HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/08/2009 - STORMWATER PROGRAM REVIEW DATE: December 8, 2009
STAFF: Brian Janonis WORK SESSION ITEM
Jon Haukaas FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Bob Smith
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Stormwater Program Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2008, the City Council directed staff to review the purpose and components of the City's
Stormwater Program. Staff has been working through this process with review by the Water Board
over the past year. Staff would like this opportunity to review its progress with the City Council and
receive direction on finalizing several areas of the program.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Has staff provided the information requested by the City Council?
2. Does the City Council agree with the direction of the repurposing effort?
3. What revisions and courses of action would the City Council like to further consider or
pursue in regards to rates and floodplain regulations?
4. Are there additional areas for which the City Council seeks information?
BACKGROUND
In October 2008, City Council directed staff to initiate a policy review of the City's stormwater
management program (Attachment 1). The City Council identified the following themes as part of
the review:
1. Revise the mission/purpose statement
2. Evaluate the program now
3. Re-examine adopted policies
4. Evaluate the rate structure: Who pays and who benefits?
5. Understand land use implications
6. Enhance the environmental ethos of the City
December 4, 2009 Page 2
7. Evaluate community benefits through Budgeting for Outcomes
8. Review capital projects
To initiate this comprehensive review, staff formulated these eight themes into fourteen (14)
activities to be investigated and used to help formulate recommendations. These 14 activities have
been identified as items (a) through (n) in staff update memos to the City Council (Attachments 3
and 4). Throughout this process, the Water Board has reviewed staff s progress and made several
recommendations to the City Council. These recommendations have been included where
appropriate. A memo from Water Board Chair, Gina Janett, on its recommendations, as well as
Water Board meeting minutes is included (Attachment 2).
Staff has provided the City Council with several updates on the progress of the stormwater program
review over the past year(Attachment 3).
A final briefing memo dated November 25,2009, has been prepared and attached (Attachment 4).
This provides additional detail on the various activities involved in the repurposing.
Although noted in the September 22, 2009 update, staff has again included the summary history of
policy and guidance related to the Stormwater program from 1996 to the present (Attachment 5).
A glossary of acronyms is included (Attachment 6) to aid the City Council in understanding
terminology specific to stormwater.
1. Revise the Mission/Purpose Statement
Staff and the Water Board recommend the Stormwater program purpose statement be revised to
reflect the 21 st Century Utility initiative and provide an expanded environmental emphasis. The new
purpose statement places higher emphasis to protect and restore watersheds and streams, develop
a holistic and integrated program and focus on the benefits of the triple bottom line.
Recommendation
The Water Board recommends the stormwater program purpose statement be revised to read as
follows:
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City's integrated
stormwater management program is for the mutual economic, social, and
environmental benefits of public safety,flood mitigation, water quality and public
welfare while protecting natural areas and their features,protecting and restoring
the City's watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache la Poudre River.
The final step for this item is formal consideration by the City Council.
December 4, 2009 Page 3
2. Evaluate the Program Now
In evaluating the status of the program to date, staff conducted extensive research to map out the
inventory of:
• property that has some type of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water
quality, water quantity, or both
• locations of all City owned and maintained stormwater BMPs
• locations of all privately owned and maintained stormwater BMPs
This information provides a snapshot of how well the City has been able to ensure City projects and
private developments do not adversely impact stormwater runoff quality and not contribute to
additional flood hazards. These maps are included with Attachment 4.
Staff continues to work with Dr. Roesner and his students at CSU on collecting water quality
information at several sampling locations throughout the city. The analysis is aimed at improving
data collection activities and determining whether existing Best Management Practice policies are
having an impact on the stormwater quality of urban streams. The purpose of the effort was to take
a comprehensive look at the City's current sampling program,to evaluate what information is being
collected, determine whether this information is being analyzed and properly used,and recommend
a more effective sampling program, if needed. Examples of constituents sampled include dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, ammonia, E. coli, as well as physical characteristics such as
temperature and pH. Sampling locations are set up at the Udall Natural Area, at the Howes outfall
north of the intersection of Howes Street and Cherry Street,the CTL Thompson,Inc.parking lot,and
soon to be installed at the Mitchell Block (Bohemian Building) reconstruction.
The final effort in evaluating the effectiveness of the current program was to perform a Stream
Health rating on all the creeks within the city. The Urban Stream Health Assessment effort was a
direct outcome of the Best Management Practice Policy Update (see 3.A below). Sections of each
creek through Fort Collins are rated on a scale of A to E using ten different metrics:
• Channel flow status
• Channel sinuosity - a measure of how much the channel winds back and forth
• Frequency of riffles - shallow areas creating small waves which oxygenate the water
• Embeddedness - a measure of how much silt is building up between and over the gravel of
a streambed and therefore reducing surface area for macro invertabrates and fish eggs
• Epifaunal substrate and available cover - measure of the rocks and gravel left from aquatic
life
• Pool substrate characterization - the type of stream bottom cover
• Pool variability
• Bank stability (left and right banks)
• Vegetative protection (left and right banks)
• Riparian vegetative zone width (left and right banks).
The City has done a good job of protecting stream corridors in more recent years. Sections of the
older parts of the City developed prior to most stormwater regulation have the biggest need for
improvement. A drawing that shows these ratings is included (Attachment 4).
December 4, 2009 Page 4
3. Re-examine the Adopted Policies.
Staff continues to use existing policies when reviewing proposed developments and capital projects.
An examination of these policies and recommendations for modifying these policies was necessary
to ensure this is the best method for the future.
3.A. Best Management Practices (BMP) Policy Update
The City's first policy regarding stormwater quality management was the adoption of Resolution
95-14,the"Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality Management"in 1995. This policy included
initial programs for stormwater quality management and provided a foundation to meet regulatory
requirements.
Recent trends in stormwater quality management have emphasized the need for water quality issues
to be addressed in a broader comprehensive way, integrating all the impacts to a water body from
sources within its watershed. A coordinated approach to stormwater quality is required to enhance
the City's efforts and upcoming regulatory requirements. In order to meet these objectives,the City
initiated a review of its current stormwater quality best management practices. The review used a
benchmarking tool developed by an independent watershed protection group called the"Center for
Watershed Protection" (CWP). This review is documented in the Fort Collins Best Management
Practices Review Report (Attachment 7) and would increase the City's efforts to protect urban
watersheds and enhance stormwater quality in the City.
Recommendations of the Fort Collins Stormwater Best Management Practices Review include:
• Form a citizen review group for the watershed team.
• Complete Master Plan updates (sub-watershed restoration plans) that define the Best
Management Practices(including Low Impact Development techniques)that should be used
in order to protect and restore the chemical,physical and biological attributes of each stream
within each drainage basin (note that this will require updating of engineering criteria).
• Form a watershed planning team led by a planning coordinator(s).
• Revise timelines and budgets for implementation of each Master Plan.
• Formalize coordinated long term monitoring programs to provide feedback to the watershed
team in order to track progress.
The repurposing effort will partner with the City Plan update for citizen review. The citizen review
process will involve making documents available for review on the City website and other social
networking methods,plus community event outreach,focus group meetings,and review by Boards,
Commissions, and the City Council.
Recommendation
The Water Board passed a motion stating, `In order to improve the Stormwater Water Quality
Program, the Water Board supports all five recommendations as stated, provided staff returns to
the Board with a recommendation for the multi-disciplinary watershed planning group. "
The next step for this item is incorporation of the recommendations into City Plan.
December 4, 2009 Page 5
3.13. Stormwater Criteria Update
The update to the Stormwater criteria will be finalized after other areas of the stormwater program
review are complete so that information can be incorporated in the update. Staff is envisioning the
City's adoption of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria(UDFCD)Manual along
with the adoption of an exception manual to the UDFCD manual addressing criteria specific to the
City of Fort Collins.
The next step in this item is the generation of the City of Fort Collins exceptions manual in early
2010. Public outreach will be conducted in June and July of 2010 to inform the public and receive
feedback on this change. The results of this outreach will then be brought to the Water Board for
recommendations and then to City Council for final action in the fall of 2010.
3.C. Low Impact Development (LID) Policy Review
This review will evaluate the City's current development practices and recommend whether a
citywide Low Impact Development policy should be adopted by the City Council. Since this review
will require a multi-department effort, the Low Impact Development policy review has been
incorporated into the City Plan update and will continue through 2010,
4. Evaluate the Rate Structure
In 1980, the City created one of the first enterprise stormwater utilities in the nation. The utility
established a reliable revenue source to support stormwater management activities in the city. These
activities deal with the threat of flooding through the enforcement of floodplain regulations and new
development criteria,the correction of existing problems through the construction of capital projects
identified in master plans, ensuring the operation of the drainage system by performing adequate
maintenance, provide citizens and emergency personnel with the information they need when
responding to a flood event, and to protect the environment by improving or enhancing stormwater
quality. Policy direction related to stormwater financing is shown in Attachment 5.
Stormwater monthly fees are collected from developed properties throughout the city. Undeveloped
properties or vacant lots are not assessed a monthly fee until developed. The monthly fees provide
the revenues that support the debt service payments and the City's stormwater management
activities. The monthly fee is based on a property's impact or demand on the stormwater system.
The fee is calculated based on the area of the lot and the amount of impervious area (such as
pavement and structures) on that lot. The higher the impervious area, the higher the monthly fee
compared to a lot with a lower monthly fee because it has a smaller impervious area. A breakdown
of the uses from the City's stormwater monthly fee revenues is attached (Attachment 8). A
comparison of rates and rate usage was also made of other Front Range communities (Attachment
9).
As new development takes place,plant investment fees (PIF) are collected. The fees are collected
at the time of building permit issuance. When a property develops in the city,the property benefits
from the cumulative investment the existing rate payers have made to the stormwater system. The
value of that benefit is captured through the PIF,which represents a buy-in to the stormwater system
based on the replacement value of the existing system. Over time, as new capital projects are
December 4, 2009 Page 6
completed,the PIF increases to reflect the investment of additional developed properties in the city
stormwater system.
In 2001, the City Council adopted a stormwater financing plan for the City's stormwater capital
improvement program. This plan called for an initial issuance of debt to jump start the capital
improvements program and then a pay-as-you-go approach for the financing of future stormwater
capital improvements. Rate increases to support the plan were projected from 2001 through 2008
and would complete the stormwater capital program in 25 years.
In 2005,as a result of concerns over the magnitude of the stormwater rates,the City Council revised
the 2001 financing plan by freezing stormwater rates at the 2004 level of$14.26 per month for a
typical single family lot. Consequently,the period to complete the stormwater capital improvements
program was then extended 10 years to 35 years.
Comparing Fort Collins stormwater monthly rates to other Front Range communities, and other
entities in the western part of the nation, some entities have a single revenue source to support a
stormwater program similar to Fort Collins, while other entities have a second revenue source to
support that stormwater program. For example, in the Denver metro area, the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District receives revenue of 1 mill from both property taxes and motor vehicle
registrations, while other stormwater programs use General Fund revenues. A comparison of the
Fort Collins' stormwater rate to other entities is attached (Attachment 8).
During the discussion at the October 14, 2008 Work Session, City Council expressed concern that
individual properties and developers receive a direct benefit for being removed from the floodplain
by a City capital project at the expense of the general ratepayers. Currently, monthly fees and PIFs
are the same inside and outside the floodplain. Several entities were contacted to determine if their
rate structure specifically addressed assessing higher fees for properties removed from the floodplain
by a City funded capital project. Sources contacted included a national firm involved in the bi-
annual stormwater utility survey of over 70 stormwater utilities nationwide,consulting engineering
firms and local governments in the stormwater business. Of those contacted, none have nor knew
of any such rate structure.
Recommendations
The Water Board recommends the City Council direct staff to develop a new cost share method for
properties removed from the floodplain by a capital project to reflect a portion of the benefit to that
property and help partially fund these projects.
The Water Board recommends the City Council revisit the stormwater rates after completion of the
stormwater master plan update.
The next steps include the generation of alternatives and supporting documentation,public outreach,
boards and commissions review and recommendations, and formal consideration by the City
Council.
The Water Board also discussed the issue of funding stream corridor enhancements from stormwater
user fees.
December 4, 2009 Page 7
Recommendation
The Water Board recommends to the Ciry Council that partial or entire stream corridor
enhancements can be funded by the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program based on
prioritization through the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis.
5. Understand Land Use Implications
There are two primary issues that affect land use—floodplain regulations and level of protection. The
Water Board had significant discussion and several concerns with the current floodplain regulations
as they relate to the Poudre River and.requested several significant changes.
5.A. Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
A Flood Risk Map for the entire City is shown on Attachment 10 and the City's Floodplain
Regulations can be found in Chapter 10 of City Code. The City's floodplain regulations have been
revised numerous times since they were first established in 1975(Attachment 11). The Poudre River
Floodplain Regulations became more restrictive in 2000 and were then revised again in 2007 to be
less restrictive based on recommendations in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (Policy EMC.GFM
— 1.9) to resolve the different regulatory approaches between Larimer County and the City. The
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations are summarized in the Poudre River Quick Guide(Attachment
12).
As part of the stormwater repurposing,the Water Board requests three changes(PR 1,PR 2 and PR
3)to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations that would be considered higher regulatory standards.
Any of the changes would result in a difference in the floodplain regulations between the City of Fort
Collins and Larimer County.
5.A.1. PR 1 - Residential Structures to Not Be Allowed on Property Removed from the
Floodplain Based on FEMA Issuing a Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-Fill)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)has a process called a Letter of Map Revision
Based on Fill (LOMR-Fill)whereby filling in the floodplain fringe to just above the 100-year flood
level will remove the property from the floodplain and the owner will no longer be required to
purchase flood insurance (See Page 19 of Poudre River Quick Guide—Attachment 12). However,
as part of the application for a LOMR-Fill, a community must sign off that any existing or future
structures will be"reasonably safe from flooding." FEMA offers guidance on what this means, but
encourages communities to adopt standards that specify the requirements under which such a request
would be approved. The LOMR-Fill process is a method to remove the flood insurance requirement
and should not be used to avoid the floodplain regulations that are intended to protect the structure
from flood damage or to protect human health and safety. Unfortunately, this process is sometimes
used to circumvent the floodplain regulations.
The City has established several criteria that apply in these situations (See City Code Section 10-
80a(2). For approval, the proposed development cannot include critical facilities (hospitals, fire
stations,etc.),cannot include manufactured home parks,and must meet a two foot freeboard height.
December 4, 2009 Page 8
These are the same restrictions required of properties that do not go through the FEMA LOMR-Fill
process.
The Poudre River regulations do not allow new residential or mixed-use structures or additions in
the Poudre River flood fringe due to the life-safety risk of having people sleeping in the floodplain.
However, if a LOMR-Fill is granted by FEMA, these regulations no longer apply. Therefore, the
LOMR-Fill process becomes a relatively easy way to avoid the prohibition of new residential and
mixed-use structures or additions in the Poudre River flood fringe. The Water Board desires to
eliminate this loophole for the obvious life-safety concerns and to preserve the floodplain for flood
flows.
Recommendation
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that the Poudre River floodplain regulations be
revised to not allow residential or mixed-use structures on LOMR-Fills.
If approved, the next steps include public outreach, coordination with Latimer County, boards and
commissions review and recommendations and formal consideration by the City Council.
5.A.2. PR 2 - Revise the Poudre River Floodway to be Mapped Based on a 0.1 Foot Rise
Floodway
The floodway is the deepest and fastest section of the 100-year floodplain and is considered the area
of highest risk. The floodway is established as an area that is to be reserved for the passage of the
flood flows without increasing the water-surface elevation by more than a set amount (See page 4
of Poudre River Quick Guide — Attachment 12). Because this is the highest risk portion of the
floodplain, the floodplain regulations are more restrictive in the floodway than in the flood fringe.
In addition, the floodway allows for the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain to be
preserved.
