role in highlighting legal issues to staff and city leadership with direct line to CMO.1.88 1.86 1.72 1.56 1.75 1.75 1.94 1.94 1.84 32.00 4-b City Operations Create more explicit guidelines around Utilities "neutral to the ratepayer" standard that address economic, social, environmental, resilience, etc. tradeoffs. Legal advises staff of this and other legal standards and whether projects will withstand scrutiny. Staff must provide the factual basis for why a project meets this standard. 2.13 2.39 1.94 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.11 2.23 1.97 31.00 12-o Organizational Structures and Resources Hire a community services water resource engineer to manage the parks & natural areas water portfolio (all city-side water resources).2.25 2.41 2.08 1.59 2.08 2.08 2.07 2.27 2.13 31.00 5-r City Plans and Policies Move water waste ordinance to Ch 20 of the municipal code as a nuisance/safety issue that applies across the GMA.2.13 1.89 1.88 2.24 2.03 2.03 2.13 1.91 1.91 31.00 12-b Organizational Structures and Resources Add staff to (1) centralize management of all city-owned water resources across the City/FCU, (2) manage relationships with Districts and serve on or attend board meetings.2.00 2.13 2.02 1.77 1.98 1.98 1.99 2.10 1.98 31.00 12-i Organizational Structures and Resources Continue cost-sharing and collaborative relationships on water rights and infrastructure between the City and institutional partners (e.g., parks and schools).2.13 2.02 1.77 1.99 1.97 1.97 2.00 1.97 1.84 31.00 5-o City Plans and Policies Explore the suitability of low-income water usage rates that are offered through the Income-Qualified Assistance Program to promote water affordability and whether that assistance tool is in conflict with the "neutral to ratepayers" standard. This is a special residential rate code that is offered for water, wastewater , and electricity service, but is not applied to stormwater. The rate is generally a 23% discount on Tier 1 usage. This rate is available to residents that are on the County's LEAP list and residents must opt-in to the program. Approximately 190 residents have opted-in to the program. The Districts do not have equivalent programs. 1.88 1.86 1.72 2.43 1.97 1.97 1.87 1.87 1.75 31.00 1-c Account Management Propagate the key account customer management structure for all Districts, akin to the recent setup for FCLWD. Ensure job descriptions and resource allocations formally identify responsibilities in managing District relationships.2.25 2.03 2.04 1.54 1.96 1.96 2.10 1.97 1.96 31.00 6-m Coordination and Communication Form a water team as part of the City's emergency planning and operations to improve regional coordination for informing the public about emergency situations and response activities.2.00 1.88 1.86 2.09 1.96 1.96 1.87 1.95 1.95 31.00 13-e Planning and Policy Alignment Develop consistent field standards to accommodate new types of development (usually denser development). For example, utility setbacks and separations would be nice to align across the GMA. 1.88 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.98 1.98 31.00 4-e City Operations Complete planned sale of 10 CBT shares from Land Bank to Utilities. Proceeds will support the Land Bank program in buying more land. CBT shares will increase Utilities' firm yield.2.50 2.19 1.34 1.50 1.88 1.88 2.28 2.13 1.53 31.00 Page 5 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 3-a Central or Regional Authority City to execute a tiered acquisition of districts (WFCWD, then ELCO, then FCLWD)1.38 2.17 1.69 2.28 1.88 1.88 1.57 2.06 1.71 31.00 5-i City Plans and Policies Create a citywide water master plan that identifies supplies, demands, water types, future needs, system limitations, etc. 1.50 2.31 1.73 1.94 1.87 1.87 1.67 2.17 1.80 31.00 5-e City Plans and Policies Develop an integrated utility master plan to foster coordination across individual department-level plans and policies.1.75 2.34 1.64 1.72 1.86 1.86 1.89 2.27 1.79 31.00 3-c Central or Regional Authority Form a regional water authority akin to how the SCWTA was formed to resolve cost-sharing uncertainty among three districts. Board includes representatives from each participating district. Poudre Fire Authority as another model.1.75 2.22 2.25 2.28 2.12 2.12 1.85 2.11 2.10 30.00 5-a City Plans and Policies All City- and FCU-led plans should consider and address relevant water matters. 2.00 2.25 1.91 2.27 2.11 2.11 1.96 2.09 1.93 30.00 5-d City Plans and Policies Better scale water supply requirements to the development type and anticipated water demands, with the intent of requiring less water for new developments.1.75 2.09 1.86 2.34 2.01 2.01 1.78 2.02 1.89 30.00 10-c Joint Programs and Projects Hold a competition to identify and evaluate creative water supply solutions 2.00 1.88 1.73 2.08 1.92 1.92 1.95 1.84 1.82 30.00 Page 6 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 5-t City Plans and Policies Use plumbing, building, and housing codes as tools to address water matters in the GMA where appropriate, for example authorizing onsite reuse if feasible. 2.00 1.88 1.73 2.08 1.92 1.92 1.85 1.93 1.82 30.00 2-a Advocacy Increase legislative advocacy, where the City has a policy objective that is the subject of pending legislation. For example, flexibility in sharing water rights with neighboring water providers. Where mutually beneficial, advocacy would ideally be done jointly with Districts. 1.75 1.97 1.96 1.84 1.88 1.88 1.80 1.93 1.93 30.00 8-a IGAs Clean up and/or renegotiate water sharing agreements with Districts. Adjust financial terms to better reflects financial, resource, and staff burdens on the City. Adjust financial terms to settle in more real-time to avoid impacts to the City (e.g. carrying costs)1.88 2.23 1.89 1.50 1.87 1.87 1.81 2.14 1.90 30.00 8-b IGAs Complete IGAs in progress (pre-sed basin, PVP, cross-tie, communications)1.75 2.22 1.87 1.60 1.86 1.86 1.69 2.13 1.89 30.00 1-b Account Management Ensure that the City (or Parks, as largest user) is set up as a key account by Districts to foster higher-frequency, more proactive communication.2.25 2.03 1.66 1.37 1.83 1.83 2.12 1.99 1.75 30.00 12-a Organizational Structures and Resources Acquire more financial support to achieve larger visions. For example, leverage CWCB/State of Colorado as a provider of grant funds, technical assistance, and training on common topics (e.g. M36 water loss audit training, Water Plan grants for joint integrated water and land use projects)2.00 1.88 1.61 1.69 1.79 1.79 1.98 1.86 1.73 30.00 13-h Planning and Policy Alignment Upgrade metering technology of all Districts to AMI and align or centralize high- resolution data management for all City meters 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.67 1.75 1.75 1.84 1.83 1.70 30.00 6-d Coordination and Communication City/Utilities staff to work with Districts based on their preferences. For example, ELCO expressed interest in more board-level interactions, whereas FCLWD expressed interest in more "inform staff for staff recommendation to board" type interactions. FCLWD would like to "sign off" on all developments, like they have seen happen on ditch company boards.2.00 1.63 1.83 1.43 1.72 1.72 1.93 1.69 1.82 30.00 4-g City Operations / City Plans and Policies Fully integrate Utilities into City land use planning to ensure land use form can be supported by utility function and infrastructure.1.88 2.48 2.04 1.80 2.05 2.05 1.92 2.28 1.92 29.00 6-o Coordination and Communication Invite and/or require water providers to attend all development review meetings (virtually or in-person). They are currently invited but often decline the invitation, and not sure what else the City can do. Perhaps the City can categorize development review requests into categories (simple vs. critical). Districts may not be on development review list for pre-application and conceptual plan reviews. There are no fees associated with review at this stage, so cannot recoup cost of staff time. City could route developments earlier in the process, working with the Districts to establish criteria of which projects they are interested to see. 2.25 1.78 1.88 1.74 1.91 1.91 2.07 1.81 1.92 29.00 6-a Coordination and Communication Align communications between providers and municipalities where feasible and services and policies aligned. While regional info is exchanged, there are no good examples of regional coordination (Metro drought coordination seems to go better than Front Range coordination in this regard). What about the basin roundtables?2.13 1.89 1.88 1.74 1.91 1.91 2.06 1.93 1.93 29.00 8-d IGAs Develop an IGA that defines equitable cost sharing among City and Districts 1.88 1.98 1.98 1.73 1.89 1.89 1.82 1.93 1.92 29.00 Page 7 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 9-b Infrastructure and Service Area Management Install FCU-owned meters on all master meters and interconnects so that FCU has better control of water use and billing data and can better maintain meter infrastructure. Alternatively, require audits or regular calibrations of all meters owned by other organizations.1.88 2.23 1.64 1.72 1.87 1.87 1.81 2.14 1.77 29.00 6-l Coordination and Communication Continue conversations between FCU and Districts for shared water sourcing and water supply issues and opportunities.2.13 1.64 1.85 1.58 1.80 1.80 1.89 1.72 1.95 29.00 7-e Education Educate City leadership and Council re: water matters, including history of water matters, legal limitations, and opportunities. Resurrect or continue promotion of Water Literate Leaders program. FCLWD articulated extensive training for their board members. Could include an "exchange program" or rotation between City/Utilities and District boards to cross-pollinate. 1.88 1.86 1.84 1.45 1.76 1.76 1.74 1.83 1.82 29.00 4-h City Operations / Water Banking and Sharing Develop clear criteria on the use and sale of water resources (in a water bank scenario).1.63 1.95 1.57 1.77 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.94 1.70 29.00 6-e Coordination and Communication Continue leveraging the SCWTA RWCC informal operational meeting for information sharing and coordination. Munroe/PVP operating agreement, HOP, North Poudre Irrig. Co. issues addressed in this group to date.2.13 1.52 1.58 1.28 1.62 1.62 1.99 1.61 1.63 29.00 6-c Coordination and Communication City to include District Boards as stakeholders for code changes, plan updates, etc. Request to make presentations similar to how we present to internal Boards and Commissions.2.13 1.39 1.56 1.39 1.62 1.62 1.98 1.59 1.63 29.00 5-m City Plans and Policies Require multifamily units (owner and renter occupied) with common areas, shared landscaping, etc. to increase conservation and reduce overall water demand.1.88 2.11 1.50 1.81 1.82 1.82 1.78 2.00 1.62 28.00 4-c City Operations Fields Services documents infrastructure upgrades needed before assuming ownership of customers and infrastructure from other Districts. Districts shoul rectify any issues and/or upgrade costs should be reflected in asset transfer costs 1.88 2.11 1.25 1.53 1.69 1.69 1.80 2.02 1.42 28.00 Page 8 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 5-j City Plans and Policies/City Operations Create a comprehensive irrigation and raw water master plan for a more holistic systems view of parks water use and engagement of ditch companies and water providers. Convert park irrigation from potable to non-potable when raw water source is nearby. Develop redundant drip systems for tree zones in park design in case water use restrictions are implemented.1.50 1.94 1.43 1.86 1.68 1.68 1.56 1.91 1.55 28.00 5-k City Plans and Policies Develop a citywide irrigation master plan. Where potable irrigation is used, do a billing analysis to check the potential to reduce wastewater charges.1.50 1.94 1.43 1.86 1.68 1.68 1.56 1.91 1.55 28.00 13-g Planning and Policy Alignment Engage with districts about their raw water requirement policies (e.g., changes to lot sizes, cash-in-lieu, tap policies, development types). At a minimum, clarify and educate; at best, align. This may not be feasible unless under a regional authority, and may not benefit each organization depending on their individual costs.1.38 1.42 1.47 1.66 1.48 1.48 1.53 1.55 1.56 28.00 3-b Central or Regional Authority Research statuatory tools and judicial proceedings that determine city's level of control over whether the Districts provide water service within city limits. Based on current understanding and status quo, Districts need to consent to relinquishing service area. 2.25 2.03 1.54 1.98 1.95 1.95 2.09 1.96 1.60 27.00 6-i Coordination and Communication Request all Districts to share board meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and standards and regulations publicly, to help City stay informed. FCLWD does this already. ELCO shares meeting dates and times, but not agendas or minutes. Title 32 covers meeting notice and information sharing but is not comprehensive. 2.00 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.83 1.83 1.80 1.87 1.86 27.00 7-h Education Water staff need to communicate better (translating from technical to public communications) and more often to educate the public about water matters. Examples include better use the annual report to demonstrate the tangible benefits of water conservation; promoting drinking water quality over bottled water. Train City water specialists in communicating technical water resource matters to non-technical audiences, through training, participation in Toastmaster's or other mechanisms.1.75 1.84 1.70 1.79 1.77 1.77 1.64 1.84 1.72 27.00 Page 9 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 6-h Education Develop a policy or process (education platform) for communicating previous work and key decisions on water matters, rather than revisiting or starting from scratch in response to Council, Water Commission, or public requests.2.00 2.00 1.63 1.45 1.77 1.77 1.76 1.94 1.69 27.00 12-k Organizational Structures and Resources Ensure that City staff and leaders are aligned and trained on significant water decisions (e.g., outcomes of RWCC meetings, Regional Strat Op discussion).1.88 2.11 1.62 1.45 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.96 1.69 27.00 15-b Water Sharing and Banking Evaluate the potential to be creative in using southside ditch water for northside water needs (for parks purposes).1.63 2.08 1.59 1.66 1.74 1.74 1.61 1.95 1.69 27.00 5-l City Plans and Policies Enact water demand offset policies so that new developments do not increase overall water demands. See: Water Offset Policies for Water-Neutral Community Growth, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Jan 2015.1.50 2.06 1.45 1.88 1.72 1.72 1.48 1.94 1.56 27.00 6-f Coordination and Communication Re-engage use of the right-of-way coordination standing staff team meetings as a forum for regional coordination of water matters.2.25 1.66 1.61 1.31 1.71 1.71 2.05 1.67 1.67 27.00 4-a City Operations Conduct a comprehensive review of water rate structures and financial planning tools that better promote affordable housing, water conservation. 1.88 1.73 1.33 1.87 1.70 1.70 1.81 1.69 1.44 27.00 6-n Coordination and Communication Hold Monthly Regional Water Cooperation Committee meetings (formerly convened by Carol and Gerry, focusing on policy/strategy).1.88 1.73 1.70 1.41 1.68 1.68 1.70 1.76 1.76 27.00 7-b Education Create a 1-page fact sheet or resource guide about this issue with top 10 things people should know, FAQs, high level info about FCU and Districts.2.13 1.39 1.31 1.35 1.55 1.55 2.04 1.46 1.46 27.00 Page 10 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 9-a Infrastructure and Service Area Management Consider "translating" the service area map into other useful maps (e.g., constrained water supplies, water costs, where pipes and infrastructure are actually located)1.50 1.44 1.49 1.43 1.46 1.46 1.53 1.53 1.54 27.00 4-f City Operations Explore creative ways to utilize NAD tap credits elsewhere or by another dept. There are some cases when the City acquires land with old homes and existing water taps, where the structure is demolished and the tap is not intended to be use. NAD currently has 7 such taps (1 with ELCO, 6 with FCLWD, 0 with FCU). These water taps may be a monetizable asset where they can be sold (ELCO allows, FCLWD allows but it's hard, FCU doesn't allow the sale of taps). NAD pays a $20 monthly account fee for each FCLWD tap regardless of use. NAD pays for tap removal & plugging the water main, gets a credit in the billing system that gets applied to a new tap. This part of the transaction represents a net cost.1.88 1.98 1.36 1.78 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.83 1.46 26.00 12-j Organizational Structures and Resources Develop shared service principles for the City, FCU and Districts.1.88 1.61 1.56 1.38 1.61 1.61 1.75 1.61 1.61 26.00 12-h Organizational Structures and Resources Change the FC Water Commission structure to require fundamental expertise (water rights, stormwater, etc), similar to how Art in Public Places requires 3 artists sit on the board, with intent to strengthen advisory role or even move into more of a decisionmaking role.1.88 1.73 1.20 1.35 1.54 1.54 1.71 1.68 1.32 26.00 6-j Coordination and Communication Identify City staff representative to encourage and engage with Larimer County to move regional water supply conversations and collaboration forward.2.00 1.75 1.72 1.56 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.70 1.70 25.00 12-q Organizational Structures and Resources Review the "Budgeting for Outcomes" process to figure out more flexibility and support for addressing water matters in the GMA 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.67 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.72 1.58 25.00 8-c IGAs Create a financial map of connections between the City/FCU and Districts 1.75 1.59 1.42 1.22 1.50 1.50 1.67 1.65 1.54 25.00 7-a Education All staff presentations on water matters in the GMA should include a basic orientation to multiple service providers 1.88 1.36 1.40 1.20 1.46 1.46 1.66 1.49 1.51 25.00 13-b Planning and Policy Alignment Conduct regional planning on foundational topics, for example to look at impacts of City plan on future demands across the GMA and by provider 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 24.00 7-d Education There is a need and opportunity to emphasize that interdependence through joint education between City and the Districts staff on common topics such as land use planning, drought (could include emergency response exercises), landscape transformation, etc. Districts as single-purpose water providers is a narrow view – they wouldn’t have customers and growing businesses without having a growing and thriving city and community. 1.75 1.34 1.39 1.56 1.51 1.51 1.58 1.42 1.44 24.00 12-p Organizational Structures and Resources Quantify the magnitude of the issue via staff time addressing customers or issues in District services areas, costs of multiple providers (e.g., water treatment operation variability and energy costs, water cost impacts on development)1.50 1.56 1.26 1.17 1.37 1.37 1.47 1.58 1.35 24.00 Page 11 App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm Resources Resources Solution #Solution Category Solution Description AVERAGE Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) AVERAGE City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) AVERAGE Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Average TOTAL Staff, technical, other (3 low resource, 1 high resource) TOTAL City/Utilities (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL External Organization (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit) TOTAL Community (3 high benefit, 1 low benefit)Total Synthesis & Averages Benefits Synthesis & Totals Benefits 7-g Education Develop public education strategies in conjunction with the Districts to address topics such as: who is your provider and what are the implications re: programs, policies, rates)1.63 1.20 1.23 1.38 1.36 1.36 1.48 1.32 1.34 24.00 5-c City Plans and Policies As part of the WSDMP update, clarify if city's water goals cover FCU only or all City including raw/potable and establish whether FCU should plan for how to provide water to surrounding systems in the GMA that rely on single water sources such as CBT or Montava GW. Be proactive in acknowledging that FCU will need to support surrounding systems and residents in case of a system failure (and vice versa if something catastrophic happens to the Poudre).1.50 1.69 1.52 1.46 1.54 1.54 1.48 1.59 1.57 23.00 12-f Organizational Structures and Resources Change the City Charter for Utilities to align with City strategic goals and broaden the project standard to include affordable housing and other strategic objectives. 1.38 1.30 1.08 1.47 1.31 1.31 1.42 1.32 1.20 23.00 7-f Education Educate general city staff (non-water specialists) about water matters (e.g., lunch and learns, City training programs, Water Literate Leaders)1.75 1.47 1.15 1.17 1.39 1.39 1.51 1.45 1.22 22.00 12-c Organizational Structures and Resources Advocate for term limits on District Boards.2.67 1.92 1.72 1.72 2.00 2.00 2.19 1.83 1.69 21.00 10-d Joint Programs and Projects Land use authorities (e.g., PDT at FC) hold a competition among FCU and Districts for affordable housing design and price. Updating water supply requirements are the mechanism for adjusting water costs for new housing types.2.00 1.75 1.55 1.72 1.75 1.75 1.84 1.68 1.65 20.00 Page 12 Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 222 Laporte Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.212.2900 V/TDD: 711 utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 3, 2023 TO: Mayor Arndt and Councilmembers FROM: Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Sciences, Utilities Water Quality Services Division THROUGH: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Jason Graham, Director of Water, Utilities RE: FORT COLLINS URBAN LAKES WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT ______________________________________________________________________________ Bottom Line The purpose of this memo is to provide information about the development of the City’s Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance. No action is being requested at this time. Background Water Quality is a term used to describe the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of water relative to management goals. Managing water quality in the City’s Urban Lakes (City- owned lakes, ponds and reservoirs) has become increasingly challenging due to pollution associated with urban growth and development, land use practices and a warming climate. In addition, a complete inventory of City-owned Urban Lakes has been lacking. And lastly, the scope of the City’s water quality management jurisdiction has not been clearly defined. In a few situations, this has led to uncertainty regarding whether City staff should provide technical services to assist with managing water quality in private lakes. To address these challenges, a project team consisting of staff from Utilities, Natural Areas and Parks Departments, the City Attorney’s Office and SWCA Environmental Consultants are currently developing an Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance. The Policy is meant to establish a vision, goals and objectives for managing water quality in the City’s Urban Lakes and to clearly define the City’s management jurisdiction. The Guidance will serve as a technical resource to assist City staff with implementing the Policy and will include an inventory of the City’s Urban Lakes; a database containing lakes specific water quality data and other information; lakes categorization based on management objectives; management DocuSign Envelope ID: F25A3970-CB4E-4FA6-AE99-EC6760DF5269 prioritization based on water quality risk; and a summary of best practices for mitigating water quality issues. Policy and Guidance development are being informed by community engagement with local subject matter experts; City advisory boards, including the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Board and Utilities Water Commission; and the community at-large. The project team’s community engagement efforts were designed to be equitable and inclusive in order to connect with traditionally underrepresented sectors of the community. Final drafts of the Policy and Guidance are expected to be completed during Q1 of 2023. These materials and a summary of what was learned during community engagement will be presented to the City advisory boards listed above. Staff anticipate that a resolution seeking adoption of the City’s Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy will be presented to City Council on March 9, 2023. CC: Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director Jill Oropeza, Director of Sciences, Utilities Water Quality Services Division Matt Parker, Senior Supervisor, Natural Areas Department Mike Calhoon, Director, Parks Department DocuSign Envelope ID: F25A3970-CB4E-4FA6-AE99-EC6760DF5269 1 January 19, 2023 Water Commission Meeting Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance Update Richard Thorp, Watershed Program Manager Water Quality Services Division City of Fort Collins Utilities 2 Seeking Board Motion Suggested language: I move that the Water Commission recommend City Council approve the Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy Project Scope Guidance •Technical resource to support policy implementation •Available to private lakes managers •Not a prescriptive water quality management plan 3 Policy •F ramework for City’s Urban Lakes water quality operational and management decisions •City -owned lakes w/in growth management area (GMA) •Excludes private waters, drinking water reservoirs and Poudre 4 Project Timeline Q1 2021 Guidance development kick-off Q3 1. Guidance drafted 2. Met with City Boards and Water Commission Q4 Q1 Policy development kick-off 2022 Q2 Community engagement Q2 Subject matter experts interviewed & surveyed Q3 Q1 2023 1. Meet with City Boards and Water Commission; 2. Request Council Adopt Policy 3. Finalize Guidance and Policy Policy drafted Policy scope of work developed Developed community engagement program Q4 Drafting the Policy •Project team determined details of Policy •Community engagement: ✓Subject Matter Expert Surveys and Interviews ✓Community at -large ✓City Advisory Boards 5 Policy Development Workshop Community at Large •What are community’s concerns and priorities? •Equitable and inclusive, diverse perspectives •Outreach approach: ✓survey ✓social media, websites ✓engagement at lakes ✓1:1 meetings 6 Riverbend Ponds Rigden Reservoir What did we learn? •Community highly values the City’s urban lakes: recreation and wildlife •Algal blooms, odors and fish kills primary concern •Water quality concerns influence patterns of use •Requested communication regarding water quality issues 7 Trophy-sized carp North Shields Ponds By the numbers: 30 events 437 people observed 1,444 people engaged 273 surveys completed Water Commission Feedback •Has management cost- effectiveness for City owned lakes been assessed? •What are key water quality concerns? 8 Sheldon LakeRigdenReservoir Final Draft Policy •Background, vision and purpose •Key terms •Scope and applicability •Management objectives •Management plans •Communication •Accountability 9 Trophy-sized carp North Shields Ponds Spring Canyon Dog Park Pond 10 Seeking Board Motion Suggested language: I move that the Water Commission recommend City Council approve the Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy Thank you! Richard Thorp Watershed Program Manager 970-416-4327 rthorp @fcgov.com fcgov.com/source-water-monitoring Riverbend Ponds Date: Final Draft 12/21/2022 Page 1 of 94 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The City’s Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Guidance was developed by a diverse project team consisting of City staff from the Natural Areas, Parks and Utilities Departments and SWCA Environmental Consultants using a One Water Approach. The project team would like to acknowledge the importance of the feedback and recommendations received from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resource Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Board and the Water Commission. The project team also acknowledges the important role that subject matter experts and the general public played in the development of this project. Subject matter experts included representatives from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Aquatic Associates, Colorado State University, Warren Lake HOA, Rigden Farm HOA, Richards Lake HOA, Fairway Estates HOA and Lake Sherwood Corporation. Page 2 of 94 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Fort Collins’ Urban Lakes ................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Challenges ....................................................................................................... 6 Algae Blooms ......................................................................................................................................................8 2.0 ADDRESSING URBAN LAKES WATER QUALITY CHALLENGES ...................................................................................... 8 2.1 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance ...........................................................................................................8 MS4 Program ......................................................................................................................................................9 2.2 Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy ............................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Guidance ........................................................................................................ 11 3.0 HOW TO USE THIS GUIDANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 City-owned Lakes Managers ........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Private Lakes Managers .................................................................................................................................................. 12 4.0 ALIGNMENT WITH THE CITY AND STRATEGIC PLANS .................................................................................................. 12 5.0 METHODS - HOW WAS THIS GUIDANCE DEVELOPED? ................................................................................................ 12 5.1 Data and Information Gathering ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Subject Matter Expert Interviews and Surveys ............................................................................................... 13 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Inventory of City-Owned Urban Lakes ............................................................................................................ 13 Inventory of Water Quality Best Management Practices................................................................................ 13 5.2 Data Analyses .................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Water Quality Issues Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 14 Management Categorization ........................................................................................................................... 14 Water Quality Risk Rank Model ....................................................................................................................... 15 Geodatabase .................................................................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Management Tools .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 GIS Map Package, Google Earth Files and Map Book ...................................................................................... 16 Page 3 of 94 Best Management Practices Toolbox .............................................................................................................. 16 6.0 RESULTS - WHAT DID WE LEARN? .................................................................................................................................. 16 6.1 Inventory of City-owned Urban Lakes .............................................................................................................................. 16 6.2 Water Quality Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 6.3 Management Categories.................................................................................................................................................. 19 6.4 Urban Lakes Geodatabase .............................................................................................................................................. 19 6.5 Map Package and Google Earth Geospatial Files ........................................................................................................... 19 6.6 Urban Lakes Water Quality Risk Rank Model .................................................................................................................. 19 6.7 Best Management Practices Toolbox .............................................................................................................................. 22 7.0 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 22 8.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 ATTACHMENT 1 – FINAL DRAFT URBAN LAKES WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT POLICY ............................................ 24 ATTACHMENT 2 – SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT (SME) INTERVIEW AND SURVEY QUESTIONS ...................................... 28 SME Interview Questions....................................................................................................................................................... 28 SME Survey Questions .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 ATTACHMENT 3 - URBAN LAKES WATER QUALITY RISK RANK MODEL ........................................................................... 30 ATTACHMENT 4 – URBAN LAKES GEODATABASE AND ATTRIBUTE TABLE ..................................................................... 37 Fort Collins Detention Lakes .................................................................................................................................................. 53 ATTACHMENT 5 – MAPBOOK OF CITY-OWNED URBAN LAKES ......................................................................................... 61 ATTACHMENT 6 – WATER QUALITY ISSUES DATABASE .................................................................................................... 74 ATTACHMENT 7 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) TOOLBOX .......................................................................... 80 Page 4 of 94 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Algae – Aquatic plant-like organisms that contain chlorophyll. Algae blooms – Excessive growths of algae caused by excessive nutrients. Anoxia – The absence of oxygen. Aquatic habitat – Area of a lake providing food, shelter and other resources for organisms. Aquatic nuisance species – Plants or animals that can cause water quality issues in lakes. Benthic Sediment – The sediment at the bottom of a lake. Benthos – Organisms that live on or within benthic sediment in lakes. Best management practice (BMP) – Industry standards, or practices, used to manage natural resources, such as lakes. Bioaugmentation – A technique whereby bacteria are added to contaminated water to help treat a water quality issue. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) – A measurement of the amount of oxygen that is consumed by microorganisms. Contaminants of Emerging Concern (COCs and CECs) – Compounds for which water quality standards do not currently exist, such as certain personal care products, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, insect repellants and sunscreen. Cyanobacteria (Blue-green algae) – Photosynthetic bacteria that can form blooms similar to algae and that can be toxic to both aquatic organisms, humans and other animals. Detritus – Decomposing organic matter in aquatic systems. Dissolved oxygen (DO) – A measure of the amount of oxygen dissolved in water. Ecology – The study of how organisms interact with their environments. Epilimnion – The uppermost layer of a lake that is stratified chemically and/or physically. Escherichia coli (E. coli) – A species of bacteria that occurs in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. Eutrophication – Excess nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) in a lake. Geographic information system (GIS) – A computer-based software platform used for analyses of geospatial data. Growth Management Area (GMA) – An area within which the City’s future growth is limited, as agreed upon by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Heavy metals – A group of metals often considered toxic to aquatic organisms in high concentrations. Invasive species – Any species present in a lake that is considered non-native. Lake productivity – A lake’s ability to support algae and plants. Page 5 of 94 Littoral zone – A narrow, often shallow zone along the edge of a lake. Macrophytes – Aquatic plants that can be seen with the eye that have roots and differentiated tissues. Morphometry (of lakes) – The physical characteristics of a lake including surface area, maximum depth, mean depth, shoreline characteristics, and volume. Nutrient loading – Influx of nutrients from the surrounding watershed are into a waterbody. Nutrients – Nitrogen and phosphorus. One Water approach - is an integrated planning and implementation approach to managing finite water resources for long- term resilience and reliability. pH – A measurement of how acidic or basic a water is on a scale of 0 (most acidic) through 14 (most basic). Photosynthesis – A chemical reaction whereby energy from sunlight and chlorophyll are used to convert water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates, which are used by plants as food. Oxygen is produced as a by-product of this reaction. Phytoplankton – Community of free-floating microscopic algae and cyanobacteria in a lake. Residence time – The amount of time water remains in a lake before it is completely renewed by inflows of new water. Salinity – A measure of the concentration of dissolved salts in water. Shoreline – Shoreline is defined as the margin of land along the edge of a lake. Stormwater runoff – Overland surface flow during and following precipitation events; stormwater runoff can convey pollutants from roadways, parking lots and other impermeable surfaces into lakes. Stratification (of lakes) – Process by which different chemical and physical horizontal layers form seasonally in some lakes. Thermal stratification – The formation of horizontal temperature zones or layers in some lakes. Thermocline – The narrow zone of rapid temperature change in thermally stratified lakes. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) – A measure of the total concentration minerals, metals, salts, and organic materials dissolved in water. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) – The total concentration of minerals, metals, salts, and organic materials suspended (not dissolved) in water. Turbidity – A measurement of the relative clarity of water; lower values translate to high clarity and higher low clarity. Urban Lakes – City-owned lakes, reservoirs and ponds located within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA). Vegetation buffer – An urban lakes best management practice consisting of planting or maintaining vegetation along the edge of a lake to intercept pollutants that would otherwise enter a lake. Water quality issue – A physical, chemical, or biological stressor impacting a lake. Page 6 of 94 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The City of Fort Collins (Fort Collins) is located 65 miles north of Denver and is part of the northernmost extension of Colorado’s Front Range urban corridor. Fort Collins currently has a population of approximately 175,000 people (2020 census) and is projected to grow by an additional 70,000 residents by the year 2040 (City of Fort Collins 2019; World Population Review 2021). Concerns regarding Fort Collins’ rapid growth and development and the potential for suburban sprawl led to the development of a Growth Management Area (GMA) Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County in 2000 (City of Fort Collins 2019; City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, 2008). The GMA is an agreed upon zoning district within which urban growth and development is allowed (Figure 1.1). Fort Collins’ rapid urban growth and development can significantly impact environmental resources by reducing air quality; overcrowding parks and natural areas; and degrading water quality in the City’s streams and lakes. 1.2 Fort Collins’ Urban Lakes Fort Collins’ urban lakes are defined as lakes and stormwater basins where the City owns the surrounding and underlying land and thus manages the water in them. The oldest of the City’s urban lakes were originally constructed during the 1800s for the purpose of diverting and storing water for irrigated agriculture (Duggan 2005). Many of the City’s urban lakes are either relic ditch or reservoir features from this early period or abandoned gravel mine pits that have been reclaimed as lakes, but the City has also continued to construct new urban lakes over the years. The City’s urban lakes are diverse in age, form and function and provide a broad range of beneficial uses to our community; including providing recreational opportunities, serving as wildlife habitat, storing irrigation water, serving as elements of the City’s stormwater infrastructure and other uses. 1.3 Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Challenges Managing water quality in the City’s urban lakes presents a range of challenges for City staff. For example, prior to the development of this project, a comprehensive list of all City-owned urban lakes and the City department responsible for managing each lake was lacking. In addition, the City’s urban lakes jurisdiction had not been clearly defined, which led to some uncertainty in terms of water quality management scope and priorities. City staff have become increasingly concerned with water quality issues impacting the City’s urban lakes. Many of these lakes have physical characteristics that impact water quality, such as being relatively small, shallow, and lacking inlets and/or outlets to renew water. In addition, physical, chemical and biological pollution associated with urban growth and development, land use practices, climate change and other factors can lead to water quality issues such as algae blooms, elevated concentrations of water-borne pathogens, nuisance odors and fish kills. The City’s urban lakes are managed to meet a variety of objectives and are impacted to varying degrees by water quality pollution. Where should the City’s finite urban lakes water quality management resources be focused? This is ultimately a FORT COLLINS’ RAPID URBAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT CAN SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. Page 7 of 94 Figure 1.1 Map showing Fort Collins’ City Limits and Growth Management Area (GMA) (Source: City of Fort Collins 2005). Page 8 of 94 decision for each managing department. However, combining information about each lake’s management objectives, known water quality history and relative risk of future water quality degradation can assist managers in making these decisions. Once an urban lake water quality issue has been identified and prioritized for more focused management, the question then becomes: what measures can be taken to mitigate the issue? A comprehensive reference of urban lakes water quality best practices to both reduce water pollution and to mitigate existing water quality impacts would be beneficial. Algae Blooms The City’s urban lakes naturally contain aquatic communities, including macroinvertebrates, fish, plants, algae and other organisms. Algae are plant-like organisms containing chlorophyll that can be separated into three broad categories: filamentous, planktonic and macroalgae. As with plants, the growth of algae can be greatly influenced by environmental conditions. Many of the City’s Urban Lakes are small and shallow, receive abundant sunlight and are relatively stagnant. Lakes with these physical conditions are prone to algae blooms, especially when enriched by nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) pollution. While algae are important components of lake aquatic communities, algae blooms can present significant water quality management challenges in the City’s urban lakes. Algae blooms can range in severity from the level of management nuisance to a significant community health threat. Algae blooms can harm other aquatic organisms and can lead to fish kills, odors and can negatively impact community usage. Some species of macroalgae called cyanobacteria can produce dangerous neurotoxins called cyanotoxins during harmful algae blooms (HABS). However, it is important to note that not all algae blooms are caused by cyanobacteria and not all cyanobacteria blooms are HABS. Algae blooms have been identified by City staff and stakeholder groups during Policy and Guidance development (see Section 2 below) as the most significant urban lakes water quality concern. The mechanisms by which nutrients enter the City’s urban lakes are varied and complex and include permitted wastewater discharge; permitted stormwater discharges; non-point pollution from urban landscapes; agricultural runoff; wildlife and pet waste; atmospheric deposition; and internal loading from lakebed sediments and other sources. The Best Management Practices (BMPS) Toolbox in Attachment 7 of this Guidance lists several suggested best practices to assist managers with reducing nutrient input to lakes and addressing algae blooms. 2.0 ADDRESSING URBAN LAKES WATER QUALITY CHALLENGES 2.1 Stormwater Management Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance The City’s Stormwater Maintenance Division is responsible for removing debris from several irrigation system trash racks associated with ditches that have been placed underground by the City. Local irrigation companies also regularly remove debris from open ditches throughout the City for the purpose of delivering water to shareholders. The City is currently in the process of hiring a contractor to remove homeless encampment debris from the City’s stormwater infrastructure. …ALGAE BLOOMS CAN PRESENT SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IN THE CITY’S URBAN LAKES. Page 9 of 94 MS4 Program The City of Fort Collins implements several programs and practices designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to local water bodies via the storm sewer system. These programs are implemented in accordance with Colorado Discharge Permit System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), a practice-based permit under which the city is authorized to discharge. Programs and activities, as they relate to urban lakes management and water quality protection, are as follows: 1. Public Education and Outreach – a public education program to promote behavior change by the public to reduce pollutants in discharges from the MS4. Staff take a multi-pronged approach, from school-age and adult programs to social media to address the impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies, the steps that can be taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff, and water quality impacts associated with spills and improper disposal of waste. Topics include nutrient sources such as yard waste and fertilizer use, as well as other pollutant sources and reduction practices. 2. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination – a program to effectively prohibit pollutant discharges to the MS4, which includes municipal code Section 26-498 and enforcement procedures. Staff respond to reports of spills, dumping, and illegal connections to ensure pollutant sources are stopped and mitigated. 3. Construction Sites Runoff Control - a program to reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 from applicable construction activities. Construction sites are required to implement sediment and erosion control and pollution prevention practices in accordance with the city’s Stormwater Criteria Manual; staff implement a plan review and inspection program to verify compliance with the requirements. 4. Post-Construction Stormwater Management – a program to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 from applicable development sites after development is completed. New and redeveloped sites are required to install permanent stormwater quality treatment measures, such as Low Impact Development (LID) that meets the city’s Stormwater Design Criteria; staff must ensure proper design, installation, and long-term operation and maintenance of these measures. 5. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations – a program to prevent or reduce water quality impacts from pollutants being discharged to the MS4 from municipal facilities and operations. Staff implement a program to provide staff training, Municipal Facility Runoff Control Plans, inspections, and Standard Operating Procedures including the storage and application of fertilizers. 2.2 Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy A project team consisting of staff from Natural Areas, Parks and Utilities Departments, the City Attorney’s Office and SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) addressed the above urban lakes management concerns by developing an Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy (see Attachment 1 for Policy) using an integrated One Water Approach. The purpose of the Policy is to provide a foundational framework for the City’s operational and management decisions related to water quality management in City-owned lakes and stormwater basins and to support implementation of the Guidance. The project team conducted community engagement to better understand urban lake water quality concerns and inform policy development. Community engagement included: 1. Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) were interviewed and/or surveyed during April and May of 2021 to better understand known water concerns in City-owned urban lakes (see Attachment 2). SMEs included City staff; local private lakes managers; ecological consultants; scientists with Colorado Parks and Page 10 of 94 Wildlife and Colorado State University; and others. Information from this effort was used to both develop the Guidance (see Section 5.1 below) and inform Policy development. SME feedback included: • Nutrient pollution, algae blooms, odors, and low oxygen concentrations were the primary water quality concerns • A technical resource is needed to assist City staff with managing urban lakes water quality and implementing the Policy 2. City Advisory Boards were engaged during September of 2021 to solicit feedback on the project team’s Policy development approach, including community engagement. City Advisory Boards included the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board; Natural Resource Advisory Board; Parks and Recreation Board; and Water Commission. City Advisory Board feedback included: • City-owned Urban Lakes and the City’s management jurisdiction should be defined in the Policy • Recommended improving urban lakes water quality-related communication with community members • Suggested increasing transparency with how City-owned lakes are managed • Should be made clear that the Guidance is meant to support implementation of the Policy The project team presented final drafts of the Policy and Guidance to these City Advisory Boards in January 2022 and requested a formal motion from each board to recommend that City Council adopt the Policy. 3. The Community at large was engaged to better understand the diverse perspectives in our community regarding water quality in City-owned Urban Lakes. Engagement efforts were designed to be equitable and inclusive, to better understand the diverse perspectives in our community, with a focus on community members whose voices are often underrepresented during City processes. The project team’s engagement approach included the development of an urban lakes water quality survey; the use of a social media campaign and the creation of project informational websites, where the survey was posted. All engagement materials were developed in both English and Spanish. City staff also engaged community members directly at targeted lakes and in using focused meetings with some groups. Targeted lakes, representing each department were selected using vulnerability indicators included in the City’s 2021 Equity and Opportunity Assessment Study (City of Fort Collins, 2001b). Vulnerability indicators included housing, education, income and race and ethnicity. Targeted lakes included Overland Park Pond and Sheldon Lake (Parks); Arapaho Bend Ponds, North Shields Pond and Riverbend Ponds (Natural Areas); Avery Pond (Utilities); and Rigden Reservoir (Utilities/Natural Areas). The project team conducted 30 community engagement events at targeted lakes between May and June of 2022. A total of 437 people were observed engaged in various activities at targeted lakes. The project team directly engaged with 1,444 people at engagement events and a total of 273 surveys were completed. The majority of survey respondents (87%) identified as white, which is 2021 US census where 85% of people in Fort Collins identified as white. Respondent age varied greatly, with the exception of minimal participation in the 15–19- year-old range. Household income also varied greatly, with the most common responses (35%) indicating between $75,000- $150,000 household income. 15% of respondents indicated some college or an associate’s degree, while 76% of respondents indicated an education level of Bachelor degree or higher. What did we learn from community members regarding City-owned urban lakes? • The City’s urban lakes are highly valued assets to our community; Page 11 of 94 • Wildlife viewing, aesthetic, intrinsic and accessibility were the most commonly reported values; • Hiking/walking, dog walking, wildlife viewing and fishing were the most commonly reported activities; • Algae, odors and fish kills were the most common water quality concerns; and Nearly half of survey respondents reported that water quality had negatively impacted their experience and altered their patterns of usage. In summary, the City’s urban lakes are important to many in our community and support wildlife habitat, provide natural beauty, intrinsic and other values. The community engagement survey helped staff to document our community’s urban lakes water quality priorities and concerns. Engaging with community members at select urban lakes provided additional insight through observation of activities and direct feedback. It is concerning that nearly half of people surveyed have been negatively impacted by water quality issues in some City-owned urban lakes and avoid these areas. Survey respondents expressed support and appreciation for the development of an urban lakes water quality management Policy and Guidance. The City’s project team used a series focused meetings and facilitated workshops to create a draft Policy. The draft Policy was recommended for adoption by the City Advisory Boards above and was ultimately adopted by City Council on ?, 2023. The final Policy is included in Attachment 1. The policy includes: • a background, vision and purpose to provide a rationale for why Policy was developed; • definitions for several key terms; • a description of the City’s urban lakes water quality management scope, including jurisdiction; • expectations regarding urban lakes water quality management and management plans; • communication between departments and the community; and • staff accountability regarding Policy implementation, including future Policy and Guidance updates. 2.4 Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Guidance The project team developed this Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Guidance as a technical resource to assist City staff with implementing the Policy. The Guidance is not intended to serve as a prescriptive water quality management plan for the City’s urban lakes. Rather, water quality in urban lakes is complex and management plans should be developed on a case-by case basis. This Guidance includes a complete inventory of all City-owned Urban lakes within the growth management area, as well as a summary of known water quality issues. Urban lakes management categories were developed based on departmental management goals and lakes were prioritized for management based on relative water quality risk. And lastly, a list of effective best management practices (BMPs) for mitigating water quality in urban lakes was developed. A suggested Guidance implementation approach is included in Section 3.0 below under ‘How to Use this Guidance’. A detailed description of how each element of Guidance was developed is described in Section 5.0. 3.0 HOW TO USE THIS GUIDANCE 3.1 City-owned Lakes Managers This Guidance provides City staff with an inventory of City-owned urban lakes within the City’s GMA and which lakes are THE CITY’S URBAN LAKES ARE HIGHLY VALUED ASSETS TO OUR COMMUNITY Page 12 of 94 under Natural Areas, Parks and Utilities management jurisdiction – where known. The Guidance also includes a summary of what is known about water quality in each of the City’s Urban Lakes. This information can be accessed using Geodatabase tables in Appendix B of this document and the Map Book in Appendix C; using the Urban Lakes Map Package with ArcGIS Geographic Information System Software; and/or using Urban Lakes KMZ files with Google Earth. The City owns hundreds of Urban Lakes that have either been specifically designed or adapted to meet a range of management goals, which can have water quality implications. Lakes have therefore been sorted into detention and retention lakes based on hydrologic regime and then further separated into management categories based on primary and secondary management goals. Managing departments have the daunting task of determining which lakes within their jurisdiction should be prioritized for focused water quality management. In an effort to assist with these decisions, the project team developed a risk rank geospatial model that ranks retention lakes from low-high priority based on water quality risk. And lastly, the Guidance contains a diverse toolbox of BMPs to assist managers with mitigating urban lakes water quality issues. BMPs include those designed to reduce pollution loading to lakes and others designed to mitigate existing water quality issues (see Appendix F). 3.2 Private Lakes Managers Fort Collins’ private lakes managers face many of the same water quality management challenges as those documented for the City’s Urban Lakes. As such, there exists an opportunity for private lakes managers and City staff to share information on BMPs that have been successfully implemented to mitigate water quality issues. The City’s project team engaged several local private lakes managers along with other local subject matter experts during Guidance development to identify urban lakes water quality challenges and appropriate BMPs. The project team anticipates that the BMP Toolbox in Attachment F of the Guidance will be particularly useful for assisting private lakes managers with managing water quality issues on private lakes. 