FEMA limits the allowable rise to 1.0 foot. Until 2000, the City had an allowable rise of 0.5 ft. In
2000, the Poudre River regulations became more restrictive by limiting the allowable rise to 0.1 ft
in the floodway. The 0.1 ft. allowable rise resulted in more properties being mapped in the floodway
and thus subject to the more restrictive floodway regulations. In 2007, to match Larimer County's
regulations, the floodway was revised to a 0.5 ft allowable rise. Attachment 13 is a general
comparison of the 0.1 ft and 0.5 ft floodways. This map will need to be revised to reflect mapping
changes that have occurred since 2007. In addition, FEMA may be revising the Poudre River
mapping over the next several years and mapping of the 0.1 foot floodway would need to be
coordinated with FEMA's efforts. The Water Board believes the 2007 change was a step backward
and desires to return to the more restrictive limit in order to preserve the floodway to its maximum
extent.
Recommendation
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that the Poudre River floodplain regulations be
revised to adopt a 0.1 ft floodway
l
December 4, 2009 Page 9
If approved,the next steps include public outreach,coordination with Larimer County,coordination
with FEMA on other potential remapping efforts for the Poudre River, remapping the 0.1 foot
floodway based on changes that have occurred since 2007, boards and commissions review and
recommendations and formal consideration by the City Council.
5.A.3. PR 3 - Not Allow Any Structures in the Poudre River 100-year Floodplain
Based on the existing Code, new structures, additions and redevelopments are not allowed in the
Poudre River floodway and new residential and mixed-use structures or additions are not allowed
in the Poudre River flood fringe (See LOMR-Fill loophole above - 5.A.1). This allows new non-
residential structures and additions to be constructed in the floodplain fringe.
The Water Board discussed recommending not allowing any new structures in the Poudre River
floodplain. However,it struggled with the complexity and the numerous development implications
that this recommendation involves. The change would impact new and existing development, both
public and private. Therefore, the Water Board recommended that this option be further studied.
Recommendation
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that the Poudre River floodplain regulations be
studied to not allow structures in the 100-year floodplain.
If approved, the next steps for this item include identifying implications and affected parties of this
proposal, developing alternatives, identifying certain structures that should still be allowed,
generating supporting documentation, public outreach, coordination with Larimer County,
coordination with FEMA on potential remapping efforts for the Poudre River, boards and
commissions review and recommendations and formal consideration by the City Council.
S.B. Level of Protection
The current 100-year Level of Protection (LOP) policy was adopted at the inception of the
Stormwater Utility in 1980.
1. All new development in the City is required to design drainage facilities that can safely
convey the 100-year flow.
2. In older parts of town, constructed prior to drainage criteria, any capital project constructed
by the Stormwater Utility will strive for the 100-year LOP as long as the benefits outweigh
the costs.
Policy direction related to master planning is shown in Attachment 5.
In 2001, with the adoption of the revised Canal Importation Basin Master Plan, the City Council
directed staff to include an analysis of a lower level of protection in all future master planning
efforts. When the remaining basins were updated in the early 2000s, each proposed master plan
included a simplified 50-year LOP option with the associated benefit/cost (B/C) analysis. A
summary of these analyses is shown in Table 1.
December 4, 2009 Page 10
Table 1
Reduced Level of Protection Anal sis—2003
100-Year Level of
Protection 50-Year Level of Protection
Cost of Flood Control Projects $ 164 million $ 141 million
-Property Damage Reduced $ 290 million $ 146 million
Number of Structures - Damages
Eliminated 2 200 1,500
Both options were presented to the City Council at a work session in January 2004 and the City
Council directed staff to continue to use the I00-year LOP.
In 2008, the City Council asked staff to re-examine existing policies, specifically the appropriate
level of flood protection for capital projects. Part of this review included a survey of communities
along the Front Range that face similar climate conditions as Fort Collins. A sampling of the results
is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
City Master B/C Analysis? Level of Protection— Capital Projects
Plans?
Fort Collins Yes Yes 100-year
Loveland Yes No 10-year
Greeley Yes No 100-year
Longmont Yes No 100-year for channels, 2-year for pipes
SEMSWA* Yes Sometimes 100-year future flows
UDFCD** Yes Yes 100-year future flows
*Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (Denver area)
**Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
This information was presented to the Water Board, along witha presentation on how the master
plans are prepared. A copy of this presentation is shown in Attachment 14.
The Water Board discussed whether additional values related to a Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
philosophy should be added to the evaluation of master plan components. Such an analysis will
allow less focus on a numeric benefit/cost analysis and still incorporate a review of the level of
protection in a basin. Minutes from the Water Board's discussion are shown in Attachment 2.
December 4, 2009 Page 11
Recommendations
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that staff should change to using the Triple
Bottom Line (TBL)philosophy of social, economic and environmental components to determine
flood control and stream enhancement projects. In this scenario, the numeric Benefit/Cost ratio
plays a smaller role in determining capital projects, and projects can be recommended based on
factors without a numeric value.
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that staff should research appropriate and
applicable methodologies for evaluating the social and environmental impacts, both positive and
negative, of capital projects.
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that staff should evaluate the Benefit/Cost ratio
criteria as part of the Triple Bottom Line approach.
The next steps in this item include re-evaluating the stormwater basin master plans using a Triple
Bottom Line analysis, generating recommended alternatives, public outreach, boards and
commissions review and recommendations and formal consideration by the City Council.
6. Enhance the Environmental Ethos of the City
There are numerous activities that have been completed or will be completed to formulate the
foundation of the environmental emphasis. To support policy recommendations, other activities
were initiated to provide information to help develop those policies.
6.A. Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities
Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater Detention Facilities were developed to
provide direction in the design and construction of detention ponds and other drainage facilities.The
purpose of the Guidelines is to facilitate infiltration of runoff, enhance stormwater quality, increase
habitat value and plant conservation,and increase the aesthetic appeal of detention facilities. These
Guidelines were developed with help from a local landscape architecture firm that specializes in
sustainable urban landscape design.
These proposed Standards and Guidelines have gone through a significant amount of outreach
activities and efforts in order to solicit and receive comments. The outreach was done through a
combination of stakeholder group meetings and public meetings. The stakeholder group consisted
of members of the development community, design professionals and maintenance professionals.
An open house was held in April with 50 people attending. From that first open house and the initial
stakeholder meeting, comments were gathered and incorporated into the revised draft. Highlights
of the guidelines include:
• Disconnect impervious surfaces.
• Use native plantings to reduce irrigation needs for plantings to encourage water conservation.
• Use varied side slopes and undulating bottoms in detention ponds.
December 4, 2009 Page 12
• Better utilize detention pond areas as multi-use facilities where multiple objectives meeting
the "triple bottom line" are achieved.
• Improve detention pond aesthetics.
For a copy of the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater Detention Facilities,
see Attachment 15.
Recommendation
The Water Board recommends the City Council adopt the Fort Collins Landscape Design Standards
and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities.
The adoption of this manual will impact Land Use Regulations in City Code and therefore must be
formally approved by the Planning and Zoning Board and then the City Council.
6.13 Low Impact Development(LID) Demonstration Projects
To assist in the development of Low Impact Development policies,three demonstration projects at
CTL Thompson, the Mitchell Block and O'Dell's Brewery were performed. These projects will
provide useful information on the emerging Low Impact Development technologies in a semi-arid
climate.
6.C. Additional Activities
Staff has been collecting and evaluating data on how the existing Best Management Practices at
Udall Natural Area,Locust Outfall and Howes OutfalI are performing and what measures are needed
to increase their effectiveness.
Staff has also developed a Home Owner Association(HOA)Assistance Program to determine how
existing privately owned Best Management Practices are performing and what measures are needed
to increase their effectiveness.
7. Evaluate Community Benefits through Budgeting for Outcomes and Review Capital
Projects
The entire Stormwater Repurposing process, as well as the Utilities 21 st Century Initiative, has led
staff and the Water Board to see the need to take a new look at each and every project in the Master
Plans. The next steps will include updating the Stormwater basin master plans using a triple bottom
line analysis, generating recommended costs for stream restoration, public outreach, boards and
commissions review and recommendations and formal consideration by the City Council. Staff
believes it needs to finish answering many of the questions this process has brought to light before
properly completing this review.
December 4, 2009 Page 13
NEXT STEPS
The various recommendations of the Water Board are at different levels of formal policy
development. For example, the revised purpose statement, the Best Management Practices Policy
Update, and Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities
are ready for final consideration. The other items, stormwater rates, Poudre River floodplain
regulations, level of protection, low impact development policies and stormwater criteria update,
need to have alternatives developed,public outreach performed,boards and commissions review and
recommendations generated and, possibly, additional discussions by the City Council at work
sessions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Work Session Summary, October 14, 2008
2. Water Board Recommendation Memo and Meeting Excerpts
3. Staff Briefing Memorandums: December 18, 2008, February 6, 2009, and September 22,
2009 .
4. Staff Briefing Memorandum: November 25, 2009
5. Stormwater Program Guiding Policies and Codes Summary - 1996 to present
6. Glossary of Acronyms for Stormwater Terminology
7. Fort Collins Best Management Practices Review Report
8. Comparison of Stormwater Rates
9. Comparison of Stormwater Rate Uses of Front Range Communities
10. City of Fort Collins Flood Risk Map
11. Historical Perspective on City of Fort Collins Floodplain Regulation Changes
12. Floodplain Regulations for the Poudre River- Quick Guide
11 Poudre River Floodplain Map and Floodway Comparison
14. Stormwater Master Plans Presentation to Water Board August 27, 2009
15. Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities
16. Power Point Presentation
ATTACHMENT '
City Council Work Session Summary
October 14 , 2008
5
• Utilities ATTACHMENT 1
City
t 700 wood St,
L. � PO Box 580
F6rt Colli s Fort Collins. 80522
970.221 .6700
4 . 6619 fax
fcgov.
fcgov. com
MEMORANDUM
Date : October 17, 2008
To : Mayor and City Council Members
Through: Wendy Williams, Acting City Manager Alf VJ�
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager WV
0310
Brian Janonis, Fort Collins Utilities Executive Director
From : Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager
Reference: October 14, 2008 Work Session Summary - Stormwater Program Review
Brian Janonis, Fort Collins Utilities Executive Director, Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering and
Field Operations Manager, and consultants Barbara Cole of Community Matters and Neil Grigg
of Colorado State University, presented Council with a brief overview of the feedback from the
interviews with Council regarding changes to the Stormwater program. Council members
present included Mayor Doug Hutchinson, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson, David Roy, Diggs
Brown, Ben Manvel, and Lisa Poppaw.
Council members reviewed and discussed materials provided and provided feed back on key
policy areas which should be examined and evaluated. Key discussion areas and apparent
conclusions by Council :
1 . Evaluate the Program Now. The time is right to review the overall stormwater
program and the review should be finished by March 31 , 2009. This comprehensive
view of the Utility would include : capital improvements; water quality or best
management practices; floodplain management; and emergency response.
2 . Re-examine Adopted Policies. While the stormwater staff is doing competent work
and follows current policy, Council wishes to thoroughly evaluate current policy,
specifically the appropriate level of flood protection. Is the intensity of the capital
projects reasonable? A clear explanation of program objectives is needed, to include
issues such as protecting from wet basements versus protecting against major, life-
threatening floods. Council would like to see details such as the events that cause risk
and the consequences of various actions.
3 . Revise the Mission Statement. The stormwater program needs a new mission
statement to reflect a 21 " Century Utility and needs a greater environmental
emphasis.
4 . Evaluate Community benefits through Budgeting for Outcomes. The City needs
to evaluate how the program fits in with the bigger picture of the community. What
Page 1 of 24
City of
,,•Fort Coltins
is the outcome of decreasing Stormwater rates to allow for increases in other needed
City services? The placement of the stormwater program in the Safe Community
Result Area in the Budgeting for Outcomes process should be revisited
5 . Review Capital Projects : Council wants to assess capital expenditures. What are we
protecting against? What is gained if the build out period is changed? Are there
other viable alternatives that will result in an appropriate level of protection such as
moving citizens from the floodplain instead of protecting them ? What is the result if
we cut all capital projects? What is the resulting rate for only on-going operations and
maintenance? How do the City of Fort Collins rates compare with that of like
communities? A review of staff methods to analyze and prioritize capital projects
should be conducted, with a focus on holistic and environmental impacts .
6. Evaluate the Rate Structure: Who pays and who benefits? Review how monthly
rates are calculated and how they relate to customer impacts on the stormwater
system. Larger lots with more impervious areas should pay more. Fewer
improvements are needed in the newer south part of town than the older north part,
should the City maintain a city-wide fee structure for distributed community benefits?
Some Council members feel that the city-wide fee is appropriate; others need to better
understand how the rate structure creates additional benefits. A study is needed of
whether, under current criteria, runoff rates from vacant ground are higher than runoff
rates from developed ground and whether there is a "double charge" when impact
fees are collected.
7 . Understand Land Use Implications. A review is needed of policies for removal of
vacant land from floodplains. Areas of the review should focus on environmental and
equity perspectives. Of particular interest is whether other cities recover specific
benefits of removing vacant property from the floodplain from landowners. Should
the City allow development within the floodplain? How does this promote the
objectives of other City programs, especially Natural Areas, Transportation, and
Water Quality as well as health and safety?
8 . Enhance the Environmental Ethos of the City. Is the City doing all it can to ensure
that the capital projects result in true environmental enhancements? The stormwater
program should emphasize stormwater best practices and Low Impact Development
(LID) to protect water quality. How does Fort Collins compare to other cities with
respect to water quality treatment systems? Other innovations, such as a "rain barrel"
approach to capture stormwater for irrigation purposes, which might require a change
in state law, should be considered .
Council specifically requested staff prepare additional information on program finance and water
quality and environmental management. Council requested the following specific information:
■ How does Fort Collins compare to like municipalities with respect to rates, rate
structure, level of protection and the additional items covered in the Black and
Veatch Stonmwater Utility Survey?
■ What is the condition of the stormwater infrastructure?
■ What is the status of the debt of the stormwater utility? What could be gained if
the Utility paid off or refinanced current bonds?
What impact[s] do publicly owned lands, such as roads, parks, school districts,
CSU, etc . have on the overall system? What fees do they pay?
Page 2 of 24
City of
Fort Cottins
■ What is the result of water quality monitoring? Report on the water quality
monitoring and the health of the streams and provide the report on an annual
basis.
■ What water quality best management practices are in place today? What more
can be done?
Staff will prepare an outline and course of action to address the materials requested, prepare
alternatives and staff recommendations for presentation at future work sessions, and final council
consideration by the end of March, 2009,
Page 3 of 24
( this page intentionally left blank )
Page 4 of 24
DATE : October 14 , 2008
STAFF : Jim Hibbard WORK SESSION ITEM
Barbara Cole , Community FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Matters , Inc .
Neil Grigg , Colorado State
University�1 N / I
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Stormwater Program Review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has requested a review of the policies and practices guiding the current stormwater program.
Initial feedback from Council has been obtained through one-on-one interviews with
Councilmembers. The findings of these interviews and information requested during the interview
are presented. Staff is seeking additional feedback from Council as a basis for preparing specific
options regarding changes to the stormwater program for Council to consider.
00"`I ig
nQUES
14 T
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHTI IONS TO BE ANSWERED
1 . Do the three big picture policy questions identified in the Findings Report reflect the issues
and opportunities that Council wishes to examine?
2 . Are there additional issues or opportunities that should be evaluated?
3 . What information or analysis will help Councilmembers conduct a thorough evaluation of
the Stormwater Program to ensure that the City is engaged in the appropriate level of
stormwater management?
BACKGROUND
During discussions on recent actioco rning the'9�to3'i�Cvat rogram, Council expressed a
desire to review the policies and practi guiding the curren ogram. Staff hired Barbara Cole
of Community Matters, Inc . and Dr. N�eil rigg of Colorado St University to conduct one-on-one
interviews with Councilmembers , tch t 1 is their Re f Findings .