4.0 ALIGNMENT WITH THE CITY AND STRATEGIC PLANS Fort Collins’ City Plan (City of Fort Collins 2019) lists Environmental Health as a key outcome area, which is supported by several policies and principles. The Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance align with the Environmental Health principles listed below: Principle ENV 1 – Conserve, create and enhance ecosystems and natural spaces within Fort Collins, the GMA and the region. Principle ENV 6 – Manage water resources in a manner that enhances and protects water quality, supply and reliability. The Policy and Guidance further aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan by addressing the following strategic objectives: Strategic Objective 4.5 – Protect and enhance natural resources on City-owned properties and throughout the community. Strategic Objective 4.6 – Sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and all watersheds within the City. 5.0 METHODS - HOW WAS THIS GUIDANCE DEVELOPED? The project team developed this Guidance using the process summarized in Figure 5.1 below, including urban lakes data and information gathering; data analyses; development of a geographic information system geodatabase; and development of urban lakes water quality management tools. Detailed methods for each step of the Guidance development process are provided in subsections below. Page 13 of 94 5.1 Data and Information Gathering An important first step in Guidance development was to gather existing water quality data and other information regarding the City’s Urban Lakes. This process involved conducting subject matter expert (SME) interviews and surveys and a literature review. Subject Matter Expert Interviews and Surveys Internal (City staff) and external (non-City staff) subject matter expert (SME) interviews and surveys were conducted to gather data and other information about the City’s urban lakes. SWCA conducted five 1-hour virtual interviews with SMEs selected by the City’s project team. Three of the interviews were conducted with small groups of City staff (four to six attendees) from Parks, Utilities and Natural Areas Departments. The remaining two interviews were conducted with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and Aquatic Associates, LLC staff. External SME surveys were also conducted to gather additional water quality related data and other information. The survey was sent to 12 external SME representatives from local ditch companies, Colorado State University, private lake homeowners associations (HOAs) within Fort Collins and local non-profits. In instances where there were incomplete responses to interview or survey questions or clarification was needed, SWCA conducted brief follow-up interviews or sent additional questions by email. Interview and survey structure and questions are included in Appendix A. In order to maintain anonymity, a complete list of individuals involved in the SME interviews and surveys is not provided herein. Interviews and surveys helped inventory City-owned lakes; yielded information about lake-specific physical characteristics and water quality information; documented available water quality data sources; management objectives; and water quality best practices that have been implemented. Water quality information and data, including water quality issues and best management practices, were added to the geodatabase. Literature Review A literature review was conducted by SWCA to identify peer-reviewed literature and online-published news articles on urban lake water quality issues along Colorado’s Front Range. Search terms included word combinations such as “Colorado urban lakes water quality,” “Colorado urban lakes,” “lake algae Colorado,” and “Colorado lake fish kills.” Resulting articles and news events were reviewed for water quality issues and best practices that may be applicable to the City’s urban lakes. Results of the literature review were used to help develop a baseline inventory of urban lake water quality issues for this Guidance. Inventory of City-Owned Urban Lakes Data and information obtained during subject matter expert interviews and surveys and from the project team were used to develop a detailed inventory of City-owned lakes within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA). Inventory of Water Quality Best Management Practices An inventory of urban lakes water quality best practices (BMPs) was developed to provide lakes managers with a toolbox of relevant BMPs. BMPs can be grouped into two broad categories: those used to mitigate existing urban lakes water quality issues and those used reduce the risk of future issues occurring. The inventory of BMPs was compiled using information obtained during SME interviews and surveys and was augmented with additional BMPs as suggested by the project team. Page 14 of 94 Figure 5.1. Graphic showing the process used for developing the City’s Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Guidance. 5.2 Data Analyses Water quality related information ere used to conduct a series of analyses including an inventory of known water quality issues impacting the City’s lakes; the creation of management categories; and the development of a process to assist managers with prioritizing lakes for management. Water Quality Issues Analysis The Water Quality Issues Analysis (WBI) included an inventory of current, historic and potential future water quality impacts to the City’s urban lakes. The project team compiled this information using SME interviews and surveys and the literature review described above. The inventory provides a description of each issue, causes, management challenges, recommended pollution mitigation best practices and other information. Management Categorization The City’s urban lakes have been designed and are currently managed to achieve a range of goals, which can impact water quality to varying degrees. It is therefore useful for the City’s urban lakes to be grouped into discrete management categories to better anticipate and mitigate water quality issues. The project team used information obtained during SME interviews and surveys to develop a draft list of potential management categories for the City’s urban lakes. The draft list was further refined using additional feedback from City staff from Natural Areas, Parks and Utilities Departments into a final list of urban lakes management categories. Because many of the City’s urban lakes are managed to achieve more than one management goal, primary and secondary management categories were assigned by the project team for each urban lake, where applicable. DATA AND INFORMATION GATHERING DATA ANALYSES GEODATABASE DEVELOPMENT CREATED MANAGEMENT TOOLS •SME Interviews and Surveys •Literature Review •Inventory of BMPs •Water Quality Issues Analyses •Management Categories Created •Water Quality Risk Rank Modelling •Inventory of City- owned Urban Lakes •Lakes Water Quality Risk Assessment •GIS Map Package •Google Earth Files •Map Book •BMP Toolbox Page 15 of 94 Water Quality Risk Rank Model City staff are tasked with managing the water quality of many urban lakes with limited resources. Which lakes should managers focus resources to address the highest water quality risks and achieve the greatest impact? The project team attempted to address this question by developing a Risk Rank Geospatial Model (Model) to help guide managers. The Model combines a variety of lake water quality criteria, including primary and secondary management category; lake surface area; existing water quality issues; adjacent land use within 200 feet of the lake; estimated water residence time; groundwater connection to the Poudre River; and whether each lake is on the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s 303(d) List of Impaired and Threatened Waters. These model inputs were broken out into separate categories, such as “yes” or “no” for existing water quality issues or “vacant,” “residential,” or “industrial” for adjacent land uses. The project team assigned a relative numeric value, or ‘weight’ to each model factor based on the level of urban lakes water quality management concern. For example, “vacant” land received a lower score than “commercial” because developed lots would be expected to present a greater water quality risk to adjacent lakes due to elevated risk of nutrient, pathogen and other pollutant loading. Risk Rank Model scores were calculated for each lake by summing individual criteria scores (Table 5.1). Lake scores ranged from 0 to 1, with higher values near 1 representing lakes with a higher relative water quality risk. Scores were separated into three discrete bins corresponding to low (0.1–0.25), medium (0.251–0.5) and high (0.51–1.0) water quality risk. Lakes having no data for one or more criteria were not assessed. Model inputs; criteria descriptions, weights and supporting rationale; and calculated scores can be found in Attachment B. Model risk rankings were validated using desktop analyses on a subset of 20 randomly selected lakes to ensure that the model was accurately calibrated. Minor adjustments were made to the numeric scores and weights as needed. Geodatabase The project team developed a geographic information system (GIS) geodatabase and an associated Map Package of City- owned Urban Lakes within the GMA. The geodatabase includes individual lake physical, chemical, biological and other water quality information collected during SME interviews and surveys and literature review. The metadata associated with the Risk Rank Model are also included in the Geodatabase. 5.3 Management Tools The project team developed several tools to assist City staff with managing water quality in the City’s Urban Lakes. These tools included an inventory of all City-owned lakes within the GMA (see Section 6.3); a water quality risk assessment (see Section 6.2.3); a Geographic Information System Map Package and Google Earth Files; a Map Book; and BMP Toolbox. WATER QUALITY RISK RANK GEOSPATIAL MODELLING Score Risk Rank Description 0.1-0.25 Low Lakes with low risk of water quality issues 0.251-0.50 Medium Lakes with medium risk of water quality issues 0.51-1.0 High Lakes with high risk of water quality issues Table 5.1 Table showing Water Quality Risk Rank Geospatial modelling scoring ranges, ranking categories and descriptions Page 16 of 94 GIS Map Package, Google Earth Files and Map Book An Urban Lakes Geographic Information System Map Package was developed to provide the City’s lakes managers with interactive mapping tools in addition to what is provided in this Guidance. In addition to the Map Package, Google Earth KMZ files were also created, providing managers with the option to use Google Earth as an additional urban lakes management tool. And lastly, a Map Book including all of the City’s Urban Lakes was developed as an additional reference for managers. Best Management Practices Toolbox The BMP Toolbox includes a list of more than 50 BMPs and additional supporting information for each, including a brief description of the BMP; water quality issue(s) being targeted; applicable lake conditions; any potential negative outcomes; relevant permitting and water rights for managers to consider; any potential BMP co-benefits, approximate costs, including operations and maintenance costs per year; and additional resources. A description of these attributes can be found in the BMP Analysis Summary below. 6.0 RESULTS - WHAT DID WE LEARN? This section provides a summary of what was learned during the data and information gathering and analyses phases of the Guidance development process and the tools that have been developed to assist City staff with managing Urban Lakes water quality. 6.1 Inventory of City-owned Urban Lakes City-owned urban lakes were sorted into two broad categories: detention and retention lakes. Detention lakes typically only hold water temporarily (<72 hours) and are mostly used to achieve specific stormwater management objectives. In contrast, retention lakes are characterized by holding water for longer periods of time (>72 hours) (Figure 6.1). Both categories of lakes were inventoried in this Guidance; however, the development of water quality management tools focused on retention lakes only. There are a total of 461 lakes within the City’s Growth Management Area; including 304 City-owned Urban Lakes and 157 that are not City-owned. The City’s Urban Lakes include 148 detention lakes and 156 detention lakes (Table 6.1; Figures 6.1 and 6.2). The distribution of retention vs detention lakes under management by Natural Areas, Parks and Utilities Departments differs widely. Natural Areas primarily manages retention ponds, whereas Utilities manages mostly stormwater detention ponds. Parks manages roughly equal numbers of retention and detention ponds. It’s important to note that a managing CITY-OWNED URBAN LAKES Detention Lakes Retention Lakes Total Lakes Natural Areas 4 50 54 Parks 27 28 55 Utilities 87 7 94 Natural Areas/Utilities 0 3 3 Unknown 38 60 98 156 148 304 Table 6.1. Table listing the number of detention and retention lakes managed by Natural Areas, Parks and Utilities Departments, and the total number of City-owned lakes. Page 17 of 94 Figure 6.1. City of Fort Collins City-owned retention and detention lakes within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (Source: City of Fort Collins 2005). Page 18 of 94 Figure 6.2. Map showing City-owned Urban Lakes within the GMA and managing department. Page 19 of 94 department has not currently been identified for 98, or 32% of City-owned lakes. A full list of City-owned detention and retention lakes, along with unique identification numbers (MXASSETNUM) and other data and information can be found in Attachment C. A detailed Mapbook of all City-owned Urban Lakes can be found in Attachment D. 6.2 Water Quality Issues The water quality issues analyses resulted in 49 unique urban lakes water quality issues (Attachment E). Issues range from specific pollutants to physical causes of water quality degradation. Additional information includes a description of each issue; potential cause(s), management challenges and reference materials are also provided as management resources. Information regarding known urban lakes water quality issues is included in the Geodatabase and Urban Lakes attribute tables in Attachment C. 6.3 Management Categories There were nine unique management categories created for this Guidance; these included: Golf Course, Wildlife, Fisheries, Stormwater/Flood Control, Ornamental, Recreation, Water Storage, Sediment Retention and Other/Urban. The City’s retention lakes were assigned primary and secondary management categories based on departmental management objectives (Table 6.2). The majority of the City’s retention lakes are managed to provide wildlife habitat, to serve as stormwater infrastructure features or as storage reservoirs. The most common departmental management categories were Wildlife, Storage and Stormwater/Flood Control for Natural Areas, Parks and Utilities, respectively. 6.4 Urban Lakes Geodatabase The Urban Lakes Guidance Geographic Information System (GIS) Geodatabase contains an attribute table with detailed information about City-owned retention lakes. Managers are able to use the attribute table to quickly identify individual lakes using a unique identification number (MXASSETNUM) that is referenced in the City’s Maximo Asset Management System as well as lake names, when available. Additional lake-specific information includes lake physical characteristics; managing department and assigned management categories; water quality issues referenced in see Appendix E; BMPs referenced in Appendix F that have been implemented and level of effectiveness; and additional notes to help inform managers. A complete copy of the Urban Lakes Geodatabase attribute table is included for reference in Appendix C. Please note that many of the City’s urban lakes have little or no attribute data beyond a MXASSETNUM. 6.5 Map Package and Google Earth Geospatial Files The Urban Lakes Geodatabase was used to develop an Urban Lakes GIS Map Package that can be used with Geographic Information System Software and KMZ lakes files that can be used with Google Earth. The Map Package and KMZ files contain the same lake specific attributes contained in Appendix A, providing managers with several options for accessing this information. The Risk Rank Model results (see below) can be viewed by lakes managers using the Map Package and .KMZ files in Google Earth. 6.6 Urban Lakes Water Quality Risk Rank Model The Urban Lakes Water Quality Risk Rank Model was developed to help the City’s lakes managers identify which retention lakes are at low, medium and high risk for water quality issues. The model identified 19 retention lakes that are considered the highest priority based on known water quality history, adjacent land use and other risk factors (Table 6.2). A full listing of prioritization ranks for retention lakes is available in Attachment C and a map of these lakes is included in Figure 6.3. There were 58 lakes that could not be assessed because necessary data to run the model were lacking. Page 20 of 94 URBAN LAKE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES Natural Areas (50) Parks (28) Utilities (7) Utilities/ Natural Areas (3) Golf Course 1 Wildlife 50 2 Fisheries 11 Stormwater/Flood Control 27 2 5 2 Ornamental Recreation 10 Storage 27 2 1 Sediment Retention Other/Urban 1 HIGH PRIORITY URBAN LAKES Lake Name Managing Department Priority Prospect Ponds North Natural Areas High Merganser Pond (Prospect Ponds) Natural Areas High Catfish Pond (Prospect Ponds) Natural Areas High Heron Pond Natural Areas High Cathy Fromme Pond Natural Areas High Blackbird Pond (Cattail Chorus) Natural Areas High Sunfish Pond (McMurry) Natural Areas High Duck Lake Natural Areas High Little and Big Bass Ponds (Arapaho Bend) Natural Areas High I-25 Pond (Arapahoe Bend) Natural Areas High Homestead Pond Natural Areas High Edora Park Pond Parks High Spring Creek Park Pond Parks High Spring Creek Dog Park Pond Parks High Portner Reservoir #2 Parks High Portner Reservoir #3 Parks High Sheldon Lake Parks High Fossil Creek Community Park Pond #1 Parks High Troutman Park Pond - East Parks High Table 6.2. Table summarizing urban lakes primary and secondary management categories for retention lakes managed by Natural Areas, Parks, Utilities and Utilities/Natural Areas Departments. The number of retention lakes managed by each department is shown in parentheses. Table 6.3. Table summarizing City-owned urban lakes that are considered the highest priority for management based on risk rank water quality modelling. Page 21 of 94 Figure 6.3. Map showing water quality risk rankings, from low to high, for the City’s urban retention lakes. Page 22 of 94 6.7 Best Management Practices Toolbox The BMP inventory that was conducted as part of Guidance development was used to create a BMP Toolbox (Appendix F). The BMP Toolbox includes 51 unique BMPs, including those currently used by City staff, and others that were suggested by SMEs or identified by the project team. BMPs include those that are designed to mitigate existing water quality issues and those that are reduce the risk of future water quality issues. BMPs are designed to target water quality issues such as algae blooms, macrophytes, sedimentation, water-borne pathogens, low dissolved oxygen, nutrient loading and other management challenges. Each BMP is detailed in the BMP Toolbox; including a description on the BMP, treatment mechanism, targeted pollutants, cost estimates for implementation, references and other information. 7.0 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS This Guidance is meant to provide a starting point for City staff tasked with managing Urban Lakes water quality – including a lakes inventory and management tools. An important next step for managers will be to prioritize lakes for management based on information in this Guidance and other resources and to develop specific management plans with targeted mitigation strategies as necessary. This Guidance is intended to be iterative and should be updated periodically to maintain an accurate inventory of the City’s Urban Lakes, water quality issues impacting these important resources and the latest BMPs. The Geodatabase, .KMZ map files and Risk Rank Model should also be updated as necessary over time to add new lakes or edit attributes of existing lakes. The Guidance has been primarily developed to support the City’s Urban Lakes management. However, it will be shared with the public and will likely be particularly useful for private lakes managers. It is recommended that the City also develop a webpage containing the Guidance and other information about the City’s Urban Lakes and ways our community can help reduce water quality impacts. It is further recommended that the City develop an interactive webmap that allows the public to learn more about Urban Lakes water quality concerns. And lastly, the Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance were developed using a cross-departmental One Water Approach. The process ultimately aligned Natural Areas, Parks, Utilities and provided an opportunity for increased communication, teamwork, the identification of co-benefits, and overall integration of resource management. It is the hope of the project team that this project serves as another strong example of the potential benefits of adopting a City-wide One Water Framework. 8.0 LITERATURE CITED City of Fort Collins. 2005. Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Available at: https://www.fcgov.com/fortfund/pdf/growth- management-map.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2021. ———. 2019. Fort Collins City Plan. Available at: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/cityplan/widgets/ 4617/documents. Accessed July 6, 2021. ———. 2020. 2020 Strategic Plan. Available at: https://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/files/20-22326-2020-strategic-plan- document_final.pdf?1592600042. Accessed July 7, 2021. ———. 2021a. Principles and Policies: Environmental Health. Available at: Environmental Health Policies | Fort Collins City Plan (fcgov.com). Accessed July 10, 2021. ———. 2021b. City of Fort Collins Equity and Opportunity Assessment. Available at:. Accessed March 15, 2021. Page 23 of 94 City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. 2008. Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. Available at: https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/iga- doc.pdf#:~:text=Growth%20Management%20Area%20Established.%20The%20parties%20agree%20that,provided %20public%20services%20and%20facilities%20at%20urban%20levels. Accessed July 7, 2021. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2011. Statewide Water Quality Management Plan. Available at: https://spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/hemonos/ he17202st22011internet/. Accessed July 14, 2021. Duggan, K. 2005. Water History of Fort Collins and area. Available at: https://www.tlra.co/water- history/#:~:text=Flooding%20has%20been%20part%20of%20the%20Poudre%E2%80%99s%20history,settlers%20c ame%20to%20tame%20the%20land%2C%20Werner%20said. Accessed July 14, 2021. Munson, B.H., R. Axler, C. Hagley, G. Host, G. Merrick, and C. Richards. 2004. Water on the Web: Understanding Lake Ecology. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ watertrain/pdf/limnology.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. Lakes and Reservoirs. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science- school/science/lakes-and-reservoirs?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. Accessed July 16, 2021. World Population Review. 2021. Fort Collins, Colorado Population 2021. Available at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us- cities/fort-collins-co-population. Accessed July 7, 2021. Page 24 of 94 ATTACHMENT 1 – FINAL DRAFT URBAN LAKES WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT POLICY City of Fort Collins Final Draft - Water Quality Management Policy for City-Owned Lakes and Stormwater Basins in the Growth Management Area Background As development and urbanization have continued and increased in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“GMA”), new and existing water quality challenges in lakes and stormwater basins have arisen and intensified. Examples of these challenges include: pollution associated with urban growth, development, and land use practices; climate change; and other factors that can lead to water quality impacts such as sedimentation, fish kills, algae blooms, and water-borne pathogens. The City of Fort Collins (“City”) recognizes the importance of managing water quality in lakes and stormwater basins to support management goals for the benefit of community, ecosystems, and downstream water quality. Such management can also implement the City’s triple bottom line approach to consider social, economic, and environmental impacts, as well as supporting and furthering various City plans and objectives related to water quality. Numerous lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA are privately owned. By comparison, the City has some degree of control and influence over the water quality of the lakes and stormwater basins it owns. This City of Fort Collins Water Quality Management Policy for City-Owned Lakes and Stormwater Basins in the Growth Management Area (“Policy”), and the associated Guidance Document, have been created to provide a foundational framework for the City’s operational and management decisions related to water quality in City-owned lakes and stormwater basins. This Policy was developed using an integrated One Water approach by an inter-departmental team of City staff, including the Managing Departments listed below. The Policy’s content was further informed by feedback from key stakeholder groups, which included: urban lakes and water quality management subject matter experts; the City’s Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Board, and Water Commission; and members of the Fort Collins community. Vision and Purpose of the Policy The City’s vision is that water quality in City-owned lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA supports management goals while also maintaining or improving aesthetics. To that end, the purpose of this Policy is to provide a foundational framework for the City’s operational and management decisions related to water quality management in City-owned lakes and stormwater basins. Key Terms The following describes and discusses several key terms used throughout this Policy. City-owned lakes and stormwater basins refers to lakes and stormwater basins where the City owns the surrounding and underlying land and thus manages the water in them. Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“GMA”) is as defined in Section 1-2 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, being the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area as defined in Article XIII of the Charter of the City, namely, that geographic area within and adjacent Page 25 of 94 to the City identified by the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County as that area identified for annexation and urbanization by the City, including the Urban Growth Area as it exists on March 5, 1985, together with any amendments or changes thereto. Guidance Document refers to a separate document the City has developed and will update as a technical resource intended to support City staff in implementing this Policy. The Guidance Document provides Managing Departments with management tools, including0F1: • Inventory of all City-owned lakes and stormwater basins; • Certain water quality-related information for City-owned lakes and stormwater basins; • Management categorization for City-owned lakes and stormwater basins, based on management goals of the respective Managing Departments; • Assistance with management prioritization; and • Best management practices for water quality management. Lakes refer to basins and depressions that are generally filled with water. For the purposes of this Policy, lakes include: on- and off-stream reservoirs filled with water diverted from the stream; ponds used to manage water for irrigation and other uses; unlined gravel pits that have filled in with groundwater; and other basins and depressions that are generally filled with water. Managing Departments refer to the components of the City organization that manage the City-owned lakes and stormwater basins. The current Managing Departments are Natural Areas, Parks, and Fort Collins Utilities. Stormwater Basins refer to areas that are designed to collect precipitation runoff, including snowmelt. Stormwater basins include both: stormwater detention basins/ponds, which are designed to temporarily detain stormwater, generally for less than 72 hours; and stormwater retention basins/ponds, which are designed to detain or store stormwater runoff for longer than 72 hours. Stormwater retention basins/ponds may also be lakes. Although stormwater basins do not always have water in them, they can influence water quality and are thus included in this Policy. Water quality refers to the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water. Numerous human and natural factors can influence water quality. Water quality management refers to the use of pollution prevention and/or mitigation best practices to address water quality management goals. Scope and Applicability of this Policy This Policy applies only to City-owned lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA. Nothing in this Policy is intended to conflict with any applicable laws, including: the City Charter and City Code; Colorado state law, including permits and approvals issued thereunder; federal law, including permits and approvals issued thereunder; and applicable agreements and other contractual arrangements. To the extent that there is such a conflict, the applicable law controls. This Policy does not apply to lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA that are not City-owned. For example, this Policy does not apply to lakes and stormwater basins owned by homeowners associations, or lakes owned by ditch or reservoir companies in which the City owns shares. The owners of such other lakes and stormwater basins are free to consider this Policy and the Guidance Document, in their discretion, in their management of their structures. This Policy does not apply to lakes and stormwater basins that are outside of the GMA. This includes reservoirs the City owns that are outside of the GMA (e.g., Joe Wright Reservoir). Those lakes and stormwater basins are generally located outside of the urban environment and face challenges distinct from those addressed in this Policy. The water quality challenges of those 1 In this Policy, “include” signifies a list that is not necessarily exhaustive. Page 26 of 94 lakes and stormwater basins are thus addressed separately. The owners of such other lakes and stormwater basins are free to consider this Policy and the Guidance Document, in their discretion, in their management of those structures. Management Each Managing Department will manage water quality in their lakes and stormwater basins to address their own management goals. Specifically, Managing Departments will: 1. Identify which City-owned lakes and stormwater basins they are responsible for, relying on the inventory in the Guidance Document. If more than one Managing Department is responsible for a lake or stormwater basin, the responsible Managing Departments will work together on all aspects of management. 2. Identify the management goals for their lakes and stormwater basins based on their uses and purposes. This may include a consideration of the categories of types of lakes and stormwater basins and their various uses and purposes, as described in the Guidance Document. 3. Determine which of their City-owned lakes and stormwater basins should be prioritized for water quality management or other related actions. 4. Determine whether to act (or not act) on water quality issues.1F2 5. Develop water quality management plans as necessary for prioritized City-owned lakes and stormwater basins (as discussed below). 6. Collaborate with other Managing Departments where responsibilities, projects, or other actions related to water quality management overlap with or will affect other departments. 7. Communicate internally within the City organization and externally to the Fort Collins community (as discussed below). Management Plans Managing Departments will develop water quality management plans for individual lakes and stormwater basins, as necessary, to address their water quality management goals. These plans may be separate, standalone documents, or may be integrated into other plans or other documents related to their lakes and stormwater basins. These plans should include: • statement of the Managing Department’s goals and priorities for their lakes and stormwater basins; • consideration of the analyses, recommendations, and other aspects of the Guidance Document; • water quality-related goals for their lakes and stormwater basins; • water quality management practices for their lakes and stormwater basins; • a communication strategy (as discussed below); and • other items appropriate to further the Managing Department’s goals and priorities. Communication Consistent with their communication strategy, Managing Departments will communicate internally within the City organization and externally with the Fort Collins community regarding water quality of lakes or stormwater basin. This will include communications regarding: water quality data; any public health risks; and non-routine maintenance work. Communications will be made pursuant to applicable City policies. Managing Departments will periodically communicate internally to improve interdepartmental alignment regarding water quality management practices. Policy and Guidance Document Updates An inter-departmental team from all of the Managing Departments (minimum 1 staff member from each) will be established to ensure proper implementation of this Policy and to periodically revise and update the Policy and Guidance Document as needed. 2 How Managing Departments staff and otherwise resource their actions are not addressed in this Policy. Page 27 of 94 The team will annually review the Guidance Document to identify and address data errors, necessary updates, and other opportunities for improvement, including: • Adding any City-owned lakes and stormwater basins to the inventory; • Updating lake-specific water quality information; and • Adding or updating water quality management practices. Page 28 of 94 ATTACHMENT 2 – SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT (SME) INTERVIEW AND SURVEY QUESTIONS SME Interview Questions • What is your role and background in managing water quality issues? • Are there any lakes represented in the GMA that are not highlighted but should be? • Which Urban Lakes do you manage? • What are their surrounding land uses? • What are their major uses? • Are there known water quality issues in the waterbodies that you manage? Are their historic, current, and future water quality concerns in these waterbodies? • What are the causes of these water quality issues? • Are there known BMPs implemented at the lakes that you manage? Do you know of historic, current, or emerging/potential BMPs that were used or would be helpful in managing these water quality issues? • Are there any BMPs that you would like to try to manage water quality issues? • Were the BMPs that have been used to treat water quality issues effective? • What Management Categories would you place the lakes that you manage into: Golf Course Wildlife Fisheries Stormwater/Flood Control Ornamental Recreation Storage Sediment Retention Other/Urban 1. Who else would you recommend that we reach out to for this project? 2. Do you have any water quality or BMP data for the urban lakes within the GMA that you would be willing to share? SME Survey Questions 1. Are you a lake manager or do you support the management of lakes? 2. What are the three most critical water quality issues that trigger management action for you? Page 29 of 94 3. What are the other water quality issue(s)? 4. What are the main sources of pollution for the water quality issues you listed in #2? Such as livestock inputs, urban development, rangeland use, agriculture, stormwater runoff, pet waste, low flow, no lake inlet/outlet, etc. 5. Of the lake water quality best management practices (BMPs) that you use, what are the three most common or effective? BMPs are tools used to manage urban lake water quality. Though there are many, examples include hand- pulling aquatic nuisance species, using biochar to remove nutrients, developing wetland habitat to sequester pollutants, and providing pet waste bags and bins to avoid/reduce animal waste from entering the waterbody. 6. Are there other water quality BMPs that you would prefer to use, and if so what are they? 7. When you consider your ability to effectively manage water quality in urban lakes, what resources limit your success? These may be factors such as knowledge, data, sampling technicians (i.e., work force), funding, red tape, stakeholder buy-in, etc. 8. When getting buy-in or opinions about urban lake policy, which groups or organizations in the community are most important to talk with? Please list them below. • What are three key pieces of literature or resources you would recommend on urban lake water quality management and/or BMPs? Please provide as much citation information as possible. Such as books, articles, manuals, online databases, web platforms, etc. Page 30 of 94 ATTACHMENT 3 - URBAN LAKES WATER QUALITY RISK RANK MODEL MODEL INPUT DATA SOURCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION REASONING SCORE WEIGHT VALUE SCORE Adjacent Land Use (within 200ft) City Geodatabase Vacant Land zoned as vacant that may be developed or undeveloped. Vacant lands include all lands classified as vacant by the City. 0.5 0.1 0.05 Residential Land zoned as residential, that may have single family or multi-family structures, and may have lawns. Residential lands include all single, duplex, and multi-family areas, supplementary, support, and HOA lands, support shelters, and senior citizen housing. 0.5 0.05 Public Public use lands, which may include parks, open space, other. Public lands include BLM, cemeteries, religious buildings, childcare centers and education facilities (including grade school and colleges/universities), county admin and housing, parks and rec land, conservation lands, municipality buildings, emergency infrastructure, and others. 0.5 0.05 Industrial Industrial land that may include all structures, storage yards, and waste facilities associated with industrial operations. Industrial lands that include construction, manufacturing, industrial condos, and warehouses. 0.25 0.025 Page 31 of 94 MODEL INPUT DATA SOURCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION REASONING SCORE WEIGHT VALUE SCORE Commercial Commercial land that may include all structures, storage yards, parking, lawns, and features associated with commercial operations. Commercial lands that include businesses, residential, multi- use, or recreational use. 0.5 0.05 Agriculture Agricultural land that may include all structures, storage yards, waste areas, fields, and pastures that may be associated with crop or livestock farming. Agriculture lands that include dry, irrigated, grazed, hay meadow, waste, or support infrastructure for agriculture. 1 0.1 Primary Management Category City Geodatabase Stormwater/Flood Control/Floodplain Expansion Lake or pond used primarily for managing stormwater runoff, flood control, and/or floodplain expansion Ponds used for stormwater, flood control, and floodplain expansion appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, and therefore higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 1 0.05 0.05 Wildlife Lake or pond managed primarily for wildlife, other than just fisheries. Ponds managed for wildlife may have more native aquatic vegetation, cycling of nutrients, and healthier system cycling, which may reduce potential for water quality issues. 0.25 0.0125 Stormwater Lake or pond managed primarily for stormwater without specificity, such as flood control, floodplain expansion, or water quality. Ponds used for stormwater, flood control, and floodplain expansion appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, and therefore higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 1 0.05 Page 32 of 94 MODEL INPUT DATA SOURCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION REASONING SCORE WEIGHT VALUE SCORE Native Fisheries Lake or pond managed primarily for native fisheries Ponds managed for native fisheries appear to have populations of native aquatic vegetation, cycling of nutrients, and overall monitoring, which may reduce potential for water quality issues. 0.25 0.0125 Storage/Irrigation Lake or pond used primarily for storage and/or storage for irrigation use Ponds used for storage and irrigation appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, sedimentation, residence time, and/or nutrient loading, and therefore have a higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 1 0.05 Stormwater/Water Quality Lake or pond used primarily for managing stormwater runoff and water quality of downstream waterbodies. Ponds used for stormwater and water quality appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, and therefore higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 0.5 0.025 Recreation Lake or pond used primarily for recreational human use, such as swimming, boating, fishing, etc. Ponds used for recreation are more likely to be monitored for water quality and therefore are less likely to have ongoing water quality issues. 0.25 0.0125 Secondary Management Category City Geodatabase Stormwater/Flood Control/Floodplain Expansion Lake or pond used primarily for managing stormwater runoff, flood control, and/or floodplain expansion Ponds used for stormwater, flood control, and floodplain expansion appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, and therefore higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 1 0.025 0.025 Wildlife Lake or pond managed primarily for wildlife, other than just fisheries. Ponds managed for wildlife may have more native aquatic vegetation, cycling of nutrients, and healthier system cycling, which may reduce potential for water quality issues. 0.25 0.00625 Page 33 of 94 MODEL INPUT DATA SOURCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION REASONING SCORE WEIGHT VALUE SCORE Stormwater Lake or pond managed primarily for stormwater without specificity, such as flood control, floodplain expansion, or water quality. Ponds used for stormwater, flood control, and floodplain expansion appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, and therefore higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 1 0.025 Native Fisheries Lake or pond managed primarily for native fisheries. Ponds managed for native fisheries appear to have populations of native aquatic vegetation, cycling of nutrients, and overall monitoring, which may reduce potential for water quality issues. 0.25 0.00625 Non-native Fisheries Lake or pond managed primarily for non-native fisheries. Ponds managed for non-native fisheries may have populations of native aquatic vegetation, cycling of nutrients, and overall monitoring, which may reduce potential for water quality issues. However, some non-native fish can exacerbate water quality issues. 0.3 0.0075 Storage/Irrigation Lake or pond used primarily for storage and/or storage for irrigation use Ponds used for storage and irrigation appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, sedimentation, residence time, and/or nutrient loading, and therefore have a higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 1 0.025 Stormwater/Water Quality Lake or pond used primarily for managing stormwater runoff and water quality of downstream waterbodies. Ponds used for stormwater and water quality appear to have more water quality issues related to runoff, and therefore higher likelihood of having water quality issues. 0.5 0.0125 Page 34 of 94 MODEL INPUT DATA SOURCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION REASONING SCORE WEIGHT VALUE SCORE Recreation Lake or pond used primarily for recreational human use, such as swimming, boating, fishing, etc. Ponds used for recreation are more likely to be monitored for water quality and therefore are less likely to have ongoing water quality issues. 0.25 0.00625 Lake Size (surface area) City Geodatabase Very Large >30 acres Very large ponds likely have less residence time, less relative surface area for evaporative loss, solar insulation, and provide greater opportunity for dilution for chemicals, nutrients, etc. They are therefore less likely to have water quality issues. 0.25 0.1 0.025 Large 6-29 acres Large ponds likely have less residence time, less relative surface area for evaporative loss, solar insulation, and provide greater opportunity for dilution for chemicals, nutrients, etc. They are therefore less likely to have water quality issues. 0.5 0.05 Medium 1-5 acres Medium ponds likely have greater residence time, greater relative surface area for evaporative loss, solar insulation, and can easily become concentrated with chemicals, nutrients, etc. They are therefore less likely to have water quality issues. 0.75 0.075 Small <1 acre Small ponds likely have greater residence time, greater relative surface area for evaporative loss, solar insulation, and can easily become concentrated with chemicals, nutrients, etc. They are therefore less likely to have water quality issues. 1 0.1 Page 35 of 94 MODEL INPUT DATA SOURCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION REASONING SCORE WEIGHT VALUE SCORE Known Water Quality Issues? City Geodatabase Yes Known water quality issues present. If a known water quality issue already exists, a pond is automatically designated as being prone to water quality issues. 1 0.225 0.225 No No known water quality issues present 0 0 Residence time contributor? City Geodatabase Yes Pond water residence time is a contributor to water quality issues. Ponds with greater residence time are more likely to have water quality issues. If residence time is a contributor to water quality issues, this has been identified by SMES. 1 0.2 0.2 No Pond water residence time is not a contributor to water quality issues. Ponds with less residence time are less likely to have water quality issues. If residence time is a contributor to water quality issues, this has been identified by SMES. 0 0 303d Listed Lake? EPA 303d Listed Impaired Waters Yes The pond is 303d listed. 1 0.2 0.1 No The pond is not 303d listed. 0 0 Within Poudre River alluvium soil layer? NRCS Soils Layer Yes The pond overlaps with the Poudre River alluvium soil layer. Based on SME input, there appears to be some correlation with connectivity to the Poudre and water quality issues. Those with greater connectivity have greater turnover, and therefore fewer water quality issues. 0 0.05 0 No The pond does not overlap with the Poudre River alluvium soil layer. Based on SME input, there appears to be some correlation with connectivity to the Poudre and water quality issues. Those with greater connectivity have greater turnover, and therefore fewer water quality issues. 1 0.05 Page 36 of 94 MODEL INPUT DATA SOURCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION REASONING SCORE WEIGHT VALUE SCORE Within Poudre River groundwater layer? Yes The pond overlaps with the Poudre River groundwater layer. Based on SME input, there appears to be some correlation with connectivity to the Poudre and water quality issues. Those with greater connectivity have greater turnover, and therefore fewer water quality issues. 0 0.05 0 No The pond does not overlap with the Poudre River groundwater layer. Based on SME input, there appears to be some correlation with connectivity to the Poudre and water quality issues. Those with greater connectivity have greater turnover, and therefore fewer water quality issues. 1 0.05 Page 37 of 94 ATTACHMENT 4 – URBAN LAKES GEODATABASE AND ATTRIBUTE TABLE Page 38 of 94 Attachment 4 Table 1. Geodatabase Attribute Table for Fort Collins’ Urban Retention Lakes. Unknown and <Null> represent lake attributes where there is currently no information available. MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216270 <Null> Port of Entry Pond - Arapaho Bend <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology Unknown Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Monitored for turbidity, metals, nutrients, etc. Unknown No Receives river water during spring runoff 0.3125 Medium 10216282 sw10574 Heatheridge Pond 1 Red Fox Meadows Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology Unknown Unknown Yes Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.375 Medium 10216283 sw9383 Song Sparrow Pond - Cattail Chorus Spring Creek Trail Orthopedic Pond 2 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.35 Medium 10216292 <Null> Rolland Moore Pond <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course algae blooms; fish kills; weeds; grasscarp Unknown No Aeration; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Yes No <Null> 0.3625 Medium 10216293 <Null> Artist Point Pond - Cottonwood Hollow <Null> shallow Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No water levels fluctuate massively; have control structure - let the water levels rise in the spring and then release it as there are calls on the river 0.325 Medium 10216308 <Null> Gadwell Pond - Kingfisher Kingfisher Park Pond - North shallow Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Natural ecology fish kills shallow; water levels get low No Habitat restoration Unknown Unknown No Restoration in 2018 to lower banks on north and west side of the pond and establish wetland habitat 0.30625 Medium 10216348 <Null> Wiper Pond - Riverbend Ponds <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 10.83 ac 0.30625 Medium 10443765 <Null> Resource Recovery Farm Pond - Running Deer <Null> 5 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology Unknown Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Monitored for turbidity, metals, nutrients, etc. Unknown No <Null> 0.3 Medium 10217862 sw10215 Edora Park Edora Park N/A N/A City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None N/A extremely silted in, depth/ capacity, nutrient loading; odor when pond is low extremely silted in after 2012 flood N/A N/A Jason Stutsman did quick assessment above silt bed when doing restoration work. N/A N/A RETENTION cfarnes *MOVE TO Retention 0.5625 High 10216409 <Null> Trout Pond - Riverbend Ponds <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Natural ecology fish kills cold temperatures; low DO No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 9.27 ac, north near walkway, 2 connected by fishing dock 0.30625 Medium 10217810 sw20240 Parks & Rec Westfield Park Pond Parks & Rec Westfield Park Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion None Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown confirmed retention by City 0.3875 Medium Page 39 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216421 <Null> Wood Duck Pond - Magpie Meander Magpie Meander Natural Area Pond 2 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Non-native Fisheries Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.3575 Medium 10216428 <Null> Various Ponds - Running Deer Running Deer Natural Area Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology fish kills cold temperatures; low DO No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.325 Medium 10216463 <Null> Skunk Pond - Prospect Ponds Prospect Ponds - North Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Urban periodic algae blooms; fish kills; low DO; nutrients Part of 3 pond complex, northernmost pond on private land fed directly by feedlot with documented fish kills; nutrients; eutrophication; low DO; can be very deep to very shallow; inversion- related fish kills No Unknown Unknown Unknown No old gravel pit; no longer stocked with fish due to poor fishery until mitigation is done or cows are gone; IS THIS PRIVATE OR CITY OWNED? Kyle Battige (CPW) mentioned northern-most pond in complex was on private property, maybe he meant just the feedlot w 0.53125 High 10216899 sw26369 Miramont Park Pond <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Stormwater/ Water Quality None Residential/ Lawns Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.3875 Medium 10217901 sw16201 North College Market Pl Pond North College Market Pl Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife None Urban Unknown Unknown Unknown Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No confirmed retention by City 0.35 Medium 10217320 sw22579 Utilities Pond #1 Utilities Pond #1 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown wetland; confirmed retention by City; THIS IS THE 1st wetland that treats sw runoff from 700 Wood Street, NE of the light & power transformer yard. 0.3375 Medium 10217527 sw22580 Utilities Pond #2 Utilities Pond #2 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater/ Water Quality Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown wetland; confirmed retention by City; This is the 2nd wetland that treats sw runoff from 700 Wood Street, NE of the light & power transformer yard. 0.3625 Medium 10216111 sw9378 Heron Pond - Cattail Chorus Cache la Poudre Industrial Park Pond 3 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.525 High 10216114 sw11785 Spruce Pond - Udall Udall Pond #2 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities/Natura l Areas Stormwater/ Water Quality Wildlife Unknown algae blooms hot and dry; feedlot that drains to pond Unknown Sediment grates Unknown Unknown Unknown <Null> 0.34375 Medium Page 40 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216117 sw24093 English Ranch Park English Ranch Park Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Residential/ Lawns algae blooms Unknown No Water quality monitoring; cut back willows and vegetation; 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.4125 Medium 10216118 sw11528 Nokomis Pond Evergreen 3 Goose Hollow Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Residential/ Lawns Unknown Unknown Yes Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.35625 Medium 10216123 sw9379 Confluence Pond - Cattail Chorus Spring Creek Trail Orthopedic Pond 3 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.325 Medium 10216124 sw10354 Spring Creek Park Pond Spring Park Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course algae blooms Unknown No Aeration; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.5875 High 10216126 sw19003 Cathy Fromme Natural Area Retention Pond Cathy Fromme Natural Area Retention Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown Yes Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.575 High 10216127 sw19831 Portner Reservoir Pond 3 of Fossil Creek Community Park Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.6125 High 10216129 sw13660 Warren Park Pond Warren Park Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.3875 Medium 10216130 sw23593 Twin Silo Park Pond Fossil Ridge Irrigation/ Detention Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Unknown none Unknown No Water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.4125 Medium 10216137 sw15197 Mountain Ridge Farm Detention Pond 1 Mountain Ridge Farm Detention Pond 1 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Homeowners Association Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion None Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown <Null> 0.3625 Medium 10216142 sw18093 Portner Reservoir Pond 2 of Fossil Creek Park -- Portner Res Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course fish kills due to cyanobacteria; odor issues; macrophyte musk grass; cyanobacteria blooms; low DO; anoxic; shallow, misshapen bottom so prone to fish kills; aerators caused sediment to come from bottom and killed fish. No Aeration; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.5875 High 10216149 sw8752 West Coy Pond - Gustav Swanson Coy Ditch Pond A Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown Unknown Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No dying pond, used to be fed by the diversion off of the river into Coy Ditch but that diversion was removed in 2018 and the ditch is not in use 0.35 Medium Page 41 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216151 sw9013 Sheldon Lake Sheldon Lake; City Park Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course odor; eutrophication; sediment loading, algae growth; cyanobacteria; fish kills fish kills due to cold temperatures for too long No Aeration; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer drained and dredged after 2013 floods Yes No Basil may have water quality data. Riprap buffer 0.5625 High 10216153 sw9381 Blackbird Pond - Cattail Chorus Spring Creek Trail Icon Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No Has rare aquatic plants species: Wolffia borealis (G5 S1, List A CFC) and Lemna minuta (List C CFC) 0.525 High 10216159 sw9380 Wigeon Ponds - Cattail Chorus Veeco Instruments Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.525 High 10216161 sw9373 Goldeneye Pond - Kingfisher <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Unknown Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.3 Medium 10216162 sw9752 Overland Park Overland Park Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities Storage/ Irrigation None Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Aeration; water quality monitoring Unknown Unknown Unknown <Null> 0.3875 Medium 10216163 sw17280 Courtyard @ Miramont Detention Pond Courtyard @ Miramont Detention Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Unknown Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No See Miramont in Detention Ponds. This flows to Miramont Detention Pond 0.3875 Medium 10216165 sw16644 Timberline Sump Timberline Sump Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion None Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown <Null> 0.3125 Medium 10216166 sw14200 Catfish Pond - Prospect Ponds Prospect Ponds - South Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Natural ecology fish kills; algae blooms; low DO; nutrients Nutrients from Merganser Pond, Part of 3 pond complex, northernmost pond on private land fed directly by feedlot with documented fish kills; nutrients; eutrophication; low DO No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 12.74 ac, attached to Merganser pond through culvert Part of 2 pond complex, northernmost pond on private land fed directly by feedlot with documented fish kills; nutrients; eutrophication; low DO; can be very deep to very shallow; inversion- related fish 0.50625 High 10216169 sw8753 East Coy Pond - Gustav Swanson Coy Ditch Pond B Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown Unknown Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No dying pond, used to be fed by the diversion off of the river into Coy Ditch but that diversion was removed in 2018 and the ditch is not in use 0.35 Medium Page 42 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216175 sw8405 Evergreen Pond 3rd Evergreen Pond 3rd Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion None Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown <Null> 0.3375 Medium 10216187 sw16174 Ridgeview Park Pond Coventry Detention Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Unknown Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.4125 Medium 10216193 sw12933 Ross Open Space Detention Pond Ross Open Space Detention Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology Unknown Unknown Yes Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No Has rare aquatic plants species: Acorus calamus, Sagittaria brevirostra, and Carex lenticularis 0.35 Medium 10216194 sw14199 Merganser Pond - Prospect Ponds Prospect Ponds - East Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Urban fish kills; algae blooms Nutrients from feed lot to the north; Part of 3 pond complex, northernmost pond on private land fed directly by feedlot with documented fish kills; nutrients; eutrophication; low DO; can be very deep to very shallow; inversion- related fish kills No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 13.42 ac, Part of 3 pond complex, northernmost pond on private land fed directly by feedlot with documented fish