After receiving direction from Council at this work session, staff will prepare specific options
regarding changes to the Stormwater Program for Council to consider at a future meeting.
During the interviews, Councilmembers also made requests for information. A brief synopsis of the
requested information is provided.
Page 5 of 24
October 14 , 2008 Page 2
1 . What capital projects have been completed?
A map of the current Stormwater Master Plan is attached. The north half of the City is
Attachment 2 ; the south half of th ' y is Attachment 3 . These maps show which projects
are completed or are under cons ction.
2. How do our rates comith other community
How do other municipalities structure the financing of stormwater projects ?
Need an analysis of how funds are raised — how do similar municipalities do this ?
A nationwide stormwater utility survey was performed by Black & Veatch consulting
engineers (Attachment 4. ) A rate comparison is shown on pages 6 and 7 . In addition, there
are numerous other survey questions relating to how other utilities finance stormwater
programs . Also, utility staff has surveyed other Front Range communities regarding their
rates and plant investment fees (Attachment 5 .) Please note that, at this time, only rates and
plant investment fees have been surveyed. Staff will attempt to gather other details about
these communities stormwater programs for comparison and to put the rates in context.
3. How much undeveloped land has been removed from the floodplain ?
How many acres have benefitted?
How much developedCshow
s(uc)hpphas
Vbremoved
oodplain?
The following table sh from the floodplain by
capital projects .
Property Type Acres Removed
From Floodplain
Developed Property 19297
Undeveloped Property 505
Total 19802
Of the 505 acres of undeveloped property removed from the floodplain, 481 acres were
from the Dry Creek Flood Control Project.
A map showing the location and type of property removed from floodplains by capital
projects is Attachment 6 .
4. What is the philosophy o tormwater? What are the policies in one or two pages ?
A summary of the maj Storm ter p i ttachment 7 .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Report of Findings from Council Interviews .
2 . Stormwater Master Plan Projects Completed: North.
3 . Stormwater Master Plan Projects Completed: South.
4 . Nationwide Stormwater Utility Survey.
Page 6 of 24
October 14 , 2008 Page 3
5 , Local Stormwater Utility Rates and Plant Investment Fees .
6 . Property removed from the Floodplain.
7 , Stormwater Policies .
COPY
COPY
COPY
Page 7 of 24
ATTACHMENT 1
OCTOBER 14T " CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION ON
THE STORMWATER UTILITY
Purpose of the Worksession :
1 ) To review findings from individual council interviews ;
2 ) To reach concurrence on the three big questions . Do these
accurately reflect Council what the Council wishes to evaluate with
respect to the Stormwater Utility program ?
3 ) To determine from Council what they need to know to make informed
decisions regarding the Stormwater program .
Agenda :
Item # 1 : Introductions and Review of Findings
■ Impetus and Purpose of the Worksession - Darin Atteberry and Jim
Hibbard
■ Overview of Interview Results- Barb Cole , CMI
■ Perceptions and Context- Neil Grigg , P . E . CSU
Item # 2 : Review and Concurrence on the 3 big questions
■ Do these 3 questions reflect the issues and opportunities that
Council wishes to examine ?
■ Are there additional issues or opportunities that should be
evaluated or perhaps are a subset of these 3 questions ?
Item # 3 : What does Council ` Need to Know ' to make informed
decisions about the Stormwater Utility ?
■ Council members all acknowledged that the Stormwater program
is complex and based on a set of established values . A number of
the Council members stated that the cost and benefit of capital
projects were often fuzzy .
■ What information or analysis will help Council members conduct a
thorough evaluation of the Stormwater program to ensure that the
City is engaged in the appropriate level of stormwater
management?
We suggest spending the first '/2 hour of the worksession on items 1 and 2 ,
and use the remainder of the time focusing on item # 3 .
Page 8 of 24
FINDINGS FROM COUNCIL INTERVIEWS ON FORT
COLLINS STORMWATER UTILITY
Summary of Issues :
Council generally agrees that the Stormwater program is a necessary City function , and
that it is a City function that does not receive a lot of attention from City residents .
Council members acknowledge that they are blessed with a competent staff that is
following established policy . They also are fully cognizant that it is difficult to fully
assess the costs and benefits of the program , and believe that the program that is now
in place was in part , a response to the flooding that occurred in 1997 . While Council is
unanimously in favor of flood plain management , most agree that it is time for a re -
evaluation of the program . Council members were generally comfortable with the
general approach of stormwater management by defined basin , appreciated that the
finance plan was a pay-as-you go plan , and agreed that planning for the 100 year flood
with the adopted 100 year rainfall curves was reasonable . An analysis of Council
comments indicates that the following ` big picture ' policy areas should be examined and
evaluated :
1 . Are the levels of improvement and risk avoidance the City
has committed to appropriate ?
■ Are we spending an appropriate amount of money to provide a safe City?
■ Is the City doing more than it needs to do ?
■ Can the capital expense be justified by cost/benefit studies that also address
community values such as convenience , environmental amenities and
aesthetics ? Are there other non - monetary community values that should be
considered ?
2 . Is the pay- as -you - go system of impact fees and the rate
structure fair? Is it equitable ?
■ Do monthly fees equate with benefit received ?
■ Are the impact fees fair? For example , new development creates less run -off
than before development and also pays an impact fee ; is this a double
charge ?
■ Vacant land pays nothing until it develops , yet if the City takes vacant land out
of the flood plain , there is a benefit to the land owner ; does the financing plan
account for this benefit? If land is taken out of the flood plain , flood insurance
is no longer necessary ; does the financing plan recognize this benefit?
Page 9 of 24
■ Fees are equal across the City . Should they be different , given that risk is not
uniform across the City?
3 . Can stormwater management advance the city ' s
environmental ethic and the principles and policies found in
the City Plan ?
■ Should flood plain management along the Poudre River result in more
developable land or should it create more open space ? What is council ' s
vision of the Poudre River throughout the City?
■ What land should be removed from the flood plain ? [ Option discussed by
individual Council members include : Remove , relocate or keep in natural
state]
■ Low- impact development and best management practices can always be
improved ; of what consequence is this to the overall stormwater program ?
Will it result in less costly project or negate the need for some capital
projects ? Are we doing enough in this area ?
■ Can additional measures or a different approach result in a more ecological
approach to flood plain management?
RESULTS FROM THE SEVEN [ 7 ] COUNCIL
INTERVIEWS
General :
■ Many complements to a hard working staff
■ Most agreed that staff was diligent in trying to carry out adopted policies and
that staff was knowledgeable . "We have an exceptional staff . . .
knowledgeable and they have the ability to be innovative" . . . . " Jim ' s done a
great job . "
■ All Council people noted that Stormwater was not a program that received a
lot of attention from constituents . " Stormwater is not on anyone ' s radar
screen . " . . . " its behind the wall plug " . . . " Most people are blissfully
unaware " . . . " I ' m never asked about stormwater. "
Benefits of the Stormwater Utility Program
■ "This is a basic [City] service . "
■ " Preclude damage to property . . . "
■ 1 don ' t want people to die . "
■ " Protection of property and life "
Page 10 of 24
■ "This is a municipal utility that serves the entire City across the board . "
■ "This is a community responsibility—remove people from harm , save lives ,
environment and property . "
■ " [Staff] needs to do a better job explaining benefit , costs are better explained . "
Accomplishments
■ " It' s a great program and touted as one of the best in the country in terms of
emergency preparedness . . . "
■ "We ' ve been named a model city [ by FEMA] . "
■ " One of the best things we ' ve done was to get the flood plain regulations in
line with those of [ Larimer] County"
■ " Box Elder represents a lot of hard work . . . . it ' s a regional approach , but I ' m
not sure Fort Collins was the biggest beneficiary . . . "
■ " I ' m not sure we recognize or appreciate what is in place . "
■ " Good staff, good projects and good plan , $ 5 million a year may not be
enough . "
■ " [Stormwater Utility] staff are following what' s been laid out . "
■ "Very pleased with Dry Creek , it' s very impressive . "
Biggest Concerns with the Stormwater Utility Program
■ "Are we committing overkill ? Did we over react to the Spring Creek Flood ? "
■ " Is the stormwater utility ` over-engineered ' ? "
■ " In certain instances , like Red Fox Meadows , it seems like we are taking
extraordinary measures , is it worth the impact?
■ "The expense - are we spending the right amount? "
■ " Fairness and benefits "
■ Is it too expensive for the magnitude of the problem ? What can citizens live
with . . . . is a few inches of water in a basement okay?
■ " 1 think the City is obsessed with wet basements . Maybe more time should be
[devoted to] relocation . We ' re spending way too much money . "
■ "Are we managing it [the Stormwater Utility] properly? The concept is that
everyone pays if you impact the system and everyone benefits . . . its healthy to
take a hard look at the entire program . . . it' s good to do and needs to be
done . "
■ "We need a comprehensive review . . . and we need to keep Council from
micro- managing "
Page 11 of 24
■ " Environmental impacts- is the amount of mitigation enough or too much ? . . .
their primary business is to control stormwater . 11
■ " Largess of the stormwater department . . . . are these or are they not Cadillac
projects , its hard to tell if we are wasting money . . . need to pencil it out . "
■ " I ' m uneasy with the cost , we have a world class program and one we can be
proud of but we are not on the edge of disaster . . "
■ " Stormwater has a huge budget , it feels like we need projects to spend money
on . . . how vulnerable are we ; did we overreact?
■ " Did we over-correct or over shoot? In my opinion , we overcorrected ;
perhaps there is a more reasonable approach to keeping citizens safe and
preventing property damage . "
■ " Program was an over- reaction to the flood . "
■ "We have existing policies- did we get it right or wrong ; we should concentrate
on what policies need to change . "
■ " I think the concern that others have is too much money in support of the
private sector and not enough attention to the environment . . . I think some
want a more natural approach . "
Fundamental Assumptions
■ " In 2005 , there was a revision to policy . . . we decided not to increase fees . "
■ " . . . need to look at the concept of equal treatment , equal benefit . . . some
people benefit more than others . "
■ "The fundamental assumptions are okay , we just need more advanced
thinking . . . revisit the program to upgrade . . . look to innovative technologies . "
■ "To what degree do we need to address the problem ?—are we designing a
system to prevent a damp rug or are we engineering a system to avoid truly
damaging events ?
■ " Do we need a relaxation of standards ? "
■ "The Master Plan is a good foundation , I ' m okay with the basin approach . "
■ " 1 think we need to build on what is in place . "
■ " [ Fundamental assumptions] are sufficient — it' s about life and property . . . I
think we are on the leading edge . "
■ "The uniform fee is not right- we need to reexamine it , I ' m concerned about
fairness . "
■ "We approved $ 20 million in improvements for Box Elder Creek , the reason
given was —` it would save lives ' . . . so one woman drove into flooded waters a
Page 12 of 24
long time ago , and she and her kids lost their lives , but are we making these
improvements to prevent stupidity?
■ " I don ' t think the program treats all property equitably . Do we recoup the
benefit a vacant land owner receives when land is taken out of the floodplain ?
Should I pay the same rate for the [Stormwater] system if my property is not
subject to flooding versus those that are located in [flood prone] areas ? North
vs . South Fort Collins ? Older areas versus new areas ? Downtown versus
outlying areas ? "
■ "We need to reduce the utility bill or at lest keep the overall utility bill constant .
The rate is too high . "
■ "Why are we taking vacant land out of the flood plain ? " [ Paraphrased from a
number of Council comments . ]
■ " Is a big budget driving big improvements ? Is the need driven by the
financing ? "
■ " Rates have gone up and that' s enough of a rate increase , though I have
never heard that the utility rates are too high , it' s a non - issue . "
■ " How much protection does the Poudre deserve ? "
■ " If we look to regional solutions , who will be the beneficiaries ? "
Financing Plan
■ " How do we compare to other municipalities [with respect to rates] " ?
■ " Most of the dissatisfaction stems from the expense . . . maybe it' s more than
we need . . . "
■ "The cost/benefit is unclear . . . it' s often confusing to understand . "
■ "Who is being subsidized - staff/council should discuss . "
■ " Our fees are , or were [among ] the highest in the nation . "
■ " Citizens are paying for a great level of service , is the City providing a greater
level of service than is necessary? Was this an overreaction to what
happened in 1997 ? "
■ " How much convenience do you get for what you pay? "
■ Does the policy we have in place result in a double charge - impact fee plus
rate assessment?
■ " Seems like there is a general benefit versus a direct benefit and this is
unequal . . . . individual properties benefit , do we recover that benefit? Is there
an income transfer . . need to examine the equity of the system . "
■ Need to examine " equity issues - who benefits ? "
■ " [Adopted policies] are reasonable on all points . "
Page 13 of 24
■ " Not sure I understand the role of vacant land , they create runoff now but if
they develop the run -off is less . "
■ "We are probably going to need to increase electrical rates ; it would be nice if
we could keep the overall utility costs about the same as they are now . . . if we
could lower the stormwater rates , this might make the increase in electric
more palatable . . . it would be great if we can promise no increase in utility
fees . . . residents would keep the bottom line at the same level —people don ' t
look at what they pay for stormwater- they look at the entire bill at the end of
the month "
■ "We may be looking at increasing sales tax and raising utility rates - we have
to figure out the tolerance level of our residents . . . "
Environmental Ethos
■ " It' s often unclear how the environment was enhanced ; what about the loss of
the riparian habitat? "
■ " Red Fox Meadows was perhaps too draconian "
■ " Environmental concerns have resulted in certain items being pulled off of the
Consent Agenda . . . has to do with building in the floodplain . "
■ "Are we as environmentally sensitive as we could be ? "
■ "Are we utilizing all of the innovations that are coming on line ? "
■ " 1 think we can do better in the environmental area . "
■ "Are we making better what nature created ? " "Why not just leave it in its
natural state ? "
■ "Are they [Stormwater Utility] making the environment the best it can be ? "
■ " Is the City really employing the best management practices ? . . . we need to
prove it more . . "
■ " Not so many pipes , lets get back to nature . "
■ TEMA has strict regulations . . . are we over reacting to [ potential ] property
damage . . . are the rules too strict?
■ "We need a holistic view of the eco-system . "
■ "What does improvement to the flood plain mean - how does it impact riparian
areas ? It seems big with lots of money devoted to improving the floodplain . 55
■ " How can the stormwater utility further the environmental ethos of the City?
■ "What types of programmatic changes can be instituted by the Stormwater
Utility to foster and perhaps reward innovative solutions ? "
■ " Looking for a more ecological approach . "
Page 14 of 24
Role of the Flood Plain in City Form
■ " Should we continue to take vacant land out of the flood plain ? "
■ "What is the floodplain ' s role in the City' s vision ? "
■ " Houses are raised up in new areas , new construction is according to the City
Plan , I love the City Plan - approach is at a reasonable level . "
■ " Do we want urban encroachment or the natural environment , particularly
along the Poudre ? Maybe we take a softer approach along the river , not
Estes Park or Boulder .
Desired Outcome of the October 14t" , 2008 Worksession
■ " Pose questions that need to be addressed . . . "
■ "We need a better clarification of values . This is a value -driven program .
Why are we doing this ? "
■ Provide an overview of the program in a handout . . . . layout the program . "
■ Need a concise summary of current policies . . . maybe a 30 minute PowerPoint
—this is where we stand , what are the issues . . . set the stage -what do we really
need to redo or re - look at?
■ "What are the `themes ' that emerged from the interviews ? "
■ " Layout/agree on what we will examine . . . agree on a schedule , costs and a
course of action . . . I think there will be adjustments or tweaks in all areas , but
you need to tell us if we need more . "
■ " Clearly identify the issues - and we want the outside eyes and the right
people to look at these . "
■ "We need to clarify the overall goals [of this program ] " .
■ "We need a framework to think about and approach stormwater policy . "
■ " It would be good if Council came away with 5 -6 things to think about . "
■ "Take a good look at the level of the program ----are we over medicating "
■ " Examination of our practices vs . other people ' s [ municipal ] practices . "
■ " Do we really want to revisit each stormwater project? Why? You have a
master plan . " Clarify what Council wants to see when it comes to stormwater
projects .
Page 15 of 24
Page 9 of 9
" Need to know" Information
Note . Staff can address some of these items prior to the worksession, some
items will require further work.
■ "What has been done ? " — map showing capital projects completed to date
■ " How do our rates compare with other municipalities ? "
■ " Since the adoption of the 2004 Stormwater Master Plan , how much
undeveloped land has been removed from the flood plain ? How many acres
have benefited ? How much developed land has been removed - homes and
commercial land ? "
■ " How do other municipalities structure the financing of stormwater
improvements ? "
■ "What is the philosophy of stormwater? What are the policies in one or two
pages ? "
■ " Need an analysis of how funds are raised - how do similar municipalities like
Boulder and Pueblo do this . "
Community Matters , Inc/ Neil Grigg , P . E .
Page 16 of 24
Fort Collins CITY OF FORT COLLINS ( NORTH )
COMPLETED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
op N
S [�
y w DOu61AS RD E DOUGLAS RD F-I
tlq ELOUNTV ROAD 54OQED CR 56 culvert upgrade r l
SH Dry Creek Flood f m m Farrl
CH Control Project A 5
p
B
N a p Ao ¢
ad oho La Poutlre Ditch Vf ry
p D Z pas
ct
Rev E
up
O Sod Fans Pi
S OrveSlon at Sod Farm parq
COUNTYp�ppryryD 54G ` Cac CC CggC RICHARDS LAKE RD
IVIIIeS na�apOW �f ogrgD Ixlcnams Lek Rd covert upq�o
0 0.5 1 2 Q
cacbp Cordial Larne Pondid
m
kshei id
a"m if
at
EE F
of
COUNTRY CLUB RD o z-
0
o D
Pleasant Rol rvodn Pond E
Mtn Vast Diversion p
1'Lawwa. >
a'tlwela canal EwIL�
w walDxw o w
N Colle ndC � � f MOUNTAIN VISTA DR ELOUNTYROAO50
y z
a o
utNI
Ncolvergreen Overt Pom add ordice ' �� AS PondOAs
Rhg p rL m Ory Creek Fleotl regradeLJ.Wwoad Pond Control Project �Plessan[ Artoiy1Lacs AC bP ndm°a - o9e ondE ° yo¢ aaA;s p
t10
L d - mi i 'Oval
z
OVmelancer Culvert m EVINE OR m O
WVINE OR N College Pot Dry Creek Flood
i
J - id `__nl V � Control Project II II ECOUNTY ROAD 48
z as
Come
yPoj10 _ Andersonvllle Channel _
tr HowesOrder o p
p ��jzju
x, q w %--�
der Copw ' an
a {q,
LAPORTE AVE 5a d" MIT
0
ad Oxbow Levee ��/( `O]q marker Pnnrll y
CSUCR'46Lgand _. C 3 `-' C"�e - J/
UHenhap Pond 303 z m m Dry Creek MHP Pond Dlversan D
m EUNCOLN AVE w
Os D F o WMOUNTAIN AVE EMOUNTAIN AVE Caw' _
' F 0 a e u a' O
8 i 3 N O kShe to hall Extension
as r V he 9
A" Raise Lemay ew �Be
Oak Street Outhall
v Man ' Street Ou 11 Avenue C'
G
CSU Fish Research Station Pond WMULBERRY ST re 9` manager Cemetery Pand Bo CUNens N W6H 14
ad,° E MULBERRY ST
Improvek Lakements Ow V� T14g
p e
Cache La
_ Glenmmr Pond W [gUREL ST m
h
West OrIXl��FmL-a_-a 'ws
n
w
Z Locust Skeet outran agka ¢
In r Cache La Poutlre Rpree p E
W ELIZABETH ST w asEmlhLateral R✓`oRs S i
g Q IOFgP rL�ath `tpyMlcre4 al clearNew cnannel ed " eOyO Fitktn Lateral qRNerssle Pran OutoollP�
Taff H111 at Clearvlew Channel CEO MhYmY Prospect Road °q
Q i Crossing
W PROSPECTRD FaiNmoke Pond _ c J
Le end
E PROSPECT RD CSRR Pond.-
Red Fox Prospect at Eaxelder Counting
V Proposed EmdankmenLs, Levees, or Road Raising
o E 6prin9Otaa Proposed Culvert Improvements
Meadows A S,p° C pose prevemens
O FalNrackeOannel at Hampshire Pond -s m °N°c ProposedStonn Severs
r
p w v. PVL Famprooke Channel ONtall tl Laie m 8o Proposed Open Channels
Snerw°° rat
° Brown Fa -�T Pond ,NPe Proposed Detention Ponds
w e c°
w r g ® Completed Improvements
�a Rouand wre PcM 0 -
0
Fort Collins CITY OF FORT COLLINS ( SOUTH )
COMPLETED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
k ' & o mrooke Channel urcan snerni Laferar IT
�- 1.. f .. •.. . - - -
M rc emwn FamT n h Pond
To GO
a z
'o _ � Rouand MCI w N N m�
Orry £ o
Ouon Creek "Kh
W 3 c PaMwm] EmyrvoM EnlalgemeN us
O
� Sharp Crew WORAKE RD Pc'Q �p EDRAKE RD p va Na
NSouthwest W
O
Park Pond w P Q
WE O -vry O
RossSvough Channel Calvados 10
do
B ,
-�� Nelson Farm Pond ve
6 m �I SONflrtrobb�lllag�Pond#62 oY e
RossMmugh Channel CuNetls iiiiiWn
_
a — FooIM11115 Channel
Miles \� sw CC
O.0 ^ ^ ORossUomugh Channel CUKreM1s WHORSETOOTH RD EHORSETOOTH RD /�
J 1 G Fox Me#d�rvs Pva`J
English RanU Ponds 2&3 Call
ilks Creek Fos
c Reservoir
1 sP^dg� g inlet oticM1 < IT
Imcerml channel w °v W @ z
W COUNTY ROAD 38EA-c zo i p6 Y 'omy m
yY sa ZEgIe�Pond he
4iy
e0�im E m FOR IN r
Z
- `ao
a
t�
EHARMONY RD ` Raise Harmony Road
1 };.W HARMONY RD Canyon Lateral EGOU NTY ROAD38 I . �\. DNon can
3
f Ooe
Eums Taft Crossing
a
e
O M llaCCle rds C"i 4 m
Fsll Ridge Crossing O oo
ss 0.
O A
posse Creek Bums Nlllcale Cmssing
kC E COUNTY ROAD 36 KECHTER RD
Fell Creekss Crslrg#t KE WTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36
F E
o�rC
Fossil COk Crossing 1r2 opf
Mgt' Creek oiTn
he
To
® Crane Creek To
R o
CulvertCrossing
O
le
y� F it Creek Choral#DT O ETRILSY RD p
W TRILBY RD 0`
South Tnh Poultry Crossing#t TNhy crassln�FossllCreek Crossing no
UPRR Crossing
SONh Bank Tntt Cmssing
1 1
he sn s[reN Bndge E c Legend
Z Shlel Slree no mTlmbatlire -
®Calvert W�� Proposed Embankments. Levees. or Road RalsNg
O '-� Crossing
• Proposed CUlveM1lmprovemenls
Laing Gulch Crssslrg Proposed Storm Sewers
CARPENTER RD 0 ECOUNTYROAo32 Proposed Open Channels
J 0 Stanton Creek CR32 Crossing Q Proposed OHentlon Ponds
Stanton Creek Lemay Crossing ® Campletetl Improve ments
Attachment 4
BUILDING 1 ' 1 OF 1 Refer to Attachment 4 ,
November 25 , 2009 Memo
a '
do
do
r
d
,
_ 3 •S i
Z l
od
oddI
per ! do _ -
Ito _ r41
.: —
odd do,
It
wPA F
r - � , �
^r• >t r _ � ?[, i �` is 1 � •7 � +'dC1,r 1e _l ` 1 1
Odd. A
old do t
do
od "d PLO IV
J iC ♦ 1. . _
�. dooft,,. \�
do
"fir" i , ! I. '� , �a �' • ',� , t / 1 I ' f 1 , . .(.
� jor
Yrr C. \ 1, 1, r . nr P P j lId do do 1 ��
r
rM . �' do, i v7. do
jr]!
if / — J/ / ir • i /� do
or 14 r� l.,� 11 .- `,r I •� Hr♦� 1 s r
• r1 r 1 ,j
/ . � r �YrY \ice j r 1 •'•�
r ,- . ry'') S's. i 1 �, ��9� �y.•t� :. �� y • y• .t f rill,• l j. +T • .-� .A 7 1
do fJn�l e A T q rye I �IIr ✓ cA
, Ly, .v,L e. �i,Rirc'�. �.IL. rG� /S:�!•o/l.�f±I�Iw' - 'C,y s s '.fie l 'h7�Mi& SwIr- • ..r dow , a
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Sponsored and administered by Enterprise Management Solutions,
the management consulting division of Black & Veatch
ffjBLACK & VEATCH
Building a world of difference:
Page 19 of 24
Attachment 5
Local Stormwater Rates and Plant Investment Fee Comparison
Stormwater Rate Comparison
8600 Sq Ft, Light Run Off or 40% Impervious 14 . 26 14. 26
$ 14 September 4, 2008 Data
R
$ 12 10 . 39
a $ 10
'Ui v
c $g 6 . 95 7 . 13 7 . 40
`o a 6 . 00
s U $6 4 . 09 4 . 30
_ $4
0
$2
60
Windsor Greeley Co.Sprs Boulder Longmont Denver Loveland Ft. Collins Ft Collins
2008 2009
Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
September 2007 Data
$2,500
$2,000
$ 1 ,500
$ 1 ,000
$500
Ft Collins Ft Collins Boulder Greeley Longmont Loveland Windsor
2007 2008
❑ Storm Drainage PIF
Page 20 of 24
Area Removed From Floodplain by Capital Projects
m
D
m tt
� m Z
o m rz
o m F
� G�F
Y w ll
CO RC, . s G o a RI P
S . w o rc
tt
y y� z 0 00
qL NTRV CLUB RD
h/4S
SPAULDINGLN
\ 9\ 5
� W WIL �S,PQ gA14AP ' 050
o a
p >
-i GADWATER DR r5 FO,pT L-Li „
WAKONDADR
GKOR
rc w r CK
I O
O
W m m
0 ti r
r - > O
O + ELM ST w w ti m -yINE� z
a r y Q ¢ m F m F
m m O Z m m p W BUCKINGHAM ST m f
tt MAPLE STLyu 0 URICH DR
zT TARO ¢ > N 5 as O G
> 1
rc z � z m
W ryE IN KSTN - EOAH
EOLIVE T
L
� WM RINGER DR
G
0 W b z OO K iR m �� - RENTON DR
rc m a ¢ m i N w s
Y w po > m WLAUREL ST it- >
ELOCUST
' p TT WPL NORTH DR E 'L/gNM/ OP UEST DR
W ELIZABETH ST ¢ /� /�
o ag FRI RABETH ST r- 0
BIANCO DR m
i'j GARRELD ST 0 0 7�' BO%ELDER R KRCHELLWAV
w EDWARDS ST O m S vo
IN ST EPITKINST > m
�G �' i y 3� UCKE T g
W IA ST O W IAKE ST E LAKE ST P O 2
n
u W PR E� - R T `Iy � EPROSPECT RD
CEDAR OD D — ��� BAY MRKERS iI O m DPOINTDR O z
SST J n o
I W STOART ST �.J i o
0 D aKE F
NEILD J Off ' V�� UONRT FOUTH TELL KIRKWOOD DR { r Z
R
J.. a < z o
a
o a > ° 5 °
-1 N� HULL ST y ¢ m
o o r rLo i H y OXFORD LN Y O O m
WSWALLOW RD O � ESWALLOW RD Ivy ST y z f _ � a
w SIOUX BLVD 0 w w o r STABLE LN
DR 0
ICHURCHILL�I m o K `.I T
, y z ¢ z w WHORSETOOTH RD �ETOOT � ANTELOPE ECOUNW ROAD 40
o f m m F nI o f Tk RD ;
a m z A F m x w WPPl
Z I
o a U U WABASH ST I- Z
> m ¢
O ZU ¢ K v m Z LOWEST .K H
W COUNTY ROAD 38E U K zZo s -' CARIBOU DR a
BUTTE PASS DR O N -f 13
_ _ '}ICH
7 K . Q
I IT 1 ' o
I o e
RULE DR
1 0 0 7
_ !N_ BAKE CREEK RD .� ECLIPSE LN Y
COUNTY ROAD 36KEGHTER RD KE ' ER RD i
ROAD 36
0
m w,DRML
a
W
R ZEPHYR RD IS O
2
ROOKERY RD �J
> i 0Q w
n FDA w
1
8B- TRILBY RD
R �S
TRUXUN DR
F O
Q a,
w
O �
4 G LV'
HF� { A
ND DR STY R91�D32- Oz q
9
�P
pq o
PY" TUR�MAND
LJ Mv� ' �4 W" `E
(a Legend {' ('T a
N M Dry Creek Buildable LandJLl-
Remaining Buildable Land EcouNTv R 0
M Post-Project Floodplains (including floodways and moderate risk) A
Feel ForLCclhns M
Area Removed From Floodplain o tmo 2m .mo YM =0
m
Attachment 7
Stormwater Program
Policies , Philosophies , and Practices
OVERALL PURPOSE :
1 . The purposes of the Stormwater Utility are to drain and control flood water,
reduce pollution, enhance the environment, and protect the health, safety, property
and welfare of the City.
FINANCIAL POLICIES
2 . Everyone benefits from a sound city-wide stormwater program, and therefore any
owner of developed land shall pay its pro-rata share to operate, maintain, and
improve the overall stormwater system.
3 . The monthly fee is based on impact. The more you impact the overall system, the
more you pay. The monthly fee for a particular parcel is based on the area of the
parcel and the impervious surface areas [such as pavement and structures] .
4. Vacant land pays nothing unless it develops and begins to impact the system.
5 . The rate used to calculate monthly fees is applied uniformly across the City.
6 . The rate used to calculate monthly fees is the same inside and outside of
floodplains because parcels on high ground contribute to flooding problems in
low lying areas .
7 . When a vacant property develops, it benefits from the cumulative investment the
rate payers have made in the stormwater system. The value of that benefit is
captured via an impact fee and returned to the rate payers.
8 . The impact fee is based on the replacement value of the existing stormwater
system at the time of development and will substantially increase over time as the
overall value of the stormwater system increases due to annual capital projects .
9 . The original financing plan approved in 2001 was designed to build $ 120 million
in capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis by 2030, after which fees would be
reduced to maintenance levels .
10 . The revised 2005 financing plan froze monthly fees at 2004 levels, eliminating
the last four years of rate increases in the original financing plan and extended the
build out period to about 2040, after which monthly fees would return to
maintenance levels .
11 . The revised and currently adopted financing plan will support spending about $5
million per year on capital projects .
Page 22 of 24
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
12 . All new development is required to reduce the after development runoff rate to
substantially less than the historic undeveloped rate .
13 . All new development must provide on-site water quality treatment.
14. Developers must design and build the stormwater system in new developments to
convey runoff safely from a 100-year storm.
HYDROLOGIC STANDARDS
15 . The current 100-year design storm was adopted in 1999 and is 3 . 67 inches of
rainfall in two hours.
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
16 . All floodplains and floodplain regulations in the City are based on the 100-year
design storm. with the exception of the Poudre River, for which FEMA has also
mapped a 500-year floodplain.