kills; nutrients; eutrophication; low DO; can be very deep to very shallow; inversion- related fish kills old gravel pit; no longer stocked with 0.50625 High 10216200 sw19830 Pond 1 of Fossil Creek Community Park Pond 1 of Fossil Creek Community Park Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course algae blooms Unknown No Aeration; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.6125 High 10216203 sw11786 Moose Pond - Udall Udall Pond #3 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion None Unknown algae blooms hot and dry; feedlot that drains to pond Unknown Sediment grates Unknown Unknown Unknown <Null> 0.3125 Medium 10216207 sw8439 Sunfish Pond - McMurry McMurry Natural Areas Pond 2 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology Infrequent algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Lowered banks to increase high water flow. Yes No Receives river water during spring runoff 0.525 High 10216196 sw11783 Goose Pond - Udall Udall Pond #1 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities/ Natural Areas Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Wildlife Unknown algae blooms hot and dry; feedlot that drains to pond Unknown Sediment grates; Drain every 3-5 years and pull sediment out. Unknown Unknown Unknown <Null> 0.31875 Medium 10216208 sw11769 Red Wing Pond - Redwing Marsh Red Wing Marsh Natural Area Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Urban Unknown Unknown Yes Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.35625 Medium 10216210 sw9382 Chorus Frog Pond - Cattail Chorus Spring Creek Trail Orthopedic North 1 Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No Has rare aquatic plants species: Wolffia borealis (G5 S1, List A CFC) and Lemna minuta (List C CFC) 0.325 Medium Page 43 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216216 sw15476 Canvasback Pond - Kingfisher Cache la Poudre Industrial Park Pond; Kingfisher Park Pond - South Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Natural ecology fish kills; algae blooms chemicals from beef packaging plant; nutrients from "Bath Garden Nursery", pots and trash in ponds; steep slopes and poor habitat No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No old gravel pit 0.30625 Medium 10216226 <Null> Sterling Pond - North Shields <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer restoration Unknown No Restoration done in 2014 to lower banks on the south side and let the river flood the pond. Only happens occasionally, bank levels couldn't be made lower 0.5 Medium 10216817 <Null> Pelican Pond - Cottonwood Hollow Pelican Marsh 9.75 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.3 Medium 10216836 <Null> Milne East Pond - Riverbend Ponds <Null> 8 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Natural ecology fish kills shallow No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 2.01 ac, really clear sometimes; no longer stocked due to fish kills 0.33125 Medium 10216837 <Null> Bluegill - Riverbend Ponds <Null> <Null> <Null> City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife <Null> Natural ecology Unknown Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer <Null> <Null> No <Null> 0.3 Medium 10216266 <Null> Topminnow <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Native Fisheries Residential/ Lawns None Unknown No Water elevation controlled via pump Unknown Yes No Unlined, receives groundwater, pump outlets to HT outfall channel or Rigden Res. 0.14375 Low 10216845 <Null> Big Pond - Riverbend Ponds <Null> 5.5 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Non-native Fisheries Natural ecology turbidity giant carp; shallow No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 38.25 ac, rare plant species present: Azolla mexicana (List A CFC), Ruppia cirrhosa (List A CFC) 0.2825 Medium 10216842 <Null> Unnamed Pond Unnamed Pond Receives Storm Runoff from Drake Treatment Facility Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife None Unknown low DO; nutrients <Null> Unknown Some vegetation buffer Unknown Unknown Unknown old gravel pit 0.5 Medium 10216411 <Null> Collindale Golf Course Pond - Northeast Unnamed Pond at Northeast Corner of Collindale Golf Course Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No 0.36 ac 0.4125 Medium Page 44 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216859 <Null> South Ridge Golf Course Pond - North Unnamed Pond at North End of South Ridge Golf Course Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer dredged near hole #5; put liner and anchor trench in near hole #9 Unknown No 0.75 ac, receives sw runoff from development to the south. Near hole #? 0.4375 Medium 10216150 sw16643 Golden Meadows Golden Meadows Park Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Residential/ Lawns cyano-bacteria, fish kills; blue- green algae Unknown No Sludge/mulch eliminators; aeration equipment; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Yes No <Null> 0.3875 Medium 10216849 <Null> South Ridge Golf Course Pond - South Unnamed Pond at South End of South Ridge Golf Course Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation Storage/ Irrigation Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer dredged near hole #5; put liner and anchor trench in near hole #10 Unknown No 1.08 ac, near hole #? There is also an asset just upstream of this but not in this database; Asset# 102167590, 0.23 Ac 0.4375 Medium 10216109 sw15468 Troutman Park Pond - East Troutman Park Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.5875 High 10216110 sw15468 Troutman Park Pond - West Troutman Park Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.4125 Medium 10216717 <Null> Snapper Pond - Arapaho Bend <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Non-native Fisheries Natural ecology occasional algae blooms <Null> No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer <Null> <Null> No <Null> 0.3325 Medium 10216513 <Null> Duck Lake - Fossil Creek Reservoir <Null> 4 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Agriculture (other) severe odor; becomes anoxic; e. coli; warm temperature Mud Lake (odor issues) feeds to Duck Lake, feedlot and corn fields drain to lake; nutrient loading; shallow; small outlet; no flushing; shallow; waterfowl major source of nutrient loading; sulfur in benthic bottom; Yes Sonde taking measurements; water quality monitoring (Aquatic Associates); aeration biochar Yes No More known by Mark Sears and Tami; not yet implemented in other lakes 0.525 High 10216580 <Null> Muskrat Pond - Cottonwood Hollow <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 5.87 ac 0.5 Medium 10216674 <Null> Beaver Pond - Arapaho Bend <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Non-native Fisheries Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 34.8 ac 0.4825 Medium Page 45 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216501 <Null> Cottonwood Glen Pond <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course algae blooms; macrophytes farms use algaecide No No-mow buffer around lake; pest management; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer copper sulfide Unknown No <Null> 0.3875 Medium 10216507 <Null> Little and Big Bass Ponds - Arapaho Bend <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Non-native Fisheries Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 18.6 ac, big bass pond receives river water during spring runoff 0.5075 High 10216557 <Null> Robert Benson Lake - Pelican Marsh Robert Benson Reservoir Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Storage/ Irrigation Wildlife Natural ecology algae blooms shallow Yes Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer water quality monitoring Unknown No College and 287 0.36875 Medium 10216474 <Null> Collindale Golf Course Pond - Southwest Golden Meadows Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No 1.11 ac, named Golden Meadows Pond in View 0.3875 Medium 10216481 <Null> Greenbriar Park Pond <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No 0.53 ac 0.4125 Medium 10216496 <Null> Rigden Reservoir <Null> 22 1,900 acre- feet City of Fort Collins Utilities/ Natural Areas Storage/ Irrigation None Other (specify in Notes) cyanobacteria and algae blooms some wastewater treatment plant effluent and nutrient loading Unknown 5 solar bees; 2 delivery systems for minimizing capture of wastewater treatment plant effluent; temporal management (avoid storing during poor water quality (e.g., take spring runoff on receding limb of hydrograph, avoid late season high- temperature water Unknown Unknown Unknown 133.14 ac, collecting water quality data since 2016; anoxic at bottom; ask Donnie about BMPs; water quality issues dependent on how they operate the reservoir 0.35 Medium 10216632 <Null> North Shields Pond <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No Pond and water levels may be shrinking. Has rare plant species: Spirodela polyrrhiza (List A CFC), Carex lasiocarpa (G5 S2, list A CFC), Cyperus bipartitus (list A CFC) 0.5 Medium 10216398 <Null> I-25 Pond - Arapaho Bend <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 7.83 ac 0.5375 High Page 46 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216365 <Null> Collindale Golf Course Pond - Northwest Fort Collins Golf Course Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No 1.12 ac, named Fort Collins Golf Course Pond in View 0.3875 Medium 10216177 sw17699 Harmony Park Pond 5015 Corbett Drive Preston Jr. High Detention Pond Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Park/Golf Course Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No was unable to open vector map; see MAX HARMONY DETENTION in Detention Ponds, same or different? 0.4375 Medium 10216280 sw19384 Fossil Lake Irrigation Pond Fossil Lake Irrigation Pond; Fossil Creek Lake Park; Fossil Creek Lake at Portner Reservoir Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Residential/ Lawns fish kills due to cyanobacteria; odor issues; macrophyte musk grass; cyanobacteria blooms; low DO; anoxic; shallow, misshapen bottom so prone to fish kills; aerators caused sediment to come from bottom and killed fish. No Aeration; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.4125 Medium 10216487 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216103 sw9376 Dragonfly Pond - Kingfisher Cattail Chorus Ponds Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.3375 Medium 10216827 <Null> Turtle Pond - Riverbend Ponds <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Storage/ Irrigation Non-native Fisheries Natural ecology fish kills; low DO; odor very small; cold temperatures; quick turnover of anoxic layer; low DO; sulfur No Considering aeration sink holiday trees for fish habitat Unknown No 2.87 ac. All Riverbend Ponds have some sort of turbidity in them, but this one is crystal clear. 0.37 Medium 10228230 <Null> Lee Martinez Farm Pond <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Unknown Unknown Unknown No 20–30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No <Null> 0.3875 Medium 10216589 <Null> Whitetail Pond - Arapaho Bend (E of I- 25) Unnamed in View Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 5.6 ac 0.5 Medium 10216642 <Null> Cormorant Pond - Arapaho Bend <Null> Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Non-native Fisheries Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 2.94 ac 0.3325 Medium 10216147 sw8438 McMurry Pond 1 - McMurry McMurry Natural Area Pond 1 5.5 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Natural ecology Infrequent algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No Receives river water during spring runoff. Has rare plant species: Lysimachia thyrsiflora (G5 S1, List A CFC) 0.5 Medium Page 47 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216180 sw9333 Avery Pond <Null> 4 Unknown City of Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion None Unknown algae blooms; fish kills; odor low water levels = low DO; inlet from local neighborhood Unknown Copper sulfide last year for algae Unknown Unknown Unknown Parks and Wildlife manages fisheries here. 0.3625 Medium 10216361 <Null> Milne West Pond - Riverbend Ponds <Null> 8.3 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Recreation Natural ecology occasional algae blooms Unknown No Maintain vegetation buffer; herbicide buffer Unknown Unknown No 7.02 ac 0.30625 Medium 10216480 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216534 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216581 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216789 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216816 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216243 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216356 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216368 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216470 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) Page 48 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216582 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10443961 <Null> Cresent Park Maple Hill Park Unknown Unknown City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation None Residential/ Lawns Unknown Unknown No Aeration; water quality monitoring; 20– 30-ft buffer Unknown Unknown No 2401 Bar Harbor; confirmed retention by City 0.4125 Medium 10216819 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216820 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216821 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216822 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216823 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216829 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216831 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216834 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216818 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) Page 49 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216841 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216853 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216613 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216828 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216835 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216198 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216238 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216307 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216317 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216322 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216359 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) Page 50 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216366 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216371 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216475 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216537 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216579 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216612 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216628 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216656 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216223 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216239 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216286 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) Page 51 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216318 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216319 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216325 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216326 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216336 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216339 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216357 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216367 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216376 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216383 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216393 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) Page 52 of 94 MXASSETNUM FACILITY ID NAME AKA DEPTH (FEET) VOLUME OWNED BY MAINTAINED BY PRIMARY MANAGEME NT CATEGORY SECONDARY MANAGEMEN T CATEGORY ADJACENT LAND USE WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) CAUSE(S) OF WATER QUALITY ISSUE(S) DOES LAKE RESIDENC E TIME CONTRIBU TE TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES? CURRENT BMPS HISTORIC BMPS BMPS SUCCESSFU L? (Y/N/U) INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT ? (Y/N/U) NOTES FINAL RISK SCORE RISK RANK 10216419 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216420 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216431 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216464 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10216664 <Null> Homestead Pond <Null> 5.5 Unknown City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Wildlife Stormwater/ Flood Control/ Floodplain Expansion Urban Unknown Unknown No Unknown Used to be golf course converted to Natural Area. Unknown No <Null> 0.55 High 10216204 sw22580 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> 0 Not Assessed (more data needed) 10214213 sw23793 Spring Canyon Dog Park Pond Dog Park Pond <Null> <Null> City of Fort Collins Parks and Trails Storage/ Irrigation Urban/Other <Null> E. coli, other potential enteric pathogens based to complaints from dog owners, algae when water is retained, but downstream WQ pond is being designed so dog park pond can be operated as designed. dog waste, pond is filled with raw water from Dixon reservoir and may contain pathogens due to wildlife No draining and refilling with fresh water; water quality monitoring; 20- 30ft buffer <Null> <Null> No For dog swimming. See SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK and SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK POND C in Detention Ponds. Is this the same as one of those? NO - This drains to #10217953 (SP CAN COMM PARK POND); 0.6125 High Page 53 of 94 Fort Collins Detention Lakes MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10217064 - 105.0916 2 40.541164 5 OAKS VILLAGE Utilities (FC) 10217462 - 105.0897 4 40.595261 700 WOOD EAST POND Utilities (FC) 10217202 - 105.0899 3 40.595266 700 WOOD ST WEST POND Utilities (FC) 10218011 - 105.0762 9 40.597136 740 N. COLLEGE FUTURE DETENTION BASIN Utilities (FC) 10217686 - 105.0687 8 40.600115 ASPEN HEIGHTS DETENTION Utilities (FC) 10224037 - 105.1095 5 40.57189 AVERY PARK POND Utilities (FC) 10224452 - 105.0757 8 40.593117 AZTLAN GRAVEL PARKING Colorado State University 10225478 - 105.0758 6 40.592564 AZTLAN MID PAVER Colorado State University 10225477 - 105.0759 5 40.59292 AZTLAN NORTH PAVER Colorado State University 10225480 - 105.0757 7 40.592574 AZTLAN PARKING DETENTION Colorado State University 10225479 - 105.0758 6 40.592265 AZTLAN SOUTH PAVER Colorado State University 10216989 - 105.1180 8 40.593096 BELLWETHER DETENTION POND C Homeowners Association 10217805 - 105.0872 5 40.542215 BLUE MESA Utilities (FC) 10217884 - 105.0612 5 40.543412 BOLTZ POND CHANNEL Utilities (FC) 10217102 - 105.1254 5 40.559947 BROWN FARM POND # 2 Utilities (FC) 10217036 - 105.1245 6 40.557178 BROWN FARM POND # 3 Utilities (FC) 10216933 - 105.1269 5 40.562391 BROWN FARM POND #1 Utilities (FC) 10217502 - 105.0496 5 40.526985 CAPE COD Utilities (FC) 10217090 - 105.0397 3 40.528002 CARIBOU APARTMENTS POND 2 Homeowners Association Page 54 of 94 MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10216901 - 105.0411 6 40.528901 CARIBOU APARTMENTS POND 3 Homeowners Association 10216190 - 105.1089 5 40.551679 CEDAR VILLAGE Utilities (FC) 10217772 - 105.0795 6 40.590088 CIVIC CENTER POND Parks and Trails (FC) 10217329 - 105.0409 40.563199 COMMUNITY RECYCLING DETENTION Operations Services (FC) 10217868 - 105.0750 7 40.594413 CSU ENGINES POND Homeowners Association 10217887 - 105.0258 2 40.54189 DAKOTA RIDGE 2ND Utilities (FC) 10217263 - 105.1260 2 40.571724 DEERFIELD POND Utilities (FC) 10217195 - 105.0778 5 40.594275 DISCOVERY MUSEUM NORTH POND Operations Services (FC) 10216980 - 105.0783 5 40.592458 DISCOVERY MUSEUM SOUTH POND Operations Services (FC) 10217440 - 105.0975 4 40.597438 EAST POND GRANADA HEIGHTS Utilities (FC) 10217521 - 105.0604 3 40.576466 EAST SIDE PARK POND Parks and Trails (FC) 10217728 - 105.0539 8 40.549507 EASTBOROUGH Utilities (FC) 10217294 - 105.0271 3 40.537551 ENGLISH RANCH #1 Utilities (FC) 10217694 - 105.0251 8 40.537524 ENGLISH RANCH #2 Utilities (FC) 10217963 - 105.0231 7 40.537528 ENGLISH RANCH #3 Utilities (FC) 10217789 - 105.0211 9 40.537511 ENGLISH RANCH #4 Utilities (FC) 10217397 - 105.0440 5 40.562818 EPIC DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) Maybe Parks? 10217120 - 105.1167 5 40.565994 FAIRBROOK POND Natural Areas (FC) 10217134 - 105.1161 9 40.566806 FAIRBROOKE POND A Natural Areas (FC) 10217636 - 105.1283 3 40.569941 FLEETWOOD COURT Utilities (FC) Page 55 of 94 MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10217047 - 105.0595 3 40.506808 FLEETWOOD CT DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217582 - 105.1127 40.59339 FORNEY POND Utilities (FC) 10217447 - 105.1088 5 40.575386 FORT RAM Utilities (FC) 10217644 - 105.0668 3 40.507816 FOSSIL CREEK 1 Homeowners Association 10218037 - 105.0646 5 40.507965 FOSSIL CREEK 2 Homeowners Association 10217258 - 105.0589 1 40.505314 FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK EAST Parks and Trails (FC) 10217748 - 105.0641 7 40.506602 FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK WEST Parks and Trails (FC) 10217640 - 105.0309 5 40.537408 FOX MEADOWS DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217978 - 105.0734 4 40.587752 GARAGE ALLEY NORTH RG Operations Services (FC) 10217346 - 105.0732 40.587976 GARAGE ENTRANCE NORTH RG Operations Services (FC) 10217076 - 105.0732 9 40.587892 GARAGE ENTRANCE SOUTH RG Operations Services (FC) 10216911 - 105.0730 6 40.588066 GARAGE JEFFERSON RG Operations Services (FC) 10217937 - 105.0995 7 40.595707 GLADIOLA FARM Utilities (FC) 10217707 - 105.1140 5 40.577077 GLENMOOR DETENTION BASIN Utilities (FC) 10217021 - 105.0615 2 40.610869 GREENBRIAR NORTH Utilities (FC) 10217732 - 105.0589 40.607145 GREENBRIAR SOUTH Utilities (FC) 10217129 - 105.0802 1 40.565656 GRIFFIN PLAZA DETENTION Colorado State University 10216902 - 105.1175 5 40.549975 HAMSHIRE DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217169 - 105.0974 1 40.596173 HANNA Utilities (FC) 10217337 -105.016 40.60168 HARTSHORN PROPERTY (CRUMB POND) . Utilities (FC) 10434337 - 105.0525 3 40.576058 HOFFMAN MILL DETENTION Streets (FC) Page 56 of 94 MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10434134 - 105.0524 40.576191 HOFFMAN MILL SAND FILTER Streets (FC) 10217977 - 105.0599 40.578994 HOUSKA DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217352 - 105.1138 3 40.5661 KANE POND Natural Areas (FC) 10217186 - 105.1040 7 40.552356 KENSINGTON SOUTH POND Utilities (FC) 10218010 - 105.1269 2 40.577817 KIMBALL Utilities (FC) 10217504 - 105.0816 2 40.527547 LARKBOROUGH Utilities (FC) 10218068 - 105.0731 40.584933 LIBRARY PARK DETENTION Operations Services (FC) 10216972 - 105.0605 4 40.580836 LOCUST OUTFALL Utilities (FC) 10217850 - 105.0856 4 40.60403 MAGPIE MEANDER NATURAL AREA POND 1 Parks and Trails (FC) 10217945 - 105.1155 8 40.556644 MANCHESTER DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217429 - 105.0816 8 40.533716 MANHATTAN POND Utilities (FC) 10216969 - 105.0805 8 40.523973 MAX HARMONY DETENTION Operations Services (FC) 10217763 - 105.1114 4 40.575579 MCALLISTER Utilities (FC) 10217243 - 105.0779 40.609731 MCDONALDS DETENTION POND 2 Utilities (FC) 10217345 - 105.0864 8 40.521629 MCGRAW ELEMENTARY NORTH POND Parks and Trails (FC) 10217544 - 105.0812 3 40.54366 MEADOWLARK HEIGHTS A Utilities (FC) 10218012 - 105.0815 4 40.541888 MEADOWLARK HEIGHTS B Utilities (FC) 10217609 - 105.0399 3 40.550817 MEADOWS EAST Utilities (FC) 10217198 - 105.1349 7 40.567187 MILLER DET BASIN/ OLD SUBSTATION Utilities (FC) 10216899 - 105.0612 7 40.514951 MIRAMONT PARK DETENTION POND Parks and Trails (FC) 10217577 - 105.0745 5 40.587234 MOUNTAIN AVE POND Parks and Trails (FC) Page 57 of 94 MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10217434 - 105.0996 8 40.532142 MOUNTAIN RIDGE FARM DETENTION POND 2 Homeowners Association 10217147 - 105.0971 7 40.53191 MOUNTAIN RIDGE FARM DETENTION POND 3 Homeowners Association 10217403 - 105.0770 3 40.596009 N COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH POND Utilities (FC) Not sure witch one this is referring 10217220 - 105.0771 40.596934 N COLLEGE RD IMPROVEMENTS NORTH POND Utilities (FC) Not sure witch one this is referring 10216221 - 105.0444 7 40.542457 NELSON FARM Utilities (FC) 10217340 - 105.0446 3 40.573919 NIX FARM DETENTION POND Natural Areas (FC) 10217799 - 105.0600 4 40.516557 OAKRDIGE WEST DETENTION POND Parks and Trails (FC) 10217941 - 104.9969 5 40.52477 PARK N RIDE POND Colorado Department of Transportation 10217399 - 105.0442 9 40.553533 PARKWOOD EAST Utilities (FC) 10217638 - 105.1245 1 40.577895 PEAR COURT Utilities (FC) 10217734 - 105.0623 9 40.61376 PHEASANT RIDGE NORTH Utilities (FC) 10217653 - 105.0636 3 40.611512 PHEASANT RIDGE SOUTH Utilities (FC) 10217620 - 105.0396 6 40.556465 POLICE BUILDING POND 1 EAST Parks and Trails (FC) 10217113 - 105.0406 7 40.556426 POLICE BUILDING POND 2 WEST Parks and Trails (FC) 10224036 - 105.1357 1 40.573874 PONDS AT OVERLAND NORTH DETENTION Utilities (FC) 10217904 - 105.1281 6 40.550411 QUAIL HOLLOW #1 Utilities (FC) 10217986 - 105.1319 8 40.549183 QUAIL HOLLOW #2 Utilities (FC) 10217768 - 105.1268 8 40.546875 QUAIL HOLLOW #3 Utilities (FC) 10217778 -105.129 40.545926 QUAIL HOLLOW #4- -CATTAILS. Utilities (FC) 10217811 - 105.0990 1 40.556279 RAINTREE DETENTION POND A Parks and Trails (FC) Page 58 of 94 MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10217070 - 105.1092 9 40.564688 RED FOX MEADOWS. CIPO OUTFALL. Utilities (FC) 10217580 - 105.0663 7 40.602695 REDWOOD POND Utilities (FC) 10217656 - 105.1012 40.525849 REGENCY Utilities (FC) 10217313 - 105.1100 2 40.563657 RIDGEWOOD POND Utilities (FC) 10217004 - 105.1356 1 40.55881 RODEO ARENA Colorado State University 10217157 - 105.1070 3 40.544454 ROSSBOROUGH PARK Parks and Trails (FC) 10216909 - 105.1002 5 40.555329 SENIOR CENTER DETENTION Parks and Trails (FC) 10218019 - 105.0915 1 40.598255 SERVICE CENTER Utilities (FC) 10217191 - 105.0910 9 40.599258 SERVICE CENTER NORTH Utilities (FC) 10217117 - 105.1078 7 40.548747 SILVERPLUME Utilities (FC) 10217864 - 105.1035 6 40.546471 SILVERPLUME DETENTION POND NO. 2 Utilities (FC) 10217124 - 105.1034 40.547051 SILVERTON CT. Utilities (FC) 10217720 - 105.0591 1 40.542902 SOUTH LEMAY Utilities (FC) 10216993 - 105.0647 6 40.496553 SOUTH TRANSFORT DETENTION Operations Services (FC) 10217068 - 105.0141 8 40.51011 SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK Parks and Trails (FC) 10217953 - 105.1280 6 40.540931 SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK POND Parks and Trails (FC) 10217426 - 105.1247 1 40.539795 SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK POND C Parks and Trails (FC) 10217568 - 105.1260 9 40.544615 SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK. Parks and Trails (FC) 10217386 - 105.0427 9 40.564514 SPRING CREEK DIASTER MITIGATION EAST POND Parks and Trails (FC) 10217627 - 105.0438 5 40.56487 SPRING CREEK DIASTER MITIGATION WEST POND Parks and Trails (FC) Page 59 of 94 MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10217309 - 105.0338 6 40.54471 STEWART CASE PARK Parks and Trails (FC); joint management w/ESD 10217655 - 105.0586 4 40.595001 STREETS FACILITY PARK Streets (FC) 10217267 - 105.0603 9 40.594994 STREETS FACILITY POND 2 Streets (FC) 10217115 - 105.0911 7 40.541459 SUNDISK Utilities (FC) 10216938 - 105.0389 8 40.527005 SUNSTONE EIGHTH DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10216990 - 105.0348 8 40.529172 SUNSTONE FIFTH DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217985 - 105.1059 40.547276 TELLURIDE COURT DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217566 -105.04 40.544207 TIMBERLINE APARTMENTS Utilities (FC) 10217946 - 105.0420 4 40.543655 TIMBERLINE VILLAGE POND Utilities (FC) 10217158 - 105.0801 7 40.518071 TRANSIT CENTER Operations Services (FC) 10217039 - 105.0785 7 40.590537 TRANSIT CENTER DETENTION POND Operations Services (FC) 10217947 - 105.0788 1 40.609665 UNION PLACE POND Homeowners Association 10217966 - 105.0968 40.598406 Unnamed Pond Parks and Trails (FC) 10225449 - 105.0127 40.510785 Unnamed Pond Parks and Trails (FC) 10217286 - 105.0803 5 40.589138 UTILITIES ADMIN DETENTION 1 Parks and Trails (FC) 10217308 - 105.0802 8 40.589471 UTILITIES ADMIN DETENTION 2 Parks and Trails (FC) 10216925 - 105.0798 2 40.589538 UTILITIES ADMIN DETENTION 3 Parks and Trails (FC) 10217114 - 105.0921 5 40.597344 VEHICLE STORAGE Utilities (FC) 10217141 - 105.0973 3 40.544995 WAGON WHEEL Utilities (FC) 10217932 - 105.0748 1 40.587499 WALNUT NW POND Homeowners Association 10217385 - 105.0746 2 40.587359 WALNUT SE POND Homeowners Association Page 60 of 94 MXASSETNU M POINT_X POINT_Y NAME MAINTAINED BY 10217104 - 105.0811 2 40.538731 WARREN FARMS Utilities (FC) 10217163 - 105.0837 7 40.562005 WATER QUALITY POND A 1A Operations Services (FC) 10217010 - 105.0847 6 40.562675 WATER QUALITY POND A 1B Parks and Trails (FC) 10217154 - 105.0856 8 40.560798 WATER QUALITY POND A 3B Operations Services (FC) 10217249 - 105.0787 40.604897 WEST OF ADDRESS Utilities (FC) 10217588 - 105.0985 9 40.598751 WEST POND GRANADA HEIGHTS Utilities (FC) 10218064 - 105.1024 4 40.536543 WESTFIELD PARK PUD Utilities (FC) 10218002 - 105.0835 7 40.562908 WETLANDS BASIN A1 Operations Services (FC) 10217384 - 105.0869 4 40.527493 WILLOW PARK DETENTION POND/ TABLE MOUNTAIN POND Utilities (FC) 10217234 - 105.1035 4 40.56059 WINFIELD Utilities (FC) 10217029 - 105.0873 40.551224 WOOD WEST DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217557 - 105.0869 9 40.524743 WOODLANDS WAY DETENTION POND Utilities (FC) 10217602 - 105.1216 40.555341 WYANDOTTE # 1 Utilities (FC) 10218025 - 105.1219 40.554005 WYANDOTTE # 2 Utilities (FC) Page 61 of 94 ATTACHMENT 5 – MAPBOOK OF CITY-OWNED URBAN LAKES Page 62 of 94 Figure 5-1. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 1 of 12). Page 63 of 94 Figure 5-2. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 2 of 12). Page 64 of 94 Figure 5-3. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 3 of 12). Page 65 of 94 Figure 5-4. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 4 of 12). Page 66 of 94 Figure 5-5. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 5 of 12). Page 67 of 94 Figure 5-6. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 6 of 12). Page 68 of 94 Figure 5-7. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 7 of 12). Page 69 of 94 Figure 5-8. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 8 of 12). Page 70 of 94 Figure 5-9. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 9 of 12). Page 71 of 94 Figure 5-10. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 10 of 12). Page 72 of 94 Figure 5-11. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 11 of 12). Page 73 of 94 Figure 5-12. Fort Collins’ urban lakes, managing department and MAXASSETNUM (image 12 of 12). Page 74 of 94 ATTACHMENT 6 – WATER QUALITY ISSUES DATABASE Page 75 of 94 UNIQUE ID WATER QUALITY ISSUE DESCRIPTION CAUSE(S) RESULTS/CHALLENGES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES REFERENCES WQ-01 clarity A water quality issue that negatively affects the users senses and perception of the body of water. These issues can potentially lead to ill effects on aquatic life and users. Turbidity Turbid water tend to look dirty and uninviting to users. Turbid water can limit plant growth, cause stress to aquatic species and can be a sign that nutrient rich sediment has been agitated. http://sedifilt.com/drinking_water/aest hetic_water_ quality_problems.html GSR1 (who.int) WQ-02 cleanliness A water quality issue that negatively affects the users senses and perception of the body of water. These issues can potentially lead to ill effects on aquatic life and users. Garbage, lack of maintenance Keeping lakes and lakes and their surroundings clean requires input from both the users and the maintenance staff. Garbage can kill aquatic life, clog outlet works and give the water body a bad look. http://sedifilt.com/drinking_water/aest hetic_water_ quality_problems.html GSR1 (who.int) WQ-03 odor A water quality issue that negatively affects the user’s senses and perception of the body of water. These issues can potentially lead to ill effects on aquatic life and users. Stagnant water, eutrophication, wastewater treatment effluent Water bodies that have unpleasant odor will not be a desirable place for human interaction with the water, in turn leaving the area without any stewards. http://sedifilt.com/drinking_water/aest hetic_water_ quality_problems.html GSR1 (who.int) WQ-04 algae blooms Excessive algae growth. Eutrophication Algae blooms can reduce water clarity, inhibit other plant growth, deplete oxygen, result in fish die-off, odor, and/or decrease aesthetics. Managing Lakes and Reservoirs, 2001. Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-06 algae blooms Excessive algae growth coupled with the byproduct of cyanotoxins that reach dangerous concentrations. Eutrophication HABs will result in water bodies being closed to recreation and can be a liability to the managing parties of the lake or lake. HABs can last for long periods of time and can be costly to difficult and costly to monitor and treat if the underlying issues are not addressed. Toxic algae blooms spotted in lake on Colorado's Front Range | OutThere Colorado Facts about Cyanobacterial harmful algae blooms for Poison CENTER PROFESSIONALS. (2018, August 24). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/habs/materials/factsheet- cyanobacterial-habs.html WQ-07 aquatic nuisance species- animals Organisms that disrupt the ecological balance of a water body, causing damage and impairing the functional uses of the lake. External introduction Any ANS that is introduced to a water body will have some type of negative affect to the aquatic environment. Either out competing local species or becoming over populated to the point creating major and expensive fixes. NZ mudsnail (fws.gov) State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan WQ-08 aquatic nuisance species- plants Unchecked growth or infestation of aquatic weeds and invasive species that interferes with the functionality and health of the lake. External introduction ANS, plants, can take over a water body by enveloping the surface area with overgrowth while outcompeting beneficial species and impacting DO. The species can be costly to treat and require extensive efforts to eradicate. 9 Nuisance Aquatic Weed and Algae Species to Look Out For in Your lake (solitudelakemanagement.com) Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants WQ-09 contaminants of concern (COCs) Chemicals and toxins that can pose health risks to humans and aquatic life, that have standardized water quality standards. External introduction Certain COCs can cause harm to aquatic species, giving them birth defects or inhibiting successful spawning. COCs can also cause health risks to humans. As well as being highly persistent even in small quantities. https://www.epa.gov/fish- tech/contaminants-emerging- concern-fish-fact-sheets Contaminants of Emerging Concern including Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products | Water Quality Criteria | US EPA WQ-10 contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) Chemicals and toxins that can pose health risks to humans and aquatic life, that are yet to have standardized water quality standards. Wastewater treatment effluent CECs often entire our water bodies after being digested and passed by humans. Substances such as birth control, acetaminophen and prescription drugs are commonly found and unregulated in wastewater effluent. https://www.epa.gov/fish- tech/contaminants-emerging- concern-fish-fact-sheets Contaminants of Emerging Concern including Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products | Water Quality Criteria | US EPA WQ-11 Escherichia coli (E. coli) Coliform bacteria associated with waste from warm blooded animals (humans, cattle, geese etc.). Waterfowl feces; septic leaks, pet waste, other warm-blooded wildlife, wastewater treatment effluent. E. coli can cause digestive tract issues with both humans and their pets. When E. coli exceeds water quality standards for recreational use, water bodies need to be shut down and can cause issues with further managing a successful lake our lake that is meant to be used. E. coli fouls 100 Colorado waterways. But managers aren’t sure how big the threat is to people playing in streams. (coloradosun.com) Lake Management (denvergov.org) Shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC) including E. coli 0157:H7, Colorado Communicable Disease Manual. (2004, November 08). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Y6ABRk5NBy cv8MDuReDQa1k_3-ZQZog/view WQ-13 Escherichia coli (E. coli) Coliform bacteria associated with waste from warm blooded animals (humans, cattle, geese etc.). Agricultural runoff E. coli can cause digestive tract issues with both humans and their pets. When E. coli is present, water bodies need to be shut down and can cause issues with further managing a successful lake our lake that is meant to be used. E. coli fouls 100 Colorado waterways. But managers aren’t sure how big the threat is to people playing in streams. (coloradosun.com) Shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC) including E. coli 0157:H7, Colorado Communicable Disease Manual. (2004, November 08). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Y6ABRk5NBy cv8MDuReDQa1k_3-ZQZog/view Page 76 of 94 UNIQUE ID WATER QUALITY ISSUE DESCRIPTION CAUSE(S) RESULTS/CHALLENGES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES REFERENCES WQ-14 heavy metals Introduction or mobilization of heavy metals in concentrations that are harmful to aquatic species. Stormwater runoff; metal foundries and smelting; mining; natural causes such as rock weathering, post-fire runoff. Fish kills can be caused by acute and chronic heavy metal concentrations in water. Certain heavy metals are also regulated at low quantities for human health. State and federal officials determine fish kill in Left Hand Creek is related to Captain Jack Mine site | Department of Public Health & Environment (colorado.gov). After the Napa Fires, Toxic Ash Threatens Soil, Streams, and San Francisco Bay | WIRED https://www.kmizeolite.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/Reddy_Heavy-Metal- from-Urban-Runoff-1.pdf Water quality after wildfire. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/mission- areas/water-resources/science/water-quality- after-wildfire?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt- science_center_objects; Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) WQ-16 herbicides Any substance used to control unwanted plants species. Runoff; direct application of algaecides to water bodies; herbicides applied to tree canopy above water body or along water's edge. Herbicides that are not meant for aquatic use can cause harm for both aquatic plant and animal species. They can also remain in sediment and become a problem with turnover and mixing events. Environmental Indicators of Pesticide Leaching and Runoff from Farm Fields | NRCS (usda.gov) https://www.nalms.org/nalms-position- papers/use-of-herbicides-in-lakes/ WQ-17 residence time High flow (also known as short residence time) can lead to other water body impairments. Too much in-flow, too short of residence time; nearby irrigation/water runoff increased; inline irrigation flows High flow through a lake or lake can create unbalance in all the systems that the lake and its managers try to keep balanced. From microorganisms to aquatic life, high flows and flushing events can disrupt these systems and cause unwanted cascading events. Hydraulic Flushing – hcb (itrcweb.org) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-18 residence time Low flow (also known as long residence time) can lead to other water body impairments. Not enough in-flow, too long of residence time; nearby irrigation/water runoff reduced Low flow can cause high temperatures, low DO and other issues such as anoxia and odors. Low flow can be difficult to address during the late summer early fall season when water supply becomes stressed and limited. Water Quality Risks to Lakes and Rivers | National Climate Assessment (globalchange.gov) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-19 low dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen limits below benchmarks. High Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD); organic pollution; nutrient enrichment; aquatic plant overgrowth; runoff carrying urban pollutants (i.e., pet waste, fertilizers, grass clippings, etc.) High BOD can affect all forms of aquatic life. From fish kills to upsetting the balance of microorganisms. High BOD can be a short-term problem, from a storm event, or it can be caused by a more persistent issue. Why are there dead fish in Denver's lakes? Experts weigh in — The Know (denverpost.com) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier; Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) WQ-20 low dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen limits below benchmarks. High temperatures When water temperature increases, the molecular ability of the water to hold dissolved oxygen molecules decreases. This means that increasing water temperatures mean less dissolved oxygen for aquatic life. This is a physical parameter that would need to be mitigated with shade or supplemental oxygen. Why are there dead fish in Denver's lakes? Experts weigh in — The Know (denverpost.com) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier; Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) WQ-21 low dissolved oxygen- anoxia Dissolved oxygen below 0.5 milligrams per liter. High Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and/or high temperatures; organic pollution; nutrient enrichment; aquatic plant overgrowth; runoff carrying urban pollutants (i.e., pet waste, fertilizers, grass clippings, etc.) Absence of oxygen; anaerobic reactions lead to buildup of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbonaceous gases; iron; manganese; phosphorus; habitat impairment. Course Handout on Limnology.doc (mtu.edu) Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) WQ-22 low water level Low or nearly absent water levels; can be stagnant water. Not enough in-flow, too long of residence time; nearby irrigation water or runoff reduced; waterbodies lacking an inlet or outlet Low water levels can aid in increasing water temperatures and lower DO. Low water levels can also expose aquatic vegetation with both positive and or negative outcomes, depending on the management priorities. Climate Change Impacts On Lakes – North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-23 aquatic nuisance species- insect A nuisance insect from the order Diptera, that present a public health threat through the transmission of pathogens and viruses. Standing / stagnant water Lakes and lakes are ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Even with aquatic predators and moving water, stagnant water around the lake’s permitter can still aid in hatching of mosquitoes. Controlling Mosquitoes at the Larval Stage | Mosquito Control | US EPA Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants Page 77 of 94 UNIQUE ID WATER QUALITY ISSUE DESCRIPTION CAUSE(S) RESULTS/CHALLENGES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES REFERENCES WQ-24 aquatic nuisance species- insect A nuisance insect from the order Diptera, that present a public health threat through the transmission of pathogens and viruses. Flood water Rain events and high flow events of leave enough water for mosquito larva to hatch into adults. Mitigating these waters can be cumbersome and may require both physical design to limit stagnate waters and larvicides. Stormwater design criteria also include a draw-down time in order to treat stormwater runoff, so difficult to fully eliminate standing water. Controlling Mosquitoes at the Larval Stage | Mosquito Control | US EPA Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants WQ-25 nutrients High levels of phosphorus or nitrogen. Waterfowl feces 1) Goose droppings contain nitrogen and phosphorus and can result in nutrient loading to the lakes directly or through runoff from nearby surfaces. Direct point- source loading may require permitting, and when from surfaces, it is considered a non-point source of pollution. 2) Washing goose droppings off into a water body is prohibited by municipal code and MS4 regulations. 3) Fecal contamination can contribute to exceedances of the state recreational water quality standard. 4) Aesthetics, goose droppings can be unsightly and raise public concern over contact issues. Goose_Manual-Habitat- Modification.pdf (maine.gov) Lake Management (denvergov.org) WQ-26 nutrients High levels of phosphorus or nitrogen. Agricultural runoff Mitigating agricultural runoff is a challenge because the source occurs on private lands within the watershed where lake managers have no control. Education and outreach are the best methods to try and limit the negative effects of excess nutrients coming off of agricultural lands. Colorado Regulation 85 & Water Quality FAQs (colostate.edu) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-27 nutrients High levels of phosphorus or nitrogen. Wastewater treatment effluent Colorado regulation 85 is now in place to help mitigate point source nutrient discharge. However, low levels of nutrients can still accumulate in lakes and lakes causing management problems. Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-28 nutrients High levels of phosphorus or nitrogen. Turf Maintenance / Fertilizer Turf maintenance is easier to adjust for lake managers, as the caretakers of the turf are often working for the same entity as the lake. Having a holistic plan in place to take care of the turf and limit the negative effects to adjacent waterbodies can be effective. Regulation 85 requires the City, through its MS4 permit, to address fertilizer storage and application practices and can be a part of the turf management plan. Maintaining Waterfront Turf to Preserve Water Quality (E0011) - MSU Extension Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-29 odor Rotten smell. Decomposition of organic material, low DO. Organic material will inevitably end up in lakes and lakes. Their decomposition can lead to low DO and issues with odor. The season experienced in Colorado provide a recuring source of detritus that should be considered with management strategies. lake and Lake Odors - Why Your Water Smells Bad and How to Fix It (ezinearticles.com) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-31 parasites Protozoa that can cause severe gastrointestinal issues when ingested by humans. External introduction Protozoa can be introduced from upstream sources and fecal matter. This can cause problems in recreation waters and the water becomes unsafe for human contact due to the chance of the protozoa being digested by the users. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drin king/public/water_diseases.html Indicators for waterborne pathogens. (2004). Washington: National Academies Press. WQ-32 pesticides Any substance used to control unwanted animal species. Runoff Pesticides used outside of lake management can persist in the watershed and be introduced through storm run-off. These substances can cause harm to aquatic life, they can be hard to identify, and can be difficult to remove from the system. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide- permitting https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/human-health- benchmarks-pesticides-drinking-water Page 78 of 94 UNIQUE ID WATER QUALITY ISSUE DESCRIPTION CAUSE(S) RESULTS/CHALLENGES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES REFERENCES WQ-33 pH Acute or chronic pH levels outside of the suitable range for healthy aquatic life. Stormwater runoff; natural causes such as decomposition of limestone, anthropogenic sources such as chemicals added to raise pH, post-fire runoff, lake mixing. Fish kills; organism die-off. Managing high pH in freshwater lakes | The Fish Site COR400000 stormwater DISCHARGE. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/cor400000- stormwater-discharge; Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) Water quality after wildfire. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/mission- areas/water-resources/science/water-quality- after-wildfire?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt- science_center_objects; Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier; Code of Colorado Regulations (state.co.us) WQ-36 pH Reduced or fluctuating water pH below 7. Acid rain Changes to pH-mediated water quality and ecological processes; habitat impairment. Acid Rain and Water (usgs.gov) What is Acid Rain? | Acid Rain | US EPA WQ-37 salinity The amount of dissolved salts in a body of water. Agricultural runoff Salinity itself is often not harmful to aquatic life in low quantities. However, in acute situations, salts will interact with the water chemistry and can bring quick and drastic changes to pH, heavy metal mobilization, and other secondary effects. Chronic saline levels that exceed certain thresholds will also play a role in health effects to aquatic life and vegetation. Filtering agricultural runoff with constructed and restored wetlands - Rural California Report (cirsinc.org) Urban salinity – causes and impacts (nsw.gov.au) WQ-38 salinity The amount of dissolved salts in a body of water with concentrations linked to Chloride, an anion formed from Chlorine. Road salts Road salts are applied either as a liquid or solid as a de-icer to make roadways safe during the winter months. These salts often make their way to our waterways. In large amounts these salts can bring unwanted effects to a managed lake. Fish kills, pH changes, vegetation degradation and other effects are possible. Comparison of Contributions to Chloride in Urban Stormwater from Winter Brine and Rock Salt Application | Environmental Science & Technology (acs.org) Haake, D. M., & Knouft, J. H. (n.d.). Comparison of contributions to chloride in Urban Stormwater from Winter brine and rock SALT APPLICATION. Environmental Science and Technology. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b02864.s001 WQ-39 sediment- sedimentation Sediment suspended in water column settles to the bottom and builds over time. Erosion and runoff of sediments from construction in stormwater runoff or sediment mobilized by storms or flushing into streams and waterways, that usually settle out in lower-flow waters, such as lakes and lakes. Loss of lake/lake depth and storage capacity; undesirable sediment composition; nutrient loading; habitat loss Effects of Sediment on the Aquatic Environment: | NRCS (usda.gov) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-40 sediment- water interactions Sediments interaction with the water and its contribution to a negative water quality issue. Wetted perimeter of the lake being in constant contact with the water causing for biological and chemical interactions. Sediment can act as a sponge to a multitude of constituents. It then can have prolonged interactions with the water, both year-round and during mixing events. The effects are dependent on the constituents that are stored and the surrounding water chemistry. Effects of Sediment on the Aquatic Environment: | NRCS (usda.gov) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-41 polluted stormwater runoff Stormwater coming into contact with, dissolving, and/or carrying fecal, chemical, nutrient, sediment, or other pollutants into waterbodies. Warm-blooded animal waste, anthropogenic sources, such as pesticides, fertilizers, metals, petroleum products, organic matter, sediment, and mining activities. Urbanization with increased impervious surfaces allow stormwater to carry anthropogenic and natural sources to water bodies. Excessive waste from any source can be harmful to water bodies and cause a variety of water quality issues. Storm sewers can be acute point source contributors, and stormwater runoff from surrounding surfaces can be non-point source contributors. The effects can have health concerns to recreational users and wildlife. Managers should be aware of the potential risk posed by stormwater pollution from surrounding areas. Stormwater design criteria is required for new and re-development. Keep It Clean Partnership | Stormwater Pollution Prevention » Scoop the Poop Environmental Contamination by Dog’s Feces: A Public Health Problem? (nih.gov) WQ-42 temperature- cold Prolonged cold ambient air temperatures can lead to lake/lake ice-over. Cold temperatures In shallow lakes where substantial volumes of ice-free water are un-available, ice-over can result in decreased DO resulting in fish kills. Climate Change Impacts On Lakes – North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. Page 79 of 94 UNIQUE ID WATER QUALITY ISSUE DESCRIPTION CAUSE(S) RESULTS/CHALLENGES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES REFERENCES WQ-43 temperature- high Temperatures that promote eutrophication, low DO and are harmful to aquatic species. Shallow lake Shallow lakes can absorb more radiation energy, especially if the benthic surface is retaining solar heat. These lakes are much more susceptible to low DO and even temperatures by themselves that will harm aquatic life. World’s Leading Aquatic Scientific Societies Urgently Call for Cuts to Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions – North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-44 temperature- high Temperatures that promote eutrophication, low DO and are harmful to aquatic species. Warming climate, long residence time; shallow, small lake/lake size; no shading With fully allocated river systems and a climate that is currently trending towards warmer temperatures, lake managers are facing difficult problems. In some instances, fish species and vegetation choices may need to change to reflect these new conditions. This may also necessitate more mechanical intervention to keep water clean and oxygenated. When water temperature gets too high or is too high for too long, algae productivity may increase, DO may drop, fish may die due to low DO or heat stress. Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov Climate Change Impacts On Lakes – North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-46 turbidity High levels of suspended solids in the water column. Stormwater runoff; sediment from construction in stormwater runoff, or sediment mobilized by intense storms or flushing irrigation flows. Stormwater can resuspend settled sediment creating for turbid water conditions. High turbidity can make breathing harder for fish as they filter dirty water through their gills during the oxygen exchange. These turbidity events can also add to increased temperature, nutrient releases, and heavy metal mobilizations. Lake managers never know what stormwater will bring in. Having good control of your sediment / sludge and microorganisms can help lessen the impacts of these flashy events. Turbidity and Water (usgs.gov) 5.5 turbidity. (2012, March 06). Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html / vms55.html WQ-47 turbidity High levels of suspended solids in the water column. Post-fire runoff Post-fire runoff can bring different problems to a lake than normal urban run-off. Depending on the location of the fire, there can be high concentrations of mercury, heavy metals, ash, and organic carbons. Lakes higher in the watershed will be more prone to negative impacts and managers should try to have a proactive plan in place should post-fire runoff become a potential concern. Turbidity and Water (usgs.gov) Water quality after wildfire. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/mission- areas/water-resources/science/water-quality- after-wildfire?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt- science_center_objects WQ-48 turbidity High levels of suspended solids in the water column. Mixing Mixing events can be caused from turnovers in larger lakes and high winds in smaller lakes. Suspending sediments re-introduce dormant issues. Turbidity and Water (usgs.gov) Wetzel, R. G. (2015). Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. San Diego etc.: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. WQ-49 aquatic nuisance species- macrophyte Cattails have filled in all or a significant portion of the lake and have formed a monoculture. Cattail populations are left to overgrow or are receiving nutrient inputs that support excessive growth. Once cattails have reached this level of overgrowth, few other plants species can coexist with them and little to no open water is left in the lake. Thick stands may also lower available DO. Page 80 of 94 ATTACHMENT 7 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) TOOLBOX Page 81 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_01 Aeration Mechanical addition/ maintenance of oxygen levels. Capital Improvement/ Maintenance Mechanical low dissolved oxygen; algae blooms; low quality fish habitat; nutrients Any lake or lake that has low dissolved oxygen. May harm cold water fisheries; interfere with recreation; resuspend benthic sediments CWA Section 401 aesthetics; mitigate odor $90-100k $5-30k http://aquatics.org/bmpc hapters/3.4%20Cultural %20and%20Physical% 20Control%20of%20Aq uatic%20Weeds.pdf; https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf BMP_02 Aquatic Algaecide A chemical treatment applied with a specific technique at specific times to target a specific problem with an aquatic plant. Maintenance Chemical aquatic nuisance species-plants Any lake or lake with excessive algae growth that does not have any aquatic species that would be negatively impacted by application of algaecide. Low DO event after application; mortality of desirable vegetation Application permitting may be required; CDPHE Aquatic Pesticides Permit (General Permit COG860000); NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator may need to be licensed. Increased biodiversity Lowered BOD Increased aesthetics $100-3k Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.thelakeguy. com/category/aquatic- algicides Debunking Myths: A Professional’s Take on Herbicides and Algaecides (solitudelakemanageme nt.com) BMP_03 Aquatic Dye EPA-registered dyes or surface covers used to limit light penetration and restrict the depth at which rooted plants can grow. Maintenance Chemical aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants; algae blooms Generally used for golf courses and artificial aesthetic lakes. May make water look artificial; downstream impacts; permit may be required; limits access in recreational lakes; increased surface water temperature due to solar absorption of dye; impacts to desirable species Application permitting may be required; CDPHE Aquatic Pesticides Permit (General Permit COG860000); NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? Aesthetics; limit vegetation growth $10-300 Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://aquaticcontrol.co m/product-category/ lake-dyes/ BMP_04 Aquatic Herbicide A chemical treatment applied with a specific technique at specific times to target a specific problem with algae growth. Aquatic Herbicides can be categorized as contact or systematic. Contact herbicides tend to result in rapid injury or death of the contacted plat tissues. Systematic herbicides are translocated throughout the plant tissue and roots once taken up by the plant. Maintenance Chemical aquatic nuisance species-plants When a certain aquatic plant species can be targeted with a specific herbicide, without impacting other aquatic resources. Low DO event after application Contact: Do not use on emergent plant without expert advice. Systematic: Concentration and time of exposure are crucial for proper application. Application permitting may be required; CDPHE Aquatic Pesticides Permit (General Permit COG860000; NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? Increased biodiversity Lowered BOD Increased aesthetics $15-30k Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf Debunking Myths: A Professional’s Take on Herbicides and Algaecides (solitudelake management.com); https://www.sfei.org/site s/default/files/biblio_file s/PestAlternatives_revi ew.pdf Page 82 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_05 Artificial Habitat Structures Implementing a variety of structures that create space for aquatic life to hide, rest and feed. Capital Improvement/Main tenance Mechanical aquatic habitat Placement in areas that will not endanger or interfere recreationists or lake/lake maintenance. Endangerment or interference with recreationists or maintenance activities. CPW may require permit; CWA Section 401 targets invasive plants; allows for more biodiversity $100-3k $0 Fish Habitat — lake King, Inc.; https://www.solitudelak emanagement.com/blo g/helpful-tips-when- installing-artificial- habitat/ Fish Habitat Management | Solitude Lake Management BMP_06 Barley Extract Similar to barley straw but in a concentrated liquid. This liquid works the same as barley straw, however it is faster acting. The concentrate needs to be precisely measured otherwise it can become harmful to the aquatic life in the lake. Maintenance Biological algae blooms Any lake with a known volume and controlled residence time, as the application is fast acting and needs to be precise. Increasing oxygen demand; if used in large quantities it could be harmful to fisheries; classified as a home remedy, not a true pesticide CDPHE permitting may be required; CPW may require permit; CWA Section 402 increased biodiversity; increased aesthetics; low maintenance; long term efficacy; eco- friendly $10-$100 Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.thelakeguy. com/product/the-lake- guy-barley- extract/water-garden- fish-lakes-natural- barley-treatments; https://www.thelakeguy. com/product/the-lake- guy-barley- extract/water-garden- fish-lakes-natural- barley- treatments?p=PPCGO OGA&gclid=Cj0KCQjwp 86EBhD7ARIsAFkgakg KPHJiauYNdLvUWiitbD mUY1d4eOa8plMz7- HrhX5sE4xb4WIgLH8a AlhNEALw_wcB How to Use lake Barley Straw for Algae (Does it Actually Work?) - lake Informer BMP_07 Barley Straw Bundles of barley straw are suspended in the lake, near the surface. As a by- product of the slow decomposition of the straw, low levels of hydrogen peroxide are released into the water. Hydrogen peroxide limits or prevents the growth of algae. It does not kill or remove pre- existing algae. Barley straw works best in a well oxygenated lakes without other underlying water quality issues. For this reason, barley straw is better suited as a preventative method. In other words, it is better suited as an algaestat than an algaecide. This method works best when deployed in the spring and allowed to work throughout the summer. Maintenance Biological algae blooms Any lake known to have algae blooms, in the summer as barley straw works slow and is best used as a preventative measure Increasing oxygen demand; if used in large quantities it could be harmful to fisheries; classified as a home remedy, not a true pesticide CPW may require permit; CWA Section 403 increased biodiversity; increased aesthetics; low maintenance; long term efficacy; eco- friendly $100-1k Variable depending on treatment frequency. FS1171: lake and Lake Management Part VI: Using Barley Straw to Control Algae (Rutgers NJAES) How to Use lake Barley Straw for Algae (Does it Actually Work?) - lake Informer Page 83 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_08 Benthic Barriers Used for localized control of benthic aquatic plants. Blocks sunlight needed for photosynthesis, good in areas <1 acre. Deeper than 4ft often requires scuba diver installation. May impact fish and other benthic organisms. Maintenance Mechanical aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants target areas < 500 square feet Lack of natural aquatic vegetation. Repairs and cost of instillation Application permitting may be required; CWA Section 402 or 404. Control muck, sediment, turbidity. Can give more control over many factors driving lake health. $6k+/acre; $14k- 26,200/acre Variable depending on treatment frequency. http://www.apms.org/ja pm/vol50/2- 17716%20p101- 105%20APMdj.pdf; https://lakestewardsofm aine.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/0 1/Benthic-Barriers.pdf; https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf http://aquatics.org/bmpc hapters/3.4%20Cultural %20and%20Physical% 20Control%20of%20Aq uatic%20Weeds.pdf BMP_09 Biocide Chemicals/substances added to inhibit/eliminate target species. Maintenance Chemical algae blooms; vascular plants; Aquatic Nuisance Species - Insect; fish kills Any size lake that has a specific species that is a nuisance in its current setting. may impact water quality; oxygen levels; released/available nutrients; impact desirable species; downstream impacts; may result in decaying vegetation/algae mass. Application permitting may be required; CDPHE Aquatic Pesticides Permit (General Permit COG860000); NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? Increase biodiversity. Site specific application. Control of overgrowth can help aquatic habitat and overall health of the lake. Variable; cost dependent on type, manufacturer costs, shipping, application time, and monitoring strategy. Variable depending on treatment frequency and monitoring strategy. BiocidesforIndustrial Use.pdf (anl.gov) BMP_10 Biocontrol - Classical Use of natural enemy (biocontrol agent) of the nuisance specie (target) from their native range are introduced to control the nuisance specie. Biocontrol agents are usually insects. Maintenance Biological aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants Anywhere where there is a specific species that can be targeted by a native bio-control measure. Establishment of the biocontrol agent and suppression of the target species are not guaranteed; the introduced agent may impact species that are not the target Application permitting may be required; CPW approval may be required Less expensive option, if suitable. No maintenance. Increased bug abundance can help the food abundance for fisheries. Variable; cost dependent on type, manufacturer or rearing costs, shipping and delivery, application time, and monitoring strategy. Variable depending on treatment frequency and monitoring strategy. Introduction - Biological Control: Management Methods - Managing Invasive Plants (fws.gov) BMP_11 Biocontrol - Non-classical Use of a non-natural enemy (biocontrol agent) of the nuisance specie (target) are introduced to control the nuisance specie. Biocontrol agents are usually insects. Maintenance Biological aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants Non-classical bio- control can be harder to find matches for insects and species to be controlled. However, when the insect to be used will not prove to become a nuisance, the conditions are then met. Establishment of the biocontrol agent and suppression of the target species are not guaranteed; the introduced agent may impact species that are not the target Application permitting may be required; CPW approval may be required Less expensive option, if suitable. No maintenance. Increased bug abundance can help the food abundance for fisheries. Variable; cost dependent on type, manufacturer or rearing costs, shipping and delivery, application time, and monitoring strategy. Variable depending on treatment frequency and monitoring strategy. 3.6 Introduction to Biological Control of Aquatic Weeds.pdf (aquatics.org) Page 84 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_12 Biomanipulation Targeted manipulation of ecological interactions to alter ecosystem processes. Maintenance Biological algae blooms; vascular plants; fish kills; aquatic nuisance species- animals; habitat enhancement lakes or lakes where making adjustments to biological interactions with have positive cascading affects. Lakes or lakes that have time to adjust and see results of manipulation, which can take longer than other options introduced species may impact water quality; ecosystem functions; unintended migration; introduced species impact on lake users; impacts on non-target desirable species; impact longevity Application permitting may be required; CPW approval may be required A more natural option that can restore ecological balance and long- term success of lake health. Can reduce management inputs, when implemented properly. $1k-10k Variable depending on treatment frequency and monitoring strategy. Reference: https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf BMP_13 Biopesticides Biopesticides include naturally occurring substances that control pests (biochemical pesticides), microorganisms that control pests (microbial pesticides), and pesticidal substances produced by plants containing added genetic material (plant- incorporated protectants) or PIPs with less risk to non- target organisms. Maintenance Biological aquatic nuisance species-insects; sludge/muck; algae blooms lake and lakes that would be sensitive to chemical applications. Areas that are more sensitive to flow through conditions or other conditions not conducive to chemical applications. Slower rate of target species control compared to conventional pesticides, shorter persistence in the environment, susceptibility to unfavorable environmental conditions. Application permitting may be required; CDPHE Aquatic Pesticides Permit (General Permit COG860000); NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? Can be targeted applications that are low maintenance. Can use plant or insects, so your options can be tailored. Variable; cost dependent on type, manufacturer costs, shipping, application time, and monitoring strategy. Variable depending on treatment frequency and monitoring strategy. https://www.pctonline. com/article/make-way- for--biopesticides/ ; https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC 3130386/ Biopesticides | pesticides | US EPA BMP_14 Cattle Fencing Cattle fencing can help ensure that grazing livestock is deterred from any overgrazing or degradation to riparian areas surrounding lakes. Capital Improvement Mechanical water quality Any surface water body that can be accessible to any livestock. May limit or impede human access to water resources. Primary water resource for cattle may need to be implemented elsewhere. Permitting may be required if there is a land use, ownership issue. Re-establish riparian habitat, maintain a health buffer zone, limit disturbances and nutrient loading. $1600-2,500 $100-$500 ConfProceeding (tamu.edu) BMP_15 Chemical Treatments - Other Addition of chemicals to adjust pH, oxidize compounds, flocculate and settle solids, or affect chemical habitat features. Maintenance Chemical particulate settling; algae blooms; pH; oxidation; disinfection water quality impacts; impact sediment-water interactions; sediment pollutant release; impact desirable species and habitat; impact community assemblages; may require permitting Chemicals can persist in water bodies which can be of concern to downstream entities, the fishery if people consume their catches or human contact of water. Application permitting may be required; CDPHE Aquatic Pesticides Permit (General Permit COG860000) Chemicals can be tailored for specific goals. Many chemicals adjust major baseline factors affecting overall aquatic health. Restoring base line conditions can help all aspects of lake health. Variable; dependent on chemical type. Variable depending on treatment frequency and monitoring strategy. https://www.sfei.org/site s/default/files/biblio_file s/PestAlternatives_revi ew.pdf Page 85 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_16 Circulation Mechanical movement of water to enhance mixing and/or prevent stratification. Maintenance Mechanical stagnation; stratification; low- to-no mixing; low surface aeration; algae blooms Bodies of water that can have access to electrical connections to run pumps. lake where consistent turnover will not affect aquatic organisms that do better with seasonal stratification. Resuspension of benthic sediment; may disrupt habitat or lifecycles of desirable species; may interfere with recreation; Water rights should be considered. Increased Dissolved Oxygen, less algae formation, optional chance to use UV light for disinfection during circulation process. $200-100k Variable depending on equipment selected and maintenance schedule. Consider costs of electricity and winterization. ttps://www.epa.gov/site s/production/files/2015- 04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf BMP_17 Drainage Management Create swales or other graded areas to promote stormwater infiltration to avoid direct discharge into water bodies. Capital Improvement Mechanical sediment- sedimentation; nutrients; pesticides Land around lake is large enough for drainage management structures. Water being diverted needs a safe path to travel without harming others. Infrastructure may require maintenance. USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 Mitigate incoming water and any constituents that may be coming with it. $3k-7k/acre $500-$1,500 ttps://www.epa.gov/site s/production/files/2015- 04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf; http://www.malvern.org/ wp- content/uploads/2013/0 3/vegswale.pdf BMP_18 Drawdown - Full Physically remove all water from lake. Maintenance Mechanical infrastructure lakes that need heavy maintenance or have conditions that cannot be managed through other means. Ability to refill waterbody in a timely manner. CWA Section 401; CPW Permit to kill fish, if drawdown will cause mortality in natural waters; Water rights should be considered. Can allow for a whole new lake with great conditions to be established. A time to introduce new habitat, new riparian zones and more depth. $200-$500 (generally just labor) Variable depending on ease of opening outlet or need to pump out and haul water. $ to $$$ http://ricelake. homestead.com/files/ Facts_about_lake_draw downs.htm https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/ si_public_record_Repor t.cfm?Lab=ORD&dirEnt ryID=33336 BMP_19 Drawdown - Partial Expose submerged species to freezing or drying conditions. Best for species that propagate by root structures or fragmentation. Maintain draw down for at least 6-8 weeks. Maintenance Mechanical aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants lakes that have issues that will be accessed with partial drawdown and a bank slope that allows partial drawdown access while also keeping the rest of the aquatic health in good shape. Ability to refill waterbody in a timely manner. CWA Section 401; CPW Permit to kill fish, if drawdown will cause mortality in natural waters; water rights should be considered. sediment compaction; changes in substrate composition; reduce damage to structures; allow for shoreline cleanup access $200-$500 (generally just labor) Variable depending on ease of opening outlet or need to pump out and haul water. http://ricelake.homestea d.com/files/Facts_about _lake_drawdowns.htm http://aquatics.org/bmpc hapters/3.4%20Cultural %20and%20Physical% 20Control%20of%20Aq uatic%20Weeds.pdf BMP_20 Dredging - Excavation Several feet of lake bottom sediment are removed through machine excavation, especially from shallow lakes and lakes that have filled with silt and organic matter over time. Maintenance Mechanical variable depth; sediment- sedimentation; nutrients; improve habitat; low dissolved oxygen; algae blooms; FE control; MN control; rooted plant control Excavation can be applied to any lake as long as budget is not restrictive. All lakes and lakes lose depth to sediment over time. Maintaining optimal depth in a lake may require excavation. Increased turbidity; downstream impacts; suspend possible contaminants; disposal of dredged material; biotic community composition; desirable species; desirable habitats; impact longevity CPW; USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 aquatic weed control $250k+ Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf Interview w/Aquatic Associates; http://aquatics.org/bmpc hapters/3.2%20Develop ing%20a%20Lake%20 Management%20Plan.p df Page 86 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_21 Dredging - Vacuum / Suction Vacuum dredging can help remove sediment from a lake or lake with less disturbance than excavation. This requires either a dredging barge or suction truck with enough power to dislodge sediment. Maintenance Mechanical sludge/muck lakes with a benthic make up that is conducive to suction, i.e., muck, fine sands, small rocks. Dredging can be expensive and depth limited if suction is from lake edges. Suction barges require boat ramp infrastructure. CPW; USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 Removal of built- up nutrients, heavy metals and reduction of suspended particles. $250k+; diver dredging: $1,100-2k Variable depending on treatment frequency. Interview w/Aquatic Associates; https://www.sfei.org/site s/default/files/biblio_file s/PestAlternatives_revi ew.pdf BMP_22 Erosion Control Treatments that reduce the amount of erosion and associated sedimentation from areas surrounding or upstream of a lake. Controlling erosion helps prevent the increase in sedimentation. Erosion control can also stabilize and increase the efficacy of riparian and littoral zones. Capital Improvement/Main tenance Mechanical sediment- sedimentation; nutrients; contaminants of concern (COCs) Hillslopes, roads or channels that are accessible for mitigation efforts. Erosion control often requires continually upkeep and sediment management if sediment is captured upstream of lake. USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 Maintain lake depth, less contamination from sediment transported constituents. $500-$6k; variable depending on treatment used. $1-2/ft (for things like straw wattles, biodegradable mesh, and silt fence) + installation labor cost Variable depending on treatment used and maintenance frequency. https://agupubs.onlineli brary.wiley.com/doi/epd f/10.1002/2015WR0180 14 https://www.uwsp.edu/c nr- ap/UWEXLakes/Docum ents/programs/LakeSho reTraining/21.0_develo ping_a_cost_estimate/2 006_erosion_control_co sts_mn.pdf BMP_23 Fish Introduction - Catfish Catfish have a wide variety of species that have a wide range of benefits to lakes and lakes. They can help with vegetation overgrowth issues. They are adapted to warmer waters, making them ideal inhabitants for urban areas. They can increase the productivity of a recreational fishery. Maintenance Biological aquatic nuisance species-plants; low productivity lakes that can handle a large aquatic fish species that will become a key part to ecological balance in the lake. May not be permitted in water bodies with sensitive species; may increase turbidity CWA Section 401; CPW Stocking Permit Increased fishing opportunities, outcompete unwanted fish species, can handle increasing water temperatures. $1k-10k Variable https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf http://www.dunnsfishfar m.com/fish_pricing.htm BMP_24 Fish Introduction - Grass carp (Cteno- pharyngodon idella Cuvier and Valenciennes) Fish species native to Russia and China with high lake grass herbivory capability. Can be bred to be non-reproductive. Maintenance Biological aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants lakes that can handle a large aquatic fish species that will become a key part to ecological balance in the lake. Only stock in closed systems; DO NOT stock in open systems connected to other lakes, lakes, streams, or rivers. Lake conditions must meet requirements for carp survival; increase in algae; decrease in water clarity; not allowed in some states or may require permit CWA Section 401; CPW Stocking Permit reintroduce nutrients held in vegetation to water column; increase algae $45-$125/acre Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.sfei.org/site s/default/files/biblio_file s/PestAlternatives_revi ew.pdf Page 87 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_25 Flooding Flooding target areas to aid or eliminate species. Maintenance Biological aquatic nuisance species-plants; access for maintenance/const ruction; access for dredging; sediment- sedimentation; rooted plant control; fish productivity; lakes that have access to enough water upstream required to meet project goals for a controlled flooding event. downstream impacts; flood storage; impacts to nutrient levels; DO; pH; sloughing; erosion; compaction; odor; access and public safety; impacts to desirable species and habitat; connectivity with groundwater/wells; aesthetics CWA Section 401; CPW Permit to kill fish, if flooding will cause mortality in natural waters or introduce unwanted species into other water bodies; Water rights should be considered. Can allow for a rebalance of aquatic life, restore a functioning system that requires less input. $500- $25k/acre, depending on water source, gravitational piping or pumping. Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.mass.gov/fi les/documents/2016/08/ sd/eutrophication-and- aquatic-plant- management-in- massachusetts-final- generic-environmental- impact-report- mattson.pdf BMP_26 Flushing Increasing flow while decreasing residence time to reduce or minimize the concentrations of any unwanted substance(s). Maintenance Mechanical residence time; pollutants; contaminants of concern (COCs); algae blooms N/A water supply quantity/quality variability; downstream impacts; may resuspend benthic sediments; may impact fish productivity and/or habitat; recreator safety; could cause un-natural turn over event Water rights and downstream water quality regulations should be considered. minimizes detention, response to pollutants may be reduced $500- $25k/acre, depending on water source, gravitational piping or pumping. Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.mass.gov/fi les/documents/2016/08/ sd/eutrophication-and- aquatic-plant- management-in- massachusetts-final- generic-environmental- impact-report- mattson.pdf BMP_27 Hydro-Raking and Rotovation Disruption of sediments and disruption of aquatic rooted plants. Maintenance Mechanical aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants; unwanted features/structures Not practical for some smaller lakes DO NOT use on vegetation that spreads by fragmentation; may disrupt fish or benthic organisms; increased turbidity; sediment-water interactions; may resuspend benthic sediments; may impact habitat; CPW; USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401; certified operator may be required where there is severe weed infestation, this technique could be appropriate $2k-10k; $1,200-$2k per acre; mechanical cutting: $100- 11,000/acre Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.solitudelak emanagement.com/blo g/hydro-raking-restore- open-water-prolong- dredging/; https://www.sfei.org/site s/default/files/biblio_file s/PestAlternatives_revi ew.pdf BMP_28 Lining - Natural Seal the bottom of the lake/lake with bentonite, sands, gravel, or other natural sealants. Capital Improvement Mechanical rooted plant growth; sediment- water interactions; algae blooms; recreation appeal N/A sealant impact on water column; impact longevity CPW may require permit retains water and nutrients $25-50k $0 https://www.homeadvis or.com/cost/landscape/l ake-liner-prices/ https://reader.elsevier.c om/reader/sd/pii/S1364 03212030006X?token= 73D47C8159BD642011 F22A94C7D27A14F0C 53B5AE966671F48CD F4A07D0F8A090CF7B F3D2F76FA66EDCD9A 00E98F3F58&originRe gion=us-east- Page 88 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) 1&originCreation=2021 0702210528 BMP_29 Lining - Synthetic Seal the bottom of the lake/lake with a synthetic barrier to help prevent water loss and vegetation growth. Capital Improvement Mechanical water loss; aquatic nuisance species- plants Not practical for some larger lakes. sealant impact on water column; impact longevity; challenges associated with high groundwater (e.g., floating liner if groundwater is high and lake surface is low); loss of inflows from groundwater CPW may require permit retains water and nutrients $3k-8k/acre $0 https://www.lakemanag ementinc.net/lake-liner- lifespan/ https://www.homeadvis or.com/cost/landscape/i nstall-a-lake/ BMP_30 Microbe Treatment There are seven groups of microbes; bacteria, archaea, protozoa, algae, fungi, viruses, and parasites. The most common means of lake treatment utilizing microbes is the use of beneficial bacteria. This bacteria can help the overall health of most lakes by aiding in clarity, sludge reduction and purification. Maintenance Biological nutrients N/A could increase bacteria in water if incorrect microbes used for treatment Application permitting may be required; CDPHE Aquatic Pesticides Permit (General Permit COG860000) Decrease need for algaecides $50-1k Variable depending on treatment frequency. Interview w/Aquatic Associates; https://www.aquascapei nc.com/produ https://aosts.com/role- microbes- microorganisms-used- wastewater-sewage- treatment/ BMP_31 Nutrient Reduction - Biochar Biochar is charcoal produced from biomass. It is a stable solid, rich in carbon and has properties that allow biochar to absorb nutrients that come into contact with the material. Maintenance Biological nutrients N/A erosion and potential reduction in nutrient and pesticide use efficiency Application permitting may be required. reduces nitrogen leaching into groundwater and runoff into surface water. Extremely absorbent. $50-$500 Variable depending on treatment frequency and monitoring strategy. Biochar: Filter and Physically Excess lake nutrients (solitudelakemanageme nt.com) https://extension.psu.ed u/using-biochar-for- water-quality; https://farm- energy.extension.org/bi ochar-prospects-of- commercialization/ Page 89 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_32 Nutrient Reduction - Buffered Liquid Allum Alum (aluminum sulfate) is a non-toxic chemical treatment for lakes that precipitates out a floc when applied to the water, allowing for the alum to bind with phosphate. The aluminum phosphate compound is insoluble in water and drops out of the water column onto the benthic surface. Maintenance Chemical nutrients N/A potential toxicity on aquatic species Application permitting may be required, NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? Cheaper than other methods. $280- $700/acre 0 Alum Brochure.doc (wi.gov); https://www.pca.state.m n.us/water/lake- protection-and- management Interview w/Aquatic Associates; https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf BMP_33 Nutrient Reduction - Phoslock® Phoslock® is a patented product that binds free reactive phosphorus (FRP). This compound settles out of the water column, similar to the alum application. Maintenance Chemical nutrients N/A can act as a source of NH4+ Application permitting may be required; NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? management of blue green algae blooms $400-1k Variable depending on treatment frequency. Phoslock | SePRO Corporation Interview w/Aquatic Associates https://www.sciencedire ct.com/science/article/pi i/S2589914721000086 BMP_34 Nutrient Supplementatio n Addition of nutrients to increase productivity or alter nutrient ratios. Maintenance Chemical low productivity; algae blooms; improve fish habitat N/A water quality impacts; may change sedimentation rate; food web structure; shifts to undesirable algae composition; decreased water clarity 303d and/or 401 compliance may be required. can improve forage conditions for microzooplankton $30-$500 Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.thelakeguy. com/ https://fisheries.org/doc s/books/x54034xm/14.p df BMP_35 Pet Waste Program Install pet waste stations for local citizens to gather and dispose of pet waste before it enters the lake. Capital Improvement/Main tenance/Administr ative Biological Escherichia coli (E. coli) N/A would require maintenance Permitting may be required depending on land use and/or ownership. reduces nutrients and pathogenic bacteria that could enter the water $70-$350 per station $500-$1k https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf; file:///C:/Users/jennifer. mccarty/OneDrive%20- %20SWCA/Desktop/jra- cost-memo-june- update.pdf BMP_36 Phytoremediati on Create natural water quality buffer areas near to or in lakes, such as wetland habitat, using plants to remove, stabilize, and/or destroy contaminants. Capital Improvement Biological contaminants of concern (COCs); contaminants of emerging concern (CECs); sediment- sedimentation; fish habitat lakes large enough to accommodate or near to available space that may be converted for phytoremediation. requires some maintenance, not as disruptive to the natural ecosystem USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 does not generate contaminated secondary waste, enhances soil fertility, low cost $9-300/m3; $2k-6k $1k-$3k https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/ 200523.pdf; https://www.pca.state.m n.us/sites/default/files/p -gen3-13x.pdf; https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf ; https://www.pca.state.m n.us/sites/default/files/p -gen3-13x.pdf Page 90 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_37 Sediment Treatment Chemicals/substances added to alter sediment features to limit plant growth or control chemical exchange reactions. Maintenance Chemical sediment-water interactions; nutrients; algae blooms N/A impact on water column; impact longevity; may impact benthic and water column biota; Herbicide and pesticide chemical application to waterbodies requires a City Pesticide Discharge Permit. Other application permitting may be required; NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? Can reduce internal P loading. Variable depending on treatment type. Variable depending on treatment type and application frequency. Effects