17 . Floodplain regulations are based on FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program,
and local requirements . They are the same for all floodplains in the city except
the Poudre River, which has a separate set of more restrictive regulations .
18 . Development within the floodplain is allowed subject to regulations contained in
Chapter 10 of City Code . These regulations exceed FEMA minimums . The City
attempts to balance risk with regulation, i. e. , the higher the risk, the higher the
regulation.
19 . The effectiveness of the city ' s floodplain program is measured in part by the
Federal Community Rating System. The city ' s high rating results in flood
insurance premium discounts for City residents .
20 . Property in the Poudre River floodplain is acquired using a "willing seller/willing
buyer" approach.
STORMWATER MASTER PLANS
21 . Each basin master plan is prepared, viewed, and administered as a system where
all projects, development requirements, and environmental enhancements work
together to achieve city goals . The systems approach avoids a collection of stand
alone projects and requirements .
22 . The current city-wide master plan was prepared over a four year period, including
one year of public outreach, and was adopted in 2004. Revisions were adopted in
2008 for the Upper Cooper Slough and Boxelder Basins .
23 . The master plan is based on the 100-year design storm.
24. The master plan recommends retrofit stormwater projects in previously developed
areas to protect existing structures from the 100-year storm when the benefits of
the projects outweigh the cost.
Page 23 of 24
25 . The benefit of a stormwater retrofit project is measured by damage avoided to
existing homes and businesses, constructed infrastructure repair [utility and road
crossings] , clean up and emergency response costs .
26 . The master plan provides technical details so that stormwater projects built by
new development will work in conjunction with other parts of the system.
27 . The master plan recommend enhancements to riparian habitat along stream
corridors to improve water quality and stability in conjunction with habitat
mapping efforts .
28 . Stormwater projects are prioritized based on benefit to cost ratio, structures
removed from the floodplain, road overtopping eliminated, and other parameters
such as habitat enhancement, opportunities for collaboration with other public or
private projects, and contractual obligations .
29 . Lands for storm drainage purposes, water quality, natural areas and open space,
and parks are acquired jointly when possible.
30 . Capital projects of significant size or controversy are presented to City Council
for review.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
31 . The stormwater program includes educational programs and demonstration
projects to promote flood awareness and enhance public understanding of
pollution prevention efforts .
GENERAL PROVISIONS
32 . The stormwater program complies with the Federal Water Quality Act and all
other Federal, State, and Local laws as well as applicable case law.
33 . The stormwater program complies with all requirements of the City' s National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II Water Quality Discharge
Permit.
34. The stormwater program includes ongoing inspections of public and private best
management practices to ensure compliance with the City ' s Water Quality
Discharge Permit.
35 . The stormwater program has an ongoing program to monitor stream water quality
for long term trends .
36 . The stormwater program supports and implements best management practices to
promote the environmental Principle and Policies of the City Plan.
37 . The stormwater program operates a real time flood warning system providing
information to emergency responders .
3
Page 24 of 24
ATTACHMENT 2
Water Board Recommendation Memo and
Meeting Excerpts
ATTACHMENT 2
Utilities — Water Board
700 Wood St.
FPOort
Box 580
Fort Collins . 80522
Collins
970.221 .6702
970 416 .2208 fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE , November 23 , 2009
TO : Mayor Doug Hutchinson and City Council Members
FROM : Gina C . Janett, Water Board Chairperson
CC : Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Water Board Recommendations concerning Stormwater Re-Purposing
Over the past year, the Water Board has spent many hours reviewing documents and hearing
presentations from staff on the stormwater repurposing review . We have also conducted a work
session to allow for detailed Board discussions before preparing our recommendations, below . I
have numbered the Board' s recommendations continuously to make it easier for discussion .
I look forward to attending your Work Session on December 8`h when this issue is discussed by
Council .
A. Stormwater Purpose Statement
One year ago, the WB reviewed the existing Stormwater Purpose Statement and after discussion
unanimously approved the following as our recommendation to Council :
" The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City 's integrated
stormwater management program is for the mutual economic, social and environmental
benefits of public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare while
protecting natural areas and their features, protecting and restoring the City 's
watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache la Poudre River. "
During discussion of the purpose statement, board members indicated that while the top goal for
the stormwater program is to protect public safety that it was also desirable to protect and restore
the City' s watersheds, floodplains and riparian areas for the purposes of protecting water quality,
reducing the risks of flooding, and restoring and enhancing the ecology of the river, natural areas
and wildlife habitat.
The Board agreed that a more balanced approach would include benefits to environmental and
social values as well as to economic ones. The current program seems designed to mostly benefit
property owners and economic values rather than environmental ones. The Board supports the
change to a "triple bottom line" approach .
Page 1 of 32
Fort Collins
B. Best Management Policy/Practices Update (LID, Watershed Planning)
Over the past year, the utilities staff did a great job of walking the Board through the many
complicated components of public stormwater policies and regulations under review . They
provided many documents and presentations to bring us up to speed on existing and proposed
changes before we made our recommendations . The Board is very supportive of the city moving
forward on watershed planning and implementation of Best Management Practices .
In April the Board voted unanimously to support a motion stating :
"In order to improve the Stormwater Water Quality Program, the Water Board supports
all five recommendations as stated, provided staff returns to the Board with a
recommendation for the multi-disciplinary watershed planning group. "
The five recommendations were that the city :
• Form a citizen review group for the watershed team.
• Complete Master Plan updates (sub-watershed restoration plans) that define the
BMPs (including LID techniques) that should be used in order to protect and restore
the chemical , physical and biological attributes of each stream within each drainage
basin (note that this will require updating of engineering criteria) .
• Form a watershed planning team led by a planning coordinator(s) .
• Revise timelines and budgets for implementation of each Master Plan .
• Formalize coordinated long term monitoring programs to provide feedback to the
watershed team in order to track progress .
During the discussion , the board requested more information on the make-up of the citizen
committee and whether it would be an "ad hoc" group or on-going board or committee and if it
would be the Water Board or a new multi-disciplinary committee made up of representatives
from various existing boards (e. g . Natural Resources, Land Conservation and Stewardship, Parks
and Recreation, etc . ) Staff indicated the committee make-up would be brought back later for
discussion .
The above recommendations are encouraged to be a part of the City Plan update.
C. Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities
The Water Board reviewed the draft document before and after the stakeholders and public
outreach meetings. The Board made several recommendations that were added to the staff
document and included in the final draft. These included changing the name to "Guidelines and
Standards" to properly signal that some of the contents are advisory in nature (guidelines) while
others are mandatory (standards) . The staff then added an appeals/variance process in order to
provide applicants with some flexibility in their detention pond design .
The Board voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt the final draft.
2
Page 2 of 32
Fort Collins
D. Stormwater Master Plans/Level of Protection
The item that garnered the most discussion by the Board and which dominated both a special
work session in September and the regular October meeting was the Stormwater Master Plans
and the methodology for choosing projects to be constructed . It was acknowledged that the large
debt that Stormwater is paying off is for the purpose of constructing expensive capital projects
and that debt service and the master plans were driving the rates . The board acknowledged that
Fort Collins rates are higher than most along the Front Range and that the only way to affect
rates was to focus on changing the Master Plan selection and project design review criteria.
The current system uses a Benefit/Cost ratio for selecting and prioritizing projects. The Board
found that this methodology does not adequately include environmental or social costs or
benefits, particularly those which cannot be quantified in dollars and cents. The value of
preserving or restoring natural water quality features of a stream or floodplain, for example, are
not currently used as a criteria to select or design stormwater projects .
Additionally, Board members suggested that the Benefit/Cost ratios used to select a project were
too low, for example, some members think a 1 : 1 . 1 ratio isn ' t sufficient benefit to build a costly
project. Board members also discussed whether these secondary, non-economic benefits/costs
should be quantified and added into the Benefit/Cost analysis or whether there should be a new
methodology used that adds qualitative criteria to the analysis in addition to the B/C analysis.
As a result of these discussions, the Board approved the following motions :
1 . The Board recommends to City Council that staff change to using the triple bottom line (TBL)
philosophy of social, economic, and environmental components to determine flood control and
stream enhancement projects. In this scenario, the numeric B- C ratio plays a smaller role in
determining capital projects and projects can be recommended based on factors without a
numerical value. (Vote : 9 Yeas, 1 Nay — Connor who was concerned that the "what" and "how"
of analysis were mixed together and not clear)
2. The Board recommends to City Council that staff should research appropriate and applicable
methodologies for evaluating the social and environmental impacts, both positive and negative,
of capital projects. (Vote unanimous in favor)
3. The Board recommends to City Council that staff should evaluate the B- C ratio criteria as a
part of the TBL approach. (Vote unanimous in favor)
The discussion then proceeded to the issue of the Level of Protection that should be used when
either the City or private property owners build. Under this discussion , there were concerns
noted by multiple board members that the rate payers are paying high rates with an over
emphasis on protecting property in addition to the primary goal of protecting public safety. The
sentiment was stated that people who buy land in a floodplain know they are in a floodplain and
that it is unfair for the rate payers to bear the high public costs of private decisions to locate in a
floodplain and be at risk for flooding. Additionally, it was noted that people who own property
in floodplains are required to buy flood insurance and are reimbursed for some of their flood
3
Page 3 of 32
City of
ort Collins
damages to property. As such , some Board members did not think it was the government' s job
to build expensive capital projects to protect private property.
The resulting motion , which failed for various reasons , was :
4. The Water Board recommends to City Council that guidelines to use for Level of Protection
when making capital construction decisions are based on high flow events. This represents a
change, because it places less emphasis on the weighting of property damage. (Vote : 9 Nays, 1
Yea)
Most of the Board members indicated they voted "nay" because they are satisfied with the
requirement to build to a 100-year Level of Protection . Board Member Wockner voted "nay"
because he thinks this issue will be covered by previous motions and the TPL philosophy. Board
Member Conner voted "nay" because he would like to define a specific Level of Protection .
The Board also discussed the issue of funding stream corridor enhancements from stormwater
user fees . The recommendation that passed was :
5. The Board recommends to City Council that partial or entire stream corridor enhancements
can be funded by the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program based on prioritization through
the TBL analysis. (Vote : Unanimous in favor)
Finally, the board discussed the issue of cost sharing between the city and private property
owners for capital projects that reduce the size of a floodplain , thus, "removing property" from
the floodplain . The common description is that a property or structure is removed from a
floodplain when , in reality, the property doesn ' t move outside of the floodplain , the capital
project makes the floodplain smaller. Board members consider this an undeserved benefit to a
property owner that is paid for by all rate payers . It was acknowledged that developing a cost
sharing methodology might be difficult, but that it was a worthy goal .
6. The Board recommends to City Council that a new cost share method for properties removed
from the floodplain by a City capital project be created to reflect a portion of the benefit to that
property. (Vote : Unanimous in favor)
E. Stormwater Utility Fees
The Board acknowledged that it is difficult to make a recommendation on what the monthly fees
should be until after the Council deliberates on the TBL approach to Master Planning . The
following recommendations were then made concerning fees and Stormwater Capital Project
Investments :
7. The Board recommends to City Council that stormwater monthly fees be revisited following
the completion of the Stormwater Master Plan update. (Vote: Unanimous in favor)
8. The board recommends to City Council that Capital Project Investment be reduced to pay off
existing debt more quickly and staff do an analysis of what a realistic level of additional early
pay- off would be. ( Vote - Motion Failed: 6 NAYs, 4 YAYs)
4
Page 4 of 32
Fort Collins
Four members voting "nay" indicated that it' s not up to the Board to tell the City how to spend
its money. Another member voting Nay wanted to wait until the Master Plans are updated
before determining whether its time to reduce the debt. And the last "nay" vote was because the
member thought the City should have flexibility for using funds, especially for unknown events
in the future .
F. Floodplain Regulations
The city ' s floodplain regulations are very detailed and complex and have been modified multiple
times over the years . The Board chose to narrow its focus to several items of concern .
Under our current city rules, new residential and mixed use structures are not allowed in the 100-
year floodplain fringe of the Poudre River. This requirement was adopted for public safety
purposes to protect residents, especially while sleeping, in the event of a flood. Currently,
builders wishing to construct residential or mixed use structures in the floodplain can use a
loophole in city regulations that allows them to submit a Letter of Map Revision based on fill
(LOMR-Fill ) to FEMA. This loophole also allows the property owner to avoid flood insurance.
The Board discussed the dangers of allowing residential units in the floodplain and the issue of
allowing fill that would push the water elsewhere in the floodplain . The board voted
unanimously to recommend removing this loophole.
9. The Board recommends to City Council the Poudre River floodplain regulations b e revised to
not allow residential or mixed use structural development on LOMR-Fills. (Vote : Unanimous in
favor)
The Board then discussed the advisability of allowing any structures, commercial or other in the
Poudre River floodplain fringe . While the public safety exposure of sleeping residents might not
be a problem with commercial structures, some board members were still concerned that any
structures in the floodplain are at risk. The Chair mentioned the Army Corps of Engineers ' and
FEMA' s efforts over the years to preserve and restore the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains which include natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance and
groundwater recharge . She also noted that the Corps does not generally grant a fill permit when
a project will fill an existing 100-year floodplain to increase developable land .
It was acknowledged by board members that prohibiting all structures in the Poudre floodplain
might include bridges, trails, and other structures as well as commercial buildings and that the
impacts of such a change to the regulations would impact multiple landowners and would likely
require public outreach . After much discussion, the following motion was made which passed
unanimously.
2. The Board recommends to City Council that the Poudre River floodplain regulations be
studied to not allow structures in the 100-year floodplain. (Vote : Unanimous in favor)
The final floodplain regulation the board reviewed was the issue of the amount of Poudre River
floodway rise that could be allowed. City regulations used to allow only a 0. 1 foot rise in water
in the floodway as a result of fill being placed in the floodplain. In 2007, the Council changed
the rise to the higher value of 0. 5 ' in an effort to compromise with the County to reach
comparable floodplain regulations .
5
Page 5 of 32
City of
F6ft CO«ins
The issue was brought up again because of the stormwater repurposing effort. The effect of the
2007 increase in the allowable flood rise value allows fill that reduces the width and carrying
capacity of the floodplain . Staff explained that the wider the floodplain , the greater the benefits
from preserving the natural and beneficial functions of the floodway and fringe. A wide
floodplain better preserves the health of the riparian zone, allowing smaller sized particles to
flow onto the fringe, leaving the channel clearer and coarser for high flow events . Reducing the
floodplain by allowing a higher floodway rise confines the river and allows flood waters to flow
more rapidly through town , tending to do more damage to bridges and banks and posing a
greater threat to public safety.
While staff favors a possible change back to the 0. 1 foot floodway rise requirement, they
acknowledged that it would require some compromises be made. The board members indicated
support for returning the regulations back to the 0. 1 foot flood rise in order to better protect the
river floodplain and to preserve its natural functions .
3. The Board recommends to City Council the Poudre River Floodplain regulations be revised to
adopt a 0. 1 foot rise floodway. (Vote : 6 Yeas, 2 Nays)
Board members voting Nay did not wish to see the regulations change every two years or so and
one member stated he voted for it in 2006 and did not wish to change his vote now .
The Water Board appreciates the Council ' s interest and time to study the comprehensive re-
purposing of the Stormwater policies and regulations. I will be at the Work Session to answer
any questions the Council may have on our recommendations.
6
Page 6 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 4.23 .09 Approved Minutes
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Interim Water Engineering Manager Bob Smith, Stormwater Development Engineer
Basil Hamdan and Dr. Larry Roesner, professor from Colorado State University,
presented information on the Stormwater Best Management Practices review. The review
provides a systematic way to study a series of components which include improvement of
practices, water quality, Low Impact Development (LID) , the Center for Watershed
Protection (CAT) Benchmarking Tool and other focus areas . This review differs from the
process used to update the basin and master plans . The goal is to add water quality as a
best management practice and then address the improvement of water quality as an
update in the master plan.
Staff presented the first component, the CWP Benchmarking Tool, to the Engineering
Committee on 4/21 and are bringing to the entire Board at this meeting. The tool is
funded through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and widely used throughout
the industry. It is based on information collected from over 50 communities and uses a
series of questions to assess a community ' s stormwater program. A private consultant
was used to facilitate discussion with staff from Utilities, Natural Resources and
Planning.
Results were reviewed by Dr. Roesner. The purpose is to measure our progress in the
review of our best management practices . Dr. Roesner noted the contract in place to
review this information with the stormwater program. CSU is assisting the City in this
review to share ideas and compare programs . Innovative technology, facilities and
programs have been studied, and the process brings an entire spectrum of staff together
for improvement and partnering with local groups such as the Bohemian Foundation.
Examples of innovative technologies studied by the group are permeable concrete and
other porous materials. Materials like these manage the effect of rainfall on pavement and
provide a benefit with water quality and performance.
The process has resulted in five key recommendations :
• Develop a process to improve the overall stormwater program ;
• Focus on watershed planning;
• Establish a citizen review group ;
• Update the master plan to define best management practices - LID, including time
line, budget for changes and how they fit into our program; and
• Establish a long-term monitoring program, including impact and feedback.
The watershed planning group would be interdepartmental and long-term in nature, and
would be involved with stormwater issues and water quality. Costs and infrastructure are
involved. Council mandated to move forward with the watershed planning review group .
This group would seek representation across many areas of expertise, such as land and
natural resource experts . The results of their work will come back through the Water
Board.
Water Board Minutes 1
April 23 , 2009
Page 7 of 32
The citizen review group would be developed jointly with input from the Water Board
and the Stormwater department and focus on the citizen perspective . The formation of the
group would be limited and used for a specific period of time, perhaps six to nine months
for the review with staff and another ad hoc group for 12- 18 months . It would review the
work of the watershed planning group . The citizen review group could be made up from
other boards and/or community members with an interest in this subject.
The plan and review will be funded through the Stormwater Utility budget with funds
requested for the 2010-2011 budget cycle . The funding would be a continuation of the
Canal Importation Ponds and Outfall (CIPO) project, which will not see any new
construction until this master plan is in place.
Staff asked for a recommendation to Council stating the Water Board ' s approval of this
process .
Questions and comments of the Board:
Board Member Wockner has concerns about the consultants that were not considered,
because this was not only based on certain standards but is also a self assessment. Did
staff look at other consultants ?
The review is not solely about water quality, but also evaluates the processes taken and
the sources rather than focusing on an in-house assessment.
Board Member Connor requested clarification on the items for Council, the current
phase of the review, and the recommendation being sought. A review of the objectives
would be helpful.
Board Member Dornfest has concern that this is lacking the purpose, and would like to
see water quality as the goal and the objectives of the statements.
Board Member Gessler pointed out that the multi-disciplinary (watershed planning)
group is not a citizen review group; they are two separate things.
Motion ,
Board Member Wockner made a motion stating, "In order to improve the
Stormwater Water Quality Program, the Water Board adopts (supports) all five
recommendations as stated". Board Member Connor seconded the motion.
Discussion:
A friendly amendment was made to add "multi-disciplinary group".
A friendly amendment was made to add "recommended composition from the Water
Board" .
Water Board Minutes 2
April 23 , 2009
Page 8 of 32
A friendly amendment was made to add "provided staff returns with a recommendation
for the multi-disciplinary (watershed planning) group" .
Amended Motion .
The friendly amendments were accepted, and the newly amended motion reads,
"In order to improve the Stormwater Water Quality Program, the Water Board
supports all five recommendations as stated, provided staff returns to the Board
with a recommendation for the multi-disciplinary (watershed planning) group".
A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Janett would like to look at another item pertaining to this discussion related
to the Board' s need to look into the overall review process and whether the Board agrees
with the overall process . Does the Board wish to speak to the overall review process?
Motion :
Board Member Connor made a motion the Board requests additional
information from City Council on the goals and objectives of the overall review
and the priorities of the objectives. Board Member Brown seconded the motion.
Discussion:
A friendly amendment was made to add "to enable the Water Board to facilitate in this
process in order to be more responsive to Council ' s needs" .
Also, the memo stating the Council directives and listing the objectives was very hazy.
Should the memo be sent back to Council for clarification? The Board will add this to the
discussion part of the new memo to Council and ask that the goals be more concrete for
the master plan.
Amended Motion .
The friendly amendment was accepted, and the newly amended motion reads,
"The Water Board requests clarification from City Council about the priorities
of the goals and objectives of the Stormwater Program Review in order to be
more responsive to Council' s needs".
The vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.
Water Board Minutes 3
April 23 , 2009
Page 9 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 6.25.09 Approved Minutes
Stormwater Program Best Management Practice (BMP) Review
Basil Harridan, Stormwater Engineer, presented the Detention Pond
Construction/Landscaping Guidelines and Low Impact Development (LID)
Demonstration Projects .
Detention Pond Construction/Landscaping Guidelines :
The following guidelines were developed to provide direction in the design and
construction of detention ponds and other drainage facilities . The purpose of the
guidelines is to facilitate infiltration of runoff and enhance stormwater quality, increase
habitat value and plant conservation while increasing aesthetic appeal .
Stormwater staff started with a public outreach process to obtain information and
comments regarding the guidelines. The process steps will include :
• Formation of a steering group consisting of other departments like Planning and
Natural Resources, as well as designers and consultants ;
• Meeting with a stakeholders group of landscaping professionals and those who
maintain the detention ponds;
• Hosting a public open house for the community to share comments regarding the
guidelines ;
• Creating a draft document to encompass the main elements of the guidelines and
requirements;
• Sharing information with the Water Board;
• Conducting a second stakeholders meeting to gather reactions to the draft
document;
• Hosting a second public open house in July;
• Finalizing the document;
• Returning to the Water Board with an action item for recommendation in August;
and
• Presenting to City Council .
The guidelines contain the following recommendations :
• Disconnection of impervious surfaces;
• Encourage native planting to reduce irrigation needs for plantings to encourage
water conservation;
• Use of varied side slopes and undulating bottoms in detention ponds ;
• Encourage multi-use facilities ponds to be used for purposes other than detention;
and
• Improve aesthetics which add dimension and value to the community.
Examples of desired pond construction throughout Fort Collins make use of a more
natural habitat with no cement drain pans, and the landscaping improves the aesthetics
and value of the area. Ponds which bring water quickly into the ponds by using cement
pans, concrete walls and lack of filtration are less desirable.
Water Board Minutes 1
June 25 , 2009
Page 10 of 32
Stormwater would like recommendations and comments from the Water Board after
reviewing the draft, so feedback can be incorporated into the final document.
Discussion:
What are the current standards for development which call for some type of stormwater
construction ?
The current standard is geared toward volume to handle flooding. Stormwater staff would
like to see requirements in place that are not just based on volume, but also consider a
sense of development and value in terms of landscape, aesthetics and accessibility.
Was there a cost analysis done on this for developments ?
The information is based upon life cycle, not necessarily a cost analysis . The initial
investments represent the largest costs .
Is Parks represented on this committee ?
These guidelines are geared toward private facilities, not necessarily public facilities .
Are these guidelines followed on the Canal Importation and Ponds Outfall (CIPO)
project?
These standards are being exceeded at CIPO . These guidelines are already being
followed in the public sector; we are asking for the private sector to follow these.
Are landscaping berms being discouraged? Berms cause water to move faster; is this
part of the plan ?
This is a land use issue, and berms will be discussed this fall . They are not part of this
discussion.
Will this provide an incentive to reduce the volume of the ponds ?
That is part of the LID discussion.
Is there anything about this approach to minimize the size ?
The LID process addresses this. We are concentrating on use of open space.
Board Member Waskom believes that mosquitoes and West Nile Virus should be taken
into consideration. Staff noted wet areas are not required. Dry detention ponds that do not
involve standing water are an option.
Board Member Connor applauds the direction this is taking and would like to see the
final wording of the guidelines .
Vice Chairperson Balderson would like to see more work done on the maintenance
section of the draft document.
Water Board Minutes 2
June 25 , 2009
Page 11 of 32
Low Impact Development LID) Demonstration Projects
LID is a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the predevelopment
hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques to create a functionally
equivalent hydrologic landscape .
Three private sector projects were chosen to demonstrate this technique . They include the
Bohemian Foundation Offices in the Mitchell Block project currently under construction,
the CTL Thompson offices at 351 Linden, and the Odell Brewery Expansion at 800 E
Lincoln.
In order to create a partnership between public and private sectors, the City offered
incentives to pay 25 percent of additional costs if needed on these projects . These
projects will be monitored and data collected for run off, filtration, cost and maintenance.
We worked with the site developers in using the following features :
• Bohemian Foundation Offices (Mitchell Block)
Porous pavers, tree filter, and rain gardens
• CTL Thompson
Porous concrete pavement and disconnected downspouts
• Odell Brewery Expansion
Porous pavers and bio-retention
The Bohemian Foundation offices will use porous pavers to allow water to infiltrate the
sub stream; two different pavers will be tested on their site. Also, a tree filter will be put
in and sunken rain gardens on their site. Monitors will be in place at this site.
At CTL Thompson, the entrance to the building and their parking lot are being revamped,
and porous concrete pavement will be considered. The site contains two different
elevations, and two places will be monitored on this site to measure storm data.
The Odell Expansion site will be using impervious pavers throughout their new parking
area and truck yard. They will also have inverted islands, landscaping with native
materials and slopes . This site will also be monitored.
We have a three year contract with Colorado State University (CSU) for this study and
data collection. We are working with Dr. Roesner of CSU and his graduate students on
this project.
In regard to the porous concrete, are there any restrictions compared to regular
concrete ?
Regular concrete has voids which are filled, and the voids are not filled with porous
concrete, meaning the strength is decreased. Denver has had repeated failures, because it
is sensitive to placement and the time of year that it is placed. There are challenges with
this technology.
Water Board Minutes 3
June 25 , 2009
Page 12 of 32
Best Manaj4ement Practices (BMP) Citizen Review Committee and LID Policy Review
Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis presented information regarding the BMP
citizen review committee and LID policy review.
Utilities staff met with the Director of Planning and Development, Jeff Scheick, and the
Director of Advance Planning, Joe Frank, to figure out how we integrate with the City
Plan and the master plan. Opportunities in the past regarding conservation and LID were
not included in the City Plan.
Staff has been directed to move ahead with the City Plan and the citizen advisory
committees . Coordination at the staff level is underway throughout the City to
incorporate LID and BMP with this plan, using an inter-disciplinary approach. The
citizen review committee will study the overall plan including energy demand and water.
The anticipated timeline for completion is the end of 2009 . However, a year could be
added to this timeline if efforts are synchronized with the City Plan.
Water Board Minutes 4
June 25 , 2009
Page 13 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 7.23 .09 Approved Minutes
Stormwater Program Policy Review
Matt Fater, Special Projects Manager, presented an overview of the Stormwater Program
purpose statement. Last fall, Council requested a review of the purpose statement. Staff
solicited input from the Water Board, and the Board recommended an alternative
statement for Council ' s consideration and action (pending) . Staff will present on the
repurposing of the program to Council in December.
The proposed Stormwater Program purpose statement as recommended by the Board is :
"The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City ' s integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic, social and environmental benefits of
public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare while protecting natural
areas and their features, protecting and restoring the City ' s watersheds, its tributaries and
the Cache la Poudre River."
In regard to the guiding principles within the statement, Stormwater staff studied impacts
to determine how to effectively implement the intentions of the new purpose statement
and what direction to take the Stormwater Program. , such as the effect of urbanization
and development on our watersheds and streams, irrigation and the introduction of
pollutants into storm drains .
Lack of protection from these impacts has resulted in loss of habitat, water pollution and
flood hazards . Staff are working toward solutions and following the triple bottom line
approach of balancing solutions between social, economic and environmental factors.
Enhancement opportunities related to recreation, education, connection with nature and
pedestrian corridors represent social benefits . A reduction in the negative social impacts
of flood events such as loss of life, personal injury and emotional trauma is also a
priority.
Economic benefits include opportunities to develop amenity projects such as open space,
riparian corridors and parks .
Environmental benefits are related to improvement of water quality, stream restoration
and habitat protection. The environmental damage of flood events from raw sewage
overflows , mold, disease and solid waste disposal is a priority.
Stormwater staff is taking an integrated and holistic approach regarding land use,
education, engineering, ecology, construction and landscape design.
Staff will use the following concepts to achieve the goal of watershed protection :
• New development criteria;
• Erosion and sediment control;
• Pollution prevention; and
• Community education (K- 12 and adult learning) .
Water Board Minutes 1
July 23 , 2009
Page 14 of 32
Stream Habitat Assessment Presentation
Matt Fater, Special Projects Manager, and Dr. Larry Roesner, Colorado State University
(CSU), presented information regarding the stream habitat assessment currently
underway. Stream habitat assessment is part of our Stormwater Master Plan. Problems
are identified by looking at channel stability, habitat, and changes from flood damage and
erosion.
Ratings and features of streams currently being assessed (Boxelder Creek, Spring Creek,
Mail Creek and Fossil Creek) were reviewed with the Board. The assessment ratings
consider channel flow, sinuosity, riffle frequency, bank stability and vegetative
protection. Instream flow metrics may provide a basis for prioritizing stream segments
for rehabilitation or improvements .
Recent research in Seattle and at CSU reveal the stream metric, Tas , is an effective
indicator of stream health and is defined as the percent of time flow rate in the stream
exceeds the peak flow rate of the six month storm.
There are 148 measurable stream metrics, and the assessment project studied 40 of those
metrics .
Existing data will be collated, and the T&S values will be developed for the Fort Collins
streams . This data will be compared to the intensity of development, and a determination
can be made whether LID retrofit techniques in developed areas will improve the Tub
score. Variables are then entered into the habitat assessment score tables to determine
which streams are recommended for further study or analysis .
Water Board Minutes 2
July 23 , 2009
Page 15 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 8.27.09 Approved Minutes
Stormwater Program Review : Floodplain Regulations
Stormwater Civil Engineer Marsha Hilmes-Robinson presented information on floodplain
regulations . The purpose of floodplain regulations is to protect human health and safety,
protect new development, minimize increased flooding, reduce impact on community and
promote preservation of floodplain functions . The primary focus is health and safety. The
future of floodplain management will use a broader vision to evolve at all levels
including local, state and federal to keep history from repeating itself. The future of
floodplain administration in Fort Collins includes the 2009 draft Presidential executive
order, the draft 2009 State of Colorado rules and regulations, and a balanced vision to
protect community investments in public safety, promote sustainable development
practices, and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain functions. Essentially, all
components of administering floodplain regulations come together so a community can
accommodate peak flows without compromising public safety.
Stormwater Program Review : Level of Protection
Stormwater Civil Engineer Susan Duba Hayes presented information regarding the
Stormwater Master Plan. The purpose of master plans are to identify location and severity
of issues including issues with floodplains, stability and habitat, and to recommend
projects to reduce flood damage, guide new development to avoid new damages and
ensure compliance, to recommend habitat restoration and to serve as a guide for stream
stabilization. Fort Collins ' current level of protection is at a 100 year level; Council has
directed staff to use the 100 year level of protection when the benefits outweigh the costs.
Benefits include reduced damages to property and public facilities, and reduced
emergency response costs . Cost figures do not account for the value of lost or saved lives,
environmental impacts and development potential of land. The capital project
prioritization system for flood control projects must be part of an approved master plan,
and all flood control projects are ranked using three criteria: benefit to cost ratio, number
of structures removed from the floodplain, and number of streets overtoppings
eliminated.