of alum treatment on water quality and sediment in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, Minnesota (tandfonline.com) BMP_38 Shredder Boat and Removal Harvester Used on larger lakes to cut up surface or shallow water vegetation. Maintenance Mechanical aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants Not practical for smaller lakes. Not practical for smaller lakes; DO NOT use on vegetation that spreads by fragmentation; may disrupt fish or other organisms CWA Section 401; may require CPW approval Can remove large amounts of aquatic vegetation in short amount of time. Variable depending on type of shredder boat/harvester used and treatment frequency. Variable depending on type of shredder boat/ harvester used and treatment frequency. http://www.ijetjournal.or g/Volume2/Issue2/IJET- V2I2P14.pdf BMP_39 Sludge Reducer A combination of beneficial bacteria and enzymes that help accelerate the solubilization and digestion of organic solids. Maintenance Biological sludge/muck N/A water has to be at least 60 degrees to apply Herbicide and pesticide chemical application to waterbodies requires a City Pesticide Discharge Permit. Other application permitting may be required; NPDES permits; CWA Section 401; applicator must be licensed? not consumed by the water column, low maintenance $50-$300 Variable depending on treatment frequency. Interview w/Aquatic Associates; https://webbsonline.co m/Item/40017 BMP_40 Supplemental Flow Supplement flow with increased flow from inlet or other source. Maintenance Mechanical low dissolved oxygen; algae blooms, sludge/muck, aquatic nuisance species-plants N/A has the potential to change water temperature and effect aquatic life present in waterbodies CWA Section 401; Water rights should be considered has the potential to improve water quality depending on the quality of the water being used Variable depending on water source. Variable depending on water source and treatment frequency. http://www.leginfo.ca.go v/pub/15- 16/bill/sen/sb_0551- 0600/sb_564_bill_2016 0916_chaptered.pdf Page 91 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_41 UV Light UV is an effective, safe and environmentally friendly way to disinfect water. UV can be used to limit algae growth, eliminate E.coli, eliminate parasites and treat recycled water, incoming water or discharged waters. Capital Improvement Mechanical algae blooms Best for aesthetic lakes and free- floating algae. Not ideal for stormwater or irrigation lakes or stringy or immobile algae that would not flow through a filter. Flow must be precise to allow enough time for UV treatment of passing water. Additional piping for pumping increases initial cost of unit and requires routine maintenance. Bulbs and tubing prone to breakage during routine maintenance. Device must be regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) May increase aeration. $25k-$250k per unit. $1k+ per unit https://homeguides.sfga te.com/waterfall-uv- light-installation- 59283.html An-Introduction-to-UV- Wastewater- Disinfection-eBook- FINAL.pdf (trojanuv.com); https://www.buyultraviol et.com/ecologic-lake- lake-reclamation- systems https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2020 -10/documents/uvlight- complianceadvisory.pdf BMP_42 Vegetation - Littoral Zone Bioaugmentatio n Plant a mixture of productive plants that thrive in the littoral zone. Capital Improvement Biological water quality; aquatic habitat; sediment- sedimentation; organic material, nutrients; pesticides lakes big enough to accommodate plants. Avoid areas where plants may conflict with recreation. Access to water May require CPW approval Restore littoral plant communities; increase carbon storage. $1-6k $300-$400 https://www.colliercount yfl.gov/your- government/divisions-f- r/natural- resources/littoral-zones; https://www.broward.or g/NatureScape/CreateN aturescape/Documents/ landscaping_on_edge.p df; https://www.nrem.iastat e.edu/bmpcosttools/file s/page/files/2016%20C ost%20Sheet%20for%2 0Riparian%20Buffer%2 0or%20Filter%20Strip.p df Quantifying the Effect of a Vegetated Littoral Zone on Wet Detention lake Pollutant Load Reduction (2005) (ucf.edu); https://agupubs.onlineli brary.wiley.com/doi/epd f/10.1002/2015WR0180 14 Page 92 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_43 Vegetation - Selective Harvesting Hand cutting, pulling and selective harvesting are highly selective vegetation removal techniques that target easily identified species. They are usually used to target new infestations with low plant density (generally less than 500 stems per acre). These methods can be used to remove more dense plant growth over small areas, but benthic barriers or suction harvesting may be more effective. These methods can also be used as important follow-up to herbicide treatment. Maintenance Mechanical aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants; algae blooms Not practical for larger lakes or larger effected areas. root pieces and fragments left by self-propagating plants may exacerbate the problem; hand- pulling can disturb sediment and make it difficult to identify other plants; DO NOT use hand rakes for weed control without expert guidance; sediment-water interactions; resuspension of benthic sediments; may disturb desirable organisms and habitats CWA Section 401; certification required if SCUBA used in shallow waters, it requires little skill or equipment and can therefore be cost-effective. Can be used to target specific weeds in an area. $500- $2,400/acre Variable depending on treatment frequency. BMP_44 Vegetation - Riparian Bioaugmentatio n Implementation of a riparian buffer or vegetative zone adjacent to inlets and lakes. No-mow buffers can improve water quality and reduce nutrients to lake. Riparian ecosystems can be established through seed planting, transplanting or a combination. Capital Improvement Biological water quality; aquatic habitat; sediment- sedimentation; organic material, nutrients; pesticides; Escherichia coli (E. coli) N/A Establishing vegetation Maintenance and upkeep USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 Sediment control Ecological habitat Increased aesthetics; geese control $1-6k $200-$400 Chapter_6-7-1.pdf (stormwaterpa.org) Riparian buffer width, vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: A review of current science and regulations (epa.gov); https://agupubs.onlineli brary.wiley.com/doi/epd f/10.1002/2015WR0180 14 BMP_45 Vegetation - Tree Bioaugmentatio n Planting trees can help with bank stabilization, shade and aesthetics of lakes and lakes. Capital Improvement Biological restore riparian plant communities; sediment- sedimentation; organic material; nutrients; pesticides N/A short term increased sediment during planting that could add sediment to the waterbody Non-WOTUS do not require a permit; visual obstruction permissions may be required. Restore riparian plant communities; increase carbon storage. $300-11k $300- $500 per acre https://www.parklandco unty.com/en/live-and- play/resources/Docume nts/PRC/iceheave/Shor eline-Stabilization- Sample-Plans.pdf BMP_46 water quality Monitoring Implement water quality monitoring to determine baseline and changing water quality standards for adaptive and responsive management. Maintenance N/A any All can be expensive to develop and maintain over a long period of time, requires long period of time to draw conclusions from data N/A can provide more data than is currently available, are able to target areas of concern to monitor over a short or long period of time Variable depending on monitoring type and frequency. Variable depending on monitoring type and frequency. https://www.usgs.gov/c enters/umid- water/science/lake- monitoring-and- research?qt- science_center_objects =0#qt- science_center_objects Page 93 of 94 UNIQUE ID BMP DESCRIPTION BMP TYPE BMP MECHANISM TARGET WATER BODY ISSUE APPLICABLE LAKE CONDITIONS POTENTIAL CONCERNS PERMITTING AND WATER RIGHTS CO-BENEFIT(S) CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS PER YEAR (ADJUSTED FOR 20- YEAR BMP LIFESPAN) ADDITIONAL RESOURCE(S) REFERENCE(S) BMP_47 Weed rollers Rollers can be up to 30 feet long and sit on the lake bottom powered by an electric motor. Travel forward and reverse in up to a 270-degree arc around a pivot point. Typically installed at the end of a dock. Plants become wrapped around the roller and are dislodged from the sediment. Roller motion disrupts and compresses the bottom sediments, which prevents plants from becoming re-established. Maintenance Mechanical aquatic nuisance species-plants; aquatic invasive species-plants Not practical for smaller lakes. Not practical for large areas; may disrupt fish and other benthic organisms; may require permit CPW; USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401; certified operator may be required Compresses benthic sediment $2k/acre Variable depending on treatment frequency. https://www.sfei.org/site s/default/files/biblio_file s/PestAlternatives_revi ew.pdf BMP_48 Forebay Construction Sediment capture area upstream along inlet waterway to target waterbody where sediment settles out prior to entering the waterbody. May include road access for easy dredging and maintenance of forebay. Reduces sediment maintenance of waterbody. Capital Improvement/Main tenance Mechanical sediment- sedimentation; nutrients; pesticides N/A requires periodic dredging, invasive weeds can become an issue to downstream water quality USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 can help to trap the incoming sediments and prolong the benefits of dredging $1,000- $2,000/acre $800-$4,000 https://www.mass.gov/fi les/documents/2016/08/ sd/eutrophication-and- aquatic-plant- management-in- massachusetts-final- generic-environmental- impact-report- mattson.pdf BMP_49 Hypolimnetic Withdrawal Damming surface water outflow and withdrawing hypolimnetic water. Capital Improvement/Main tenance Mechanical low dissolved oxygen-anoxia; nutrients lakes that have an outlet that may be modified to drain hypolimnetic water or access for pumping hypolimnetic water. summer drawdown, disruption of stratification, and downstream water quality. Effectiveness requires long-term use of this BMP CWA Section 401; CPW Permit to kill fish if withdrawal will cause mortality in natural waters; water rights should be considered. $3k-45k for withdrawal pipes $50-1k https://upstreamtechnol ogies.us/docs/SAFL_Ba ffle_Vs_Forebay.pdf; https://www.epa.gov/sit es/production/files/2015 -04/documents/nutrient- economics-report- 2015.pdf page III-13 BMP_50 SAFL Baffle Stormwater pretreatment system that filters sediment from inflowing water prior to entering downstream waterbodies. Capital Improvement/Main tenance Mechanical sediment- sedimentation N/A N/A USACE Section 404; CWA Section 401 $670/acre $500-$1,000 https://upstreamtechnol ogies.us/docs/SAFL- Baffle-Design-Guide.pdf BMP_51 Landscape Fertilizer Application Best practice to provide education to the public related to landscape fertilizer application to reduce nutrient runoff to waterways. Education Chemical Nutrients N/A N/A Variable Variable https://extension.colost ate.edu/docs/pubs/gard en/xcm222.pdf Page 94 of 94 DRAFT – December 2, 2022 – DRAFT Page 1 of 4 City of Fort Collins Water Quality Management Policy for City-Owned Lakes and Stormwater Basins in the Growth Management Area Background As development and urbanization have continued and increased in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“GMA”), new and existing water quality challenges in lakes and stormwater basins have arisen and intensified. Examples of these challenges include: pollution associated with urban growth, development, and land use practices; climate change; and other factors that can lead to water quality impacts such as sedimentation, fish kills, algal blooms, and water-borne pathogens. The City of Fort Collins (“City”) recognizes the importance of managing water quality in lakes and stormwater basins to support management goals for the benefit of community, ecosystems, and downstream water quality. Such management can also implement the City’s triple bottom line approach to consider social, economic, and environmental impacts, as well as supporting and furthering various City plans and objectives related to water quality. Numerous lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA are privately owned. By comparison, the City has some degree of control and influence over the water quality of the lakes and stormwater basins it owns. This City of Fort Collins Water Quality Management Policy for City-Owned Lakes and Stormwater Basins in the Growth Management Area (“Policy”), and the associated Guidance Document, have been created to provide a foundational framework for the City’s operational and management decisions related to water quality in City-owned lakes and stormwater basins. This Policy was developed using an integrated One Water approach by an inter-departmental team of City staff, including the Managing Departments listed below. The Policy’s content was further informed by feedback from key stakeholder groups, which included: urban lakes and water quality management subject matter experts; the City’s Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Board, and Water Commission; and members of the Fort Collins community. Vision and Purpose of the Policy The City’s vision is that water quality in City-owned lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA supports management goals while also maintaining or improving aesthetics. To that end, the purpose of this Policy is to provide a foundational framework for the City’s operational and management decisions related to water quality management in City-owned lakes and stormwater basins. Key Terms The following describes and discusses several key terms used throughout this Policy. DRAFT – December 2, 2022 – DRAFT Page 2 of 4 City-owned lakes and stormwater basins refers to lakes and stormwater basins where the City owns the surrounding and underlying land and thus manages the water in them. Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“GMA”) is as defined in Section 1-2 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, being the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area as defined in Article XIII of the Charter of the City, namely, that geographic area within and adjacent to the City identified by the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County as that area identified for annexation and urbanization by the City, including the Urban Growth Area as it exists on March 5, 1985, together with any amendments or changes thereto. Guidance Document refers to a separate document the City has developed and will update as a technical resource intended to support City staff in implementing this Policy. The Guidance Document provides Managing Departments with management tools, including0F 1: • Inventory of all City-owned lakes and stormwater basins; • Certain water quality-related information for City-owned lakes and stormwater basins; • Management categorization for City-owned lakes and stormwater basins, based on management goals of the respective Managing Departments; • Assistance with management prioritization; and • Best management practices for water quality management. Lakes refer to basins and depressions that are generally filled with water. For the purposes of this Policy, lakes include: on- and off-stream reservoirs filled with water diverted from the stream; ponds used to manage water for irrigation and other uses; unlined gravel pits that have filled in with groundwater; and other basins and depressions that are generally filled with water. Managing Departments refer to the components of the City organization that manage the City- owned lakes and stormwater basins. The current Managing Departments are Natural Areas, Parks, and Fort Collins Utilities. Stormwater Basins refer to areas that are designed to collect precipitation runoff, including snowmelt. Stormwater basins include both: stormwater detention basins/ponds, which are designed to temporarily detain stormwater, generally for less than 72 hours; and stormwater retention basins/ponds, which are designed to detain or store stormwater runoff for longer than 72 hours. Stormwater retention basins/ponds may also be lakes. Although stormwater basins do not always have water in them, they can influence water quality and are thus included in this Policy. Water quality refers to the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water. Numerous human and natural factors can influence water quality. Water quality management refers to the use of pollution prevention and/or mitigation best practices to address water quality management goals. 1 In this Policy, “include” signifies a list that is not necessarily exhaustive. DRAFT – December 2, 2022 – DRAFT Page 3 of 4 Scope and Applicability of this Policy This Policy applies only to City-owned lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA. Nothing in this Policy is intended to conflict with any applicable laws, including: the City Charter and City Code; Colorado state law, including permits and approvals issued thereunder; federal law, including permits and approvals issued thereunder; and applicable agreements and other contractual arrangements. To the extent that there is such a conflict, the applicable law controls. This Policy does not apply to lakes and stormwater basins in the GMA that are not City-owned. For example, this Policy does not apply to lakes and stormwater basins owned by homeowners associations, or lakes owned by ditch or reservoir companies in which the City owns shares. The owners of such other lakes and stormwater basins are free to consider this Policy and the Guidance Document, in their discretion, in their management of their structures. This Policy does not apply to lakes and stormwater basins that are outside of the GMA. This includes reservoirs the City owns that are outside of the GMA (e.g., Joe Wright Reservoir). Those lakes and stormwater basins are generally located outside of the urban environment and face challenges distinct from those addressed in this Policy. The water quality challenges of those lakes and stormwater basins are thus addressed separately. The owners of such other lakes and stormwater basins are free to consider this Policy and the Guidance Document, in their discretion, in their management of those structures. Management Each Managing Department will manage water quality in their lakes and stormwater basins to address their own management goals. Specifically, Managing Departments will: 1. Identify which City-owned lakes and stormwater basins they are responsible for, relying on the inventory in the Guidance Document. If more than one Managing Department is responsible for a lake or stormwater basin, the responsible Managing Departments will work together on all aspects of management. 2. Identify the management goals for their lakes and stormwater basins based on their uses and purposes. This may include a consideration of the categories of types of lakes and stormwater basins and their various uses and purposes, as described in the Guidance Document. 3. Determine which of their City-owned lakes and stormwater basins should be prioritized for water quality management or other related actions. 4. Determine whether to act (or not act) on water quality issues.1F 2 5. Develop water quality management plans as necessary for prioritized City-owned lakes and stormwater basins (as discussed below). 6. Collaborate with other Managing Departments where responsibilities, projects, or other actions related to water quality management overlap with or will affect other departments. 7. Communicate internally within the City organization and externally to the Fort Collins community (as discussed below). 2 How Managing Departments staff and otherwise resource their actions are not addressed in this Policy. DRAFT – December 2, 2022 – DRAFT Page 4 of 4 Management Plans Managing Departments will develop water quality management plans for individual lakes and stormwater basins, as necessary, to address their water quality management goals. These plans may be separate, standalone documents, or may be integrated into other plans or other documents related to their lakes and stormwater basins. These plans should include: • statement of the Managing Department’s goals and priorities for their lakes and stormwater basins; • consideration of the analyses, recommendations, and other aspects of the Guidance Document; • water quality-related goals for their lakes and stormwater basins; • water quality management practices for their lakes and stormwater basins; • a communication strategy (as discussed below); and • other items appropriate to further the Managing Department’s goals and priorities. Communication Consistent with their communication strategy, Managing Departments will communicate internally within the City organization and externally with the Fort Collins community regarding water quality of lakes or stormwater basin. This will include communications regarding: water quality data; any public health risks; and non-routine maintenance work. Communications will be made pursuant to applicable City policies. Managing Departments will periodically communicate internally to improve interdepartmental alignment regarding water quality management practices. Policy and Guidance Document Updates An inter-departmental team from all of the Managing Departments (minimum 1 staff member from each) will be established to ensure proper implementation of this Policy and to periodically revise and update the Policy and Guidance Document as needed. The team will annually review the Guidance Document to identify and address data errors, necessary updates, and other opportunities for improvement, including: • Adding any City-owned lakes and stormwater basins to the inventory; • Updating lake-specific water quality information; and • Adding or updating water quality management practices. 1 January 19, 2023 Water Commission Meeting Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy and Guidance Update Richard Thorp, Watershed Program Manager Water Quality Services Division City of Fort Collins Utilities 2 Seeking Board Motion Suggested language: I move that the Water Commission recommend City Council approve the Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy Project Scope Guidance •Technical resource to support policy implementation •Available to private lakes managers •Not a prescriptive water quality management plan 3 Policy •F ramework for City’s Urban Lakes water quality operational and management decisions •City -owned lakes w/in growth management area (GMA) •Excludes private waters, drinking water reservoirs and Poudre 4 Project Timeline Q1 2021 Guidance development kick-off Q3 1. Guidance drafted 2. Met with City Boards and Water Commission Q4 Q1 Policy development kick-off 2022 Q2 Community engagement Q2 Subject matter experts interviewed & surveyed Q3 Q1 2023 1. Meet with City Boards and Water Commission; 2. Request Council Adopt Policy 3. Finalize Guidance and Policy Policy drafted Policy scope of work developed Developed community engagement program Q4 Drafting the Policy •Project team determined details of Policy •Community engagement: ✓Subject Matter Expert Surveys and Interviews ✓Community at -large ✓City Advisory Boards 5 Policy Development Workshop Community at Large •What are community’s concerns and priorities? •Equitable and inclusive, diverse perspectives •Outreach approach: ✓survey ✓social media, websites ✓engagement at lakes ✓1:1 meetings 6 Riverbend Ponds Rigden Reservoir What did we learn? •Community highly values the City’s urban lakes: recreation and wildlife •Algal blooms, odors and fish kills primary concern •Water quality concerns influence patterns of use •Requested communication regarding water quality issues 7 Trophy-sized carp North Shields Ponds By the numbers: 30 events 437 people observed 1,444 people engaged 273 surveys completed Water Commission Feedback •Has management cost- effectiveness for City owned lakes been assessed? •What are key water quality concerns? 8 Sheldon LakeRigdenReservoir Final Draft Policy •Background, vision and purpose •Key terms •Scope and applicability •Management objectives •Management plans •Communication •Accountability 9 Trophy-sized carp North Shields Ponds Spring Canyon Dog Park Pond 10 Seeking Board Motion Suggested language: I move that the Water Commission recommend City Council approve the Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy Thank you! Richard Thorp Watershed Program Manager 970-416-4327 rthorp @fcgov.com fcgov.com/source-water-monitoring Riverbend Ponds DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT DRAFT 2022 City of Fort Collins Water Commission Annual Report 2022 Water Commission Members Jason Tarry (Chairperson) Greg Steed (Vice Chairperson) Jordan Radin Richard Kahn Tyler Eldridge John Primsky Paul Herman Randy Kenyon Kent Bruxvoort This annual report summarizes the activities of the Water Commission during 2022. The formatting of this Annual Report is consistent with the Annual Work Plan. Alignment of Water Commission activities with the City’s Strategic Plan and Key Outcome Areas is achieved through the Annual Work Plan. Water Commission activities listed below are organized by the major responsibilities of Fort Collins Utilities related to water (“Water”, “Wastewater”, and “Stormwater”). Within each heading are listed Water Commission activities and the month of the meeting in which they occurred. Additionally, the “General” category includes general topics that span Utilities or the City. Regular Water Commission meetings are held each month and work sessions are held in even months. With respect to this annual report, work sessions are indicated to help understand chronology of discussion. A summary of work session discussion typically can be found in the minutes of the regular meeting following the work session; however, no actions are voted on at work session meetings and minutes are only recorded for regular meetings. Meeting minutes for regular meetings are available on the Fort Collins website. General • US Forest Service and CPW Poudre Headwater Project - The use of Rotenone to re-establish native greenback cutthroat trout (May) • Introduction to the new Utilities Executive Director, Kendall Minor (March). • Introduction to the new Water Utilities Executive Director, Jason Graham (April WS) • Introduction of Jen Dial as Water Resources Manager • Meter Data Management Upgrades Off-Cycle Appropriation Request – Water Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council support the request (April) • Discussion of Council priorities and City staff resource allocation (May) • 1041 Regulations Updates - to allow the City to regulate areas and activates of state interest within their jurisdiction (August and November) • 2022 Budget Update (August) • Review of BFO offers proposed by City Staff with discussion of BFO offer prioritization • The water commission prepared a memo requesting that BFO offer 4.47, an FTE intended to manage linear asset replacement, be funded in this cycle due to the current replacement schedule. DRAFT • Introduction of an update to and ordinance amending chapter 26 of the City Code addressing unexpected challenges to nonresidential redevelopment customers from Ordinance 119, 2021. • 2023 Utility Rate and Fees – The water commission recommended to City Council approve the proposed changes to the Utility’s water, wastewater and stormwater rates and fees as proposed (Passed 6-0) (October) • Income-Qualified Assistance Program – The Water Commission recommended City Council approve to support the IQAP becoming an adopted utility program (Passed 5-1) (October) • Water Allotment Management Program Update and Extension – The Water Commission recommended to City Council to approve an ordinance to extend the Allotment Management Program by one year. (Passed 6-0) (October) • Discussions of PFAs regulations and the City’s actions (October WS) Water • Halligan Reservoir Updates o Critical path with permitting is related to state and county permits, not EIS (February) o Discussions regarding revising the project delivery and City’s management of the project o Round table discussion to discuss project messaging o City is working to hire a new Project Manager o • Water Supply Monthly Report Updates o Introduction to staff and explanation of WSMR (April) o The City’s Water Resources are being affected by the Camp Fire burn scar. Resulting in use of more Horsetooth (CBT) water at certain time of the year. o The projected quota for CBT shares is 40% in 2023. The City is planning for this condition, but the quota this low is an estimate. The City will know more in April of 2023 before water restrictions are proposed. • Water Conservation Annual Report – progress towards 130 GPCD by 2030 (April) • Graywater Ordinance – Water Commission recommended to not recommend (1-6) City Council approve a local graywater ordinance. Water Commission provided a memo to City Council justifying the reasons the ordinance was not supported. Wastewater • Nutrient Regulations and Impacts on the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plants (April WS) • Tour of Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) Stormwater • Beneficial use of water treatment residuals (WTRs) in stormwater treatment (Bioretention) – A study adding a wastewater treatment biproduct to filtration media in LID systems to remove phosphorus (January) • E. Coli in Stormwater Study and recommendations – The City is evaluating E. Coli control measures that will be required for future MS4 permitting renewals (February) • Floodplain Additions and substantial improvement code changes – Commission unanimously recommended that City Council adopt the proposed changes to Chapter 10 of City Code regarding additions and substantial improvements in FEMA floodplains • Floodplain Variance for Advanced Energy – Variance based to the anticipated floodplain because of updated, unpublished RiskMAP. Motion to approve variance passed unanimously, 6-0. DRAFT