Water Board Minutes 1
August 27, 2009
Page 16 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 9.24.09 Approved Minutes
Detention Pond and Landscape Guidelines
(Refer to first five slides of presentation, available upon request) .
Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Engineer, noted the board will be asked for a
recommendation on the Detention Pond and Landscape Guidelines at this meeting. The
information was originally presented at the June 25 meeting. The guidelines will also go
to the Planning and Zoning Board before adoption.
Discussion points :
• Some items in the draft guidelines represent the absolute minimum level of
steps needed to comply with the guidelines, and other items are actual
requirements .
• Flexibility is part of the process staff will use to work with property owners to
account for and work with site-specific conditions .
• Feedback from the public process and the boards will be incorporated into the
final document.
• The board suggested the title be changed to "Requirements and Guidelines" to
remove the sense that the guidelines are optional.
• Native grasses are encouraged in all applications, but can be varied when
necessary.
• Suppression of cattails was discussed.
• Active recreational areas can be multi-use, i.e. a playground with animal and
plant habitat. The developer is the party who pursues areas for recreational
use. The City can encourage designation for recreational areas in consulting
the Parks Master Plan.
• Board members asked staff to check on the difference between licensure
versus certification of landscape architects .
• The detention pond is designed at the time of building design. Staff have
previously had no authority to influence the process, but will serve as a
resource during the review under these new guidelines .
• All requirements will follow the recommendations of water conservation.
• Trickle channels may be looked at on a site-by-site basis .
Motion : Board Member Brown made a motion to revise the title to "Landscape
Design Standards and Guidelines" and support the direction staff is taking with
the work thus far on the detention landscaping. However, the Board wants to see
the final draft before they make a recommendation on these standards and
guidelines. Board Member Connor seconded the motion.
Discussion on the motion:
Guidelines will be presented to Council at a December or January work session, so staff
will bring the final draft of the guidelines back to the Board at the November 18 meeting.
Council ' s final approval of these guidelines will be part of their approval of the City Plan
update . The LID presentation concepts will also be incorporated into the final draft.
Water Board Minutes 1
September 24, 2009
Page 17 of 32
Q: How does disconnection of impervious areas (a LID component) relate? Removing
the pan will disconnect the areas . They support and compliment each other in achieving
infiltration.
Water Engineering and Field Services Manager Jon Haukaas recommended tabling this
until staff can bring a marked up version to the board.
A substitute motion to table this item was made by Board Member Waskom.
Board Member Gessler seconded the motion.
Vote on the substitute motion: 8 yeas, one nay (Connor) .
Reason for nay vote : Board Member Connor doesn' t see a reason to table it.
Water Board Minutes 2
September 24, 2009
Page 18 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 10.22 .09 Approved Minutes
Stormwater Program Review: Board' s Feedback for Council 12/8 Presentation
The goal of this discussion was to develop strategy and direction for sharing the Board ' s
feedback with Council on the various components of the Stormwater Program Review.
The Board recommended revisions to the Stormwater Program purpose statement earlier
this year, and a memo was sent to Council stating the revisions . Utilities Executive
Director Brian Janonis reported the majority of Council favored the recommended
revisions .
Stormwater Master Plans:
Staff led the Board through a discussion to determine whether additional values related to
a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) philosophy (social, environmental and economic
sustainability) should be added to staff s review and determination of which capital
improvement projects to proceed with. Public safety is the primary basis for the existence
of the stormwater program, and currently, these decisions are based upon a Benefits-to-
Cost (B-C) approach. Rates support the master plan, so if the Board wants to affect
stormwater rates, the policies which are part of the stormwater master plan must be
affected. Staff offered a list of questions to further define the Board' s decisions .
Does the Board want to add TBL components to determine which flood control and
stream enhancement projects are included in the Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program?
Board' s feedback:
• Specific measures and criteria associated with items are needed
• Safety should be paramount and belongs in a distinct category; it should not
be combined with the social aspect.
• The B-C approach has always created concern, since such a small ratio of
benefits to cost (e. g. , 1 . 00- 1 ) can influence a decision. These should be
considered together.
• Some of the qualitative items cannot be quantified.
• Was human safety not calculated in before?
Water Planning Manager Bob Smith responded. When calculating B-C, loss
of life is subjective. FEMA and other agencies have placed a value on a life
lost. However, determining the number of lives lost for a particular event is
hard to do . Mr. Janonis added the purpose of the stormwater program is to
protect health and safety of the community, and it is part of the Safe
Community budget results area.
Staff is very limited solely using the B-C ratio. There is no way to measure the financial
benefit of a stream restoration project, for example, but staff knows decision-making
needs to move in this direction. Water Engineering and Field Services Manager Jon
Haukaas added this would allow staff to use other criteria (social, environmental and
economic) when evaluating priorities and the considerations will vary for every project. It
is not possible in every case to develop a numerical metric .
Water Board Minutes 1
October 22, 2009
Page 19 of 32
Motion .
Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommend to City Council
that staff should change to using the triple bottom line (TBL) philosophy of
social, economic and environmental components to determine flood control and
stream enhancement projects. In this scenario, the numeric B-C ratio plays a
smaller role in determining capital projects, and projects can be recommended
based on factors without a numerical value. Board Member Gessler seconded the
motion.
Board Member Connor asked whether a friendly amendment would be considered to add
safety. The purpose is to add non-quantifiable consideration.
Discussion:
(Connor) : The motion is moving us in the right direction, but he will vote against it. He
would like to take it farther and is more comfortable with the motion stating "decisions
on whether to do capital projects are predicated solely on public safety", and other factors
become discussion items at best.
(Gessler) : Public safety is the reason the stormwater program exists, so this is already a
given.
(Connor) : He sees a disconnect; staff are making decisions based on other overarching
reasons .
(Janonis) : The City ' s NPDES permit includes water quality as a component of our
stormwater program.
(Pillard) : He suggested the general outline is developed, and the Board will have
additional opportunities to provide specific feedback.
(Waskom) : The proposed recommendation refers to the Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program, but the motion does not refer to this program.
(Connor) : The "what" and "how" of planning and decisions should be separated.
Vote on the motion: 9 yeas, 1 nay.
Reason for nay vote : Board Member Connor voted against the motion for the reason
stated above under discussion.
Chairperson Janett asked for other important statements the Board may elect to add as
additional concerns for Council ' s consideration at the 12/8 work session.
Motion .
Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommend to City Council
that staff research quantification of environmental benefits and costs, e.g. stream
protection or enhancement, habitat or open space loss, wetlands protection or
enhancement, and stream preservation or restoration. Board Member Gessler
seconded the motion.
Water Board Minutes 2
October 22, 2009
Page 20 of 32
Discussion:
Master Planning Manager Susan Hayes noted staff is having a difficult time quantifying
environmental and social aspects of projects . If the Board ' s recommendation is to add
consideration of TBL elements, but ask staff to quantify everything, these two approaches
are at cross purposes . A TBL philosophy gives environmental aspects more weight than
staff have been able to prove in a B-C analysis . Mr. Haukaas added that if staff sees
something is close, the TBL approach would allow staff to consider non-monetary
considerations that may not meet the B-C analysis.
(Gessler) : He would like to eliminate "and costs". The reason we would consider adding
a TBL philosophy is to account for aspects which cannot be quantified in monetary
terms .
Board Member Pillard asked whether a friendly amendment would be considered to
change the wording to "research appropriate and applicable methods" for evaluating
environmental and social benefits .
Should social be added to the motion?
Board Member Wockner agreed to the friendly amendments to add social, remove "and
costs", change "quantification" to "appropriate and applicable methods" and leave the
items listed as examples out.
Amended motion .
Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommend to City Council
that staff should research appropriate and applicable methodologies for
evaluating the social and environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of
capital projects. Board Member Gessler seconded the amended motion.
The vote on the motion was unanimous .
Motion .
Board Member Connor moved the Water Board recommend to City Council that
staff should revise the B-C ratio criteria. Board Member Wockner seconded the
motion.
Board Member Dornfest asked whether a friendly amendment would be considered to
change "revise" to "evaluate the B-C ratio criteria as part of the TBL approach" . Board
Member Connor accepted the friendly amendment.
Amended Motion :
Board Member Connor moved the Water Board recommend to City Council that
staff should evaluate the B-C ratio criteria as part of the TBL approach.
The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Water Board Minutes 3
October 22, 2009
Page 21 of 32
Level of Protection:
Level of Protection (LOP) deals with two components, existing properties and new
development. New development must meet the 100-year floodplain design criteria. Other
LOP considerations apply to capital projects to protect existing properties and capital
projects are recommended as long as benefits outweigh costs. These are separated in the
City Code.
Prior to the 1997 flood, master plans were in place for LOP at the 100-year level. Council
asked staff to evaluate the 50-year level of protection. This was provided to Council who
evaluated the information and opted to stay with the 100-year level. Stormwater projects
were being funded prior to the 1997 flood, but funding was limited by basin, so progress
on capital projects was going very slowly. After the 1997 flood, a policy was adopted on
funding for projects citywide, so there has been a significant increase in activity.
At the September 24 meeting, the Board requested information from staff on high flow
events which would not incorporate consideration for property damage.
Motion .
Board Member Connor moved the Water Board recommend to City Council that
guidelines to use for Level of Protection when making capital construction
decisions are based on high flow events. This represents a change, because it
places less emphasis on the weighting of property damage. Board Member
Pillard seconded the motion.
Discussion:
(Dornfest) : She asked for clarification as to whether the motion to change LOP would
place emphasis on safety and remove the lower level flow events .
(Brown) : The emphasis of not protecting private property could be assessed in the TBL
analysis, during which it could be stated that private property protection is weighted at a
lower level.
(Waskom) : Developers must know the level of protection to build to as well. He won 't
support the motion. City Code provides 100 year level of protection. *
(Haukaas) : He confirmed one LOP must be applied, and developers must know which
level to build to . Fort Collins is fortunate to have funding to offer higher levels of
protection. Some communities can only apply a two year level of protection, for example,
due to lack of funding.
Vote on the motion: 1 yea, 9 nays .
Seven board members (Gessler, Dornfest, Janett, Phelan, Pillard, Waskom, and
Balderson) noted the reason for their nay votes to be they are satisfied with the 100-year
Level of Protection in the code.
Board Member Wockner stated the reason for his nay vote was that the motion gets at
something already adequately reflected in previous motions, which get at the Triple
Bottom Line philosophy.
Water Board Minutes 4
October 22, 2009
Page 22 of 32
Board Member Brown stated the reason for his nay vote was he would like to define a
specific Level of Protection.
A question was asked whether we should continue to spend capital dollars to bring the
Old Town area to the 100-year Level of Protection, or make the choice to keep it at the
50-year level . Staff noted that by using the Triple Bottom Line approach and based on
forthcoming details, consideration will be given whether to move forward with those
projects . Staff noted some master planned projects were already in place when the 1997
flood occurred. These facilities were analyzed for capacity, and those where the flows
were within the freeboard of the project were not chosen for upgrading.
Stream Corridor Enhancements:
Right now, stream corridor enhancements are only done if they are beside a capital
project. Should staff change the approach to look at the entire stream system as part of
the TBL analysis? Citizens benefit from these enhancements through improved
conditions for habitat and use. Concern was expressed about the potential costs for
enhancing entire stream corridors .
Motion .
Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommend to City Council
that entire stream corridor enhancements can be funded by the Stormwater
Capital Improvement Program based on prioritization through TBL analysis.
Board Member Waskom seconded the motion.
Discussion:
(Connor) : Most of the current debt in the Water Utilities exists in the stormwater area,
and he does not want this to be viewed as encouraging more spending.
(Janett) : She asked if a stream enhancement emerges as a high priority through the TBL
analysis, whether it' s eligible for capital funding. Staff noted this is where the TBL
analysis would come in. If it had a high ranking, then it would be funded. Determining
which project to do first would be part of the public outreach process .
Board Member Dornfest asked whether a friendly amendment would be considered to
change "entire" to "partial or entire". Board Member Wockner accepted the friendly
amendment.
Amended Motion .
Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommend to City Council
that partial or entire stream corridor enhancements can be funded by the
Stormwater Capital Improvement Program based on prioritization through TBL
analysis.
The vote on the motion was unanimous .
Water Board Minutes 5
October 22, 2009
Page 23 of 32
Rates:
Motion :
Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommend to City Council
that a new cost share method for properties removed from the floodplain by a
City capital project be created to reflect a portion of the benefit to that property.
Board Member Gessler seconded the motion.
Discussion:
This concept is totally new. Staff has not been able to find any peer Front Range utilities
that currently do use a cost-sharing approach. Before this would be implemented, there
would be a public outreach process.
(Pillard) : He agrees philosophically, but questions where this positions the City relative
to new businesses and business-friendly priorities . Would this add to the cost of their
development? (Janonis) : It depends on whether they are on a property that is being
removed from a floodplain.
(Gessler) : This seems like a reasonable idea, but perhaps not possible to do.
The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Stormwater Monthly Fees:
If monthly fees are not re-evaluated, they continue to come in. The master plan will be
updated, and staff asked whether the Board would like the fees revisited upon the
completion of the master plan update.
Motion :
Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommend to City Council
that stormwater monthly fees be revisited following the completion of the
Stormwater Master Plan update. Board Member Gessler seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Staff noted once the master plan is finalized, staff will study how projects are financed,
what the project is designed to accomplish and the timeline . Mr. Janonis noted this was
discussed at the last Council work session. The program is designed to operate so that all
operations and maintenance (O&M) is funded first, and then any proceeds left are
designated for the capital projects . There is about $3 million per year, which leads to a 35
year build out, but if Council decides to use some of the funds for other purposes, there
will be less left for capital projects .
The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Water Board Minutes 6
October 22, 2009
Page 24 of 32
Motion .
Board Member Connor moved the Water Board recommend to City Council that
Capital Project Investment be reduced to pay off existing debt more quickly and
staff do an analysis of what a realistic level of additional early pay-off would be.
Board Member Wockner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
(Wockner) : Is there only an issue with debt when building a capital project? Staff
responded that issued bonds designate what the funds can be used for. Capital Project
Investment is part of monthly fees and plant investment fees (PIFs) . Council has already
stated there is to be no more new debt to finance stormwater improvements. Staff already
has the flexibility to pay off debt earlier.
A friendly amendment was discussed, but it was decided the motion as stated already
contains the desired flexibility.
Vote on the motion: 4 yeas, 6 nays
Nay : Gessler, Dornfest, Pillard, Waskom, Balderson and Janett
Reasons for nay votes :
Four board members (Gessler, Dornfest, Waskom and Balderson) voted against the
motion as they feel it ' s not up to the Board to tell the City how to spend its money.
Board Member Janett voted against the motion, because she would like to see what
happens with master planning project changes before determining whether to reduce the
debt.
Board Member Pillard would like the flexibility for utilizing funds when necessary,
especially for unknown events in the future, and not place an undue burden on staff to ask
them to develop an accelerated repayment analysis .
Flood
plain Regulations:
Pended to the November 18 meeting.
Water Board Minutes 7
October 22, 2009
Page 25 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 11 .20.08 Approved Minutes
Stormwater Program Mission Statement
At the October 14, 2008 Work Session, Council indicated the Stormwater program
needed a new mission statement to reflect a 215t Century Utility and a greater
environmental emphasis .
The existing purpose statement is in Sec . 26-492 of City Code. Staff produced several
draft purpose statements and presented the latest draft to the Water Board.
Recommended purpose statement:
"The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of a
holistic stormwater management program to protect and restore the City' s
watersheds, streams and the Cache la Poudre River for the mutual economic,
social, and environmental benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water
quality, habitat protection and public welfare."
Staff asked Water Board for a recommendation to City Council, who will consider this
item on December 16th
Discussion:
The proposed purpose statement does not mention floodplain and riparian corridor
preservation ?
While not mentioned specifically, the wording "protect and restore the City' s . . . streams
. . . for. . . environmental benefits (and) habitat protection" imply a very similar meaning.
Please keep in mind that this is a very broad and high level purpose statement. The finer
details of implementing this purpose statement will be considered by staff and City
Council (with input from Water Board) in the first quarter of 2009 .
The statement uses the words 'flood mitigation ". Shouldn 't we be trying to prevent
floods ?
The City cannot prevent floods . We can however, reduce the risk. In that sense, mitigate
is a more accurate term. We try to raise awareness and prefer to use the term "mitigate"
instead of "prevent", because floods cannot be prevented or predicted.
Does this statement reflect the desire of City Council?
Staff does believe the proposed statement reflects the desire of City Council . As
independent advisors to City Council, the Water Board certainly does not have to agree
with something just because they think it is what City Council wants .
After discussion and review of the various drafts provided by staff, Water Board
indicated a preference for the alternate statement #5 which reads :
"The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City' s integrated
stormwater management program is for the mutual economic, social and
Water Board Minutes 1
November 20, 2008
Page 26 of 32
environmental benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water quality, habitat
protection and public welfare while being sensitive to natural areas and their
features, protects and restores the City' s watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache
la Poudre River. "
Motion : A motion was made that the Water Board recommend alternate #5 as
the statement of purpose for the Stormwater program.
Friendly Amendment:
Would like to remove "sensitive" and replace with "protect" and list public safety first
before flood mitigation.
Amended Motion : A motion was made that the Water Board recommend
alternate #5 with revisions as the statement of purpose for the Stormwater
program.
Friendly Amendment:
Would like to remove "habitat protection", because it also reads to protect natural areas
and its features .
The revised purpose statement for vote of the Water Board reads as follows :
"The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City ' s integrated
stormwater management program is for the mutual economic, social and
environmental benefits of public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public
welfare while protecting natural areas and their features, protecting and restoring
the City' s watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache la Poudre River."
Motion to recommend the revised purpose statement for Stormwater to Council.
A vote was taken, and it passed unanimously.
Water Board Minutes 2
November 20, 2008
Page 27 of 32
Excerpt from Water Board 11 . 18.09 Draft Minutes
Stormwater Program Review
Motion : Vice Chairperson Balderson moved that the Board untable the
Detention Pond Design and Landscape Standards from the September 24
meeting for the purpose of bringing them before the Board for discussion and
action. Board Member Connor seconded the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Chairperson Janett introduced the topic by reminding the Board that the Landscape
Guidelines had been reviewed at the September 24 meeting following the public outreach
process, but before the document was amended to include changes as a result of the
outreach. At that time, the Board decided to table the item in September and revisit it at
the November meeting, so the Board could review the amendments . Chairperson Janett
thanked staff for making the changes visible in red, which made it easy to detect the
amendments .
Detention Pond Design and Landscape Standards Final Draft — Basil Hamdan,
Stormwater Engineer:
The final draft of the standards was presented to the Board and incorporates the latest
comments received during the Board ' s review at the September meeting, including a
change from "guidelines" to "standards" to indicate more clearly that these are not
optional in nature. An administrative variance procedure was added and a requirement for
landscape architects to be licensed was removed. Other minor changes were also made.
Board members asked for clarification on the following items :
• Wall height of 30 inches and placement of walls when terracing.
The 30 inches include finished wall area only.
• Low slopes. Staff would like to encourage disconnection from impervious
structures where possible .
• Adding four inches of topsoil over areas to be planted. Does "planted" include
drill seeding for disturbed areas? Seedingis for all disturbed areas .
There are requirements for soil amendments currently within our criteria.
Does this apply to only the area within the top edge and below of the
detention or also the perimeter? It applies wherever planting will be done.
There are a number of sites where adding four inches of imported topsoil
would not be typical of the area, such as industrial sites . Topsoil can be placed
over the top of disturbed areas, such as utilities corridors . This creates a
different vegetation look. Where does this stop? This will be site-specific.
• Access when mowing; ruts form when mowing over moist soil . Grass plants
are offered as an option under guidelines ; they are not a requirement. These
standards and guidelines provide a vision, while realizing some cases will
require flexibilitX.
Draft Water Board Minutes 1
November 18 , 2009
Page 28 of 32
How will tall grasses be handled? There could be an exemption from mowing
in low flow areas where wetland ,growth is encouraged. A City process for
designating a natural area through the Natural Resources department is also an
option.
Chairperson Janett noted the history of complaints in the community about the many
rounds ordinarily required to complete the development review process. Staff noted that
having these standards and guidelines in place should provide more guidance from the
outset of the development process and hopefully streamline the process .
Motion : Board Member Connor moved the Water Board recommends to City
Council approval of the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for
Stormwater Detention Facilities. Board Member Brown seconded the motion.
There was no further discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed
unanimously.
Floodplain Regulations — Marsha Hilmes-Robinson and Brian Varrella, Floodplain
Administrators:
Chairperson Janett noted two items related to floodplain regulations before the Board
today for consideration. The first is whether new residential and mixed-use structures
should be allowed in the 100-year floodplain fringe. City rules currently state these
structures are not allowed. However, developers/land owners can go through a
FEMA/LOMR-Fill process, essentially creating an "end run" to City rules. The Board
should consider its interest in eliminating this loophole .
The second item relates to a potential decision to change the 0 . 5 -ft. rise floodway back to
a 0 . 1 -ft. rise floodway. Chairperson Janett referred to an October, 2006, agenda when
staff sought a change from the 0 . 1 -ft. rise floodway to a 0 . 5 -ft. rise floodway to align with
the County ' s guideline. As a result, the City relaxed its standards and adopted the 0 . 5 -ft.
rise floodway. Since the Board is engaged in a repurposing review of the Stormwater
program, it seems appropriate to reconsider this .
LOAM-Fill loophole Ms. Hilmes-Robinson : Unless a developer goes through the FEMA
process on LOMR-Fills, our City rules prohibit residential and mixed-use structures in
the flood fringe. However, many developers pursue this course of action primarily as a
means to eliminate the flood insurance requirement. The City has the authority to close
this loophole; FEMA encourages communities to adopt higher standards, and in the
current process, City staff must sign off on LOMR-Fill applications .
Staff described some of the challenges associated with administering the guidelines and
managing the loophole issue. Structures in our growth management area outside City
limits are not subject to this requirement. A particularly difficult scenario occurs when a
developer receives building permit approval through the County, then annexes into the
City before the building is built. The building project then comes under the City
guidelines .
Draft Water Board Minutes 2
November 18 , 2009
Page 29 of 32
The guidelines apply to residential and mixed-use properties due to the life safety aspect.
Access, fill erosion around structures, and the sleeping component are issues behind why
it applies to residential and not commercial. Right now, commercial structures are
allowed in the flood fringe . Staff added the fill process by developers is limited and does
not channelize the water, but causes other impacts elsewhere in the floodplain.
The Board discussed the possibility of prohibiting commercial structures in the floodplain
and the potential implications of such a change to the floodplain regulations . Non-
residential structures have an additional option to use flood proofing techniques .
If Council were to approve this change, following the completion of the public outreach
process, the section of City Code related to LOMR-Fills would be amended.
Motion : Board Member Brown moved the Water Board recommends to City
Council the Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow
residential or mixed use structural development on LOMR-Fills. Board Member
Connor seconded the motion.
Discussion the motion:
Janett: There is a natural and beneficial value of floodplains, as well as great value to be
gained in restoring them to their natural state (referring to an Army Corps of Engineers
executive order which has discouraged building in floodplains for decades) .
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Motion : Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board recommends to City
Council the Poudre River floodplain regulations be studied to not allow
commercial structures in the 100-year floodplain. Board Member Connor
seconded the motion.
Staff noted the opportunity for the Board to consider the policy issues related to the
capital project component, which is not part of the floodplain regulations .
Discussion on the motion:
Board members asked how this change would apply to bridges, trails and parks . Utilities
Executive Director Brian Janonis responded that Council desires to protect the 100-year
floodplain, and this intent does not translate to mean bridges, trails or parks should not be
allowed in the floodplain. Development is the concern, as it impacts the riparian corridor.
Three areas most affected by this change were noted: College Avenue and Vine Drive
where redevelopment would be restricted; the Lincoln Greens area; if the area south of
Mulberry Road was to annex, redevelopment would be restricted; and the area south of
Harmony Road. Modification to the floodplain through channelization or fill is another
step in the process of restricting.
Draft Water Board Minutes 3
November 18 , 2009
Page 30 of 32
Brown : This effort is more likely to be successful if the focus remains on excluding
commercial structural development than if the motion includes all elements, i. e . parking
lots, detention ponds, etc .
Balderson : Quite a few commercial properties in these areas would not be allowed to
redevelop if this change was made, and it causes concern about creating a "blight"
situation for the future. He favors not continuing to build, but disallowing redevelopment
is a serious consideration. Staff noted more amendments could be made to address such
concerns in the future, and the City has purchased some properties in the floodplain
through a "willing buyer/willing seller" program. Council has the option to expand this
practice .
Board Member Connor suggested a friendly amendment to remove the word
"commercial" from the motion. Board Member Wockner accepted the friendly
amendment.
Amended Motion : Board Member Wockner moved the Water Board
recommends to City Council the Poudre River floodplain regulations be studied
to not allow structures in the 100-year floodplain. Board Member Connor
seconded the motion.
Discussion on the amended motion :
Connor: He would like to use a stronger word than "studied".
Balderson : He would not support a statement to prohibit building anything in the
floodplain as yet.
Janett: She feels it is important to get the first recommendation on the loophole through
without adding too many other restrictions to complicate Council ' s decision. Board
members can also express their stronger sense on this issue for the record in the minutes .
If Council accepts the recommendation, it would come back to the Board.
Dornfest: She favors staying with the term "studied" in the motion.
Gessler: He also supports the "studied" version.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Change from 0. S ft rise floodway to 0. 1 ft rise floodway Mr. Varrella:
Consideration of this issue relates to existing homes already near the floodplain, not
necessarily in the floodplain. The LOMR-Fill loophole the Board just opted to
recommend removing alleviates much of this concern. Staff demonstrated the 0 . 5 -ft. rise
floodway and the 0 . 1 -ft. rise floodway on the Poudre River floodplain map, using the 1
percent annual chance ( 100-year) storm event as a model. When fill is lowered, it
effectively reduces the size of the flood fringe, which is typically the area targeted for
development. A reduced flood fringe results in a wider area reserved by the community
for natural and beneficial functions , such as preserving the health of the riparian zone .
Also, smaller sized particles flow into the overbank, so the channel flow becomes clearer
and coarser, which are all benefits similar to those of high flow events. It' s also important
Draft Water Board Minutes 4
November 18 , 2009
Page 31 of 32
to consider the detriments this change causes for property owners and other concerns that
will come with implied restrictions on development.
Board members questioned whether this type of change has an effect on the speed of
water. Staff responded it does increase water speed. When a river is confined, it must
move water through town faster and tends to do more damage to bridges and overbanks,
and poses more of a threat to life safety.
Motion : Board Member Connor moved the Water Board recommends to City
Council the Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0. 1 -ft rise
floodway. Board Member Wockner seconded the motion.
Discussion on the motion:
Gessler: He opposes changing the rules every two years and expressed concern with the
loss of credibility gained from changing this again. He asked for a statement of where
staff stands on the issue . Staff responded about their 2006 request to modify it from a 0 . 1 -
ft. rise floodway to a 0 . 5 -ft. rise floodway. At the time, given all the considerations with
having a different guideline than the County' s, they felt they had a good reason for
recommending the change. From a floodplain administration perspective, however, staff
favors this change back to a 0 . 1 -ft. rise floodway, although they recognize there are
compromises to be made . A Triple Bottom Line analysis will be done on this decision to
consider environmental, social and economic impacts.
Wockner: He supports the motion and would like to push it forward for Council ' s
consideration as the decision makers.
Phelan : He asked a question about non-conforming structures . Staff noted they can exist
as is until the owner applies to make a change (redevelopment, change of use, etc .) . At
that point, the guidelines would apply.
Vote on the motion: Yeas — 6 ; Nays — 2 (Board Members Gessler and Balderson)
Reason for nay votes : Board Member Gessler noted his reason for opposing above (see
discussion) . Board Member Balderson agreed with Board Member Gessler' s reason, and
added that he voted in favor of the change in 2006 and doesn 't wish to change his vote
back now.
Draft Water Board Minutes 5
November 18 , 2009
Page 32 of 32
� TTACHMENT /'
Staff Briefing Memorandums :
December 18 , 2008 , February 6 , 2009 ,
and September 22 , 2009
Utilities 1ATTACHMENT 3
City/ of electric stormwater wastewater water
J 700 Wood St.
Fort Collins PO rBox580
Fort Collins , CO 80522
970,221 ,6700
970 . 221 .6619 fax 970, 224.6003 TDD
utllities@fcgov. com fcgov. com/utilities
Memorandum
DATE : December 18, 2008
TO : Mayor Hutchinson and Members of City Council
THRU : Darin Atteberry — City Manager
Brian Janonis — Utilities Executive Director
)fO/
FROM : Jim Hibbard — Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager
Matt Fater — Special Projects Manager
RE : Revision to the Stormwater Utility Purpose Statement
Background
At the October 14, 2008 Council Work Session, City Council directed staff to revise the
Stormwater Utility purpose statement as part of a comprehensive review of the
Stormwater Utility. Feedback from City Council indicated the need for a greater
environmental emphasis and incorporation of "21 " Century Utility" concepts .
Originally scheduled for Council discussion December 16, the leadership team requested
staff prepare a memorandum to Council to solicit their feedback on the proposed
Stormwater Utility purpose statement. If Council ' s feedback is positive, the item will be
scheduled on the consent calendar in the near future. If more discussion is needed, a
work session is scheduled for January 13 .
Basis of the Proposed Statement
Based on the feedback from City Council , state of the art practices in stormwater
management, and the City ' s sustainability values, staff developed the following three
concepts as a basis for a revised Stormwater Utility purpose statement .
1 . Protect and Restore our Watersheds and Streams - The majority of flood
damage and water quality problems are the result of previous development
practices in some areas of the city not preserving our watersheds and natural
waterways. Flood damage problems have been created by neglecting natural flow
paths through the city and exacerbated by the introduction of impervious surfaces.
Furthermore, water quality has decreased because of the increased concentration
and volume of stormwater runoff and the introduction of pollutants to the
watershed, a result of previous practices in urban development. In summary, the
Page 1 of 27
natural system of the watershed was not sufficiently accounted for during the
development of certain areas of the City. Understanding that the root cause of
flood damage and water quality problems are the result of development not
accounting for the natural watershed system, then the solution becomes to focus
on protecting and restoring our watersheds and streams. The concept is that if the
City works to protect and restore our natural watershed system, then the
community and the environment receive the benefit of reduced flood damage and
improved water quality.
2 . A Holistic/Integrated Approach - As with any natural system, a
holistic/integrated approach should be used to protect and restore our watersheds
and streams. This approach uses a wide variety of disciplines (such as : land use
policy, education, engineering, ecology, construction, landscape design, and land
conservation) that compliment one another with the goal of protecting and
restoring the natural watershed system.
3 . Triple Bottom Line Analysis - Recognizing the stormwater program must also
be socially and economically responsible, the protection and restoration of the
natural watershed system must occur such that the benefits exceed the costs in
terms of the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line is an emerging concept in
the practice of sustainability that works to optimize a business ' s environmental,
social, and economic considerations. A stormwater program focused on the
protection and restoration of our watersheds and streams has the potential to
benefit a community' s triple bottom line. For example, a restored stream corridor
has the opportunity to become a multi-purpose urban amenity as an open space
and habitat corridor as well as a flood conveyance system.
The following discussion highlights some of the potential triple bottom line benefits of a
stormwater program :
Environmental :
• Environmental enhancement opportunities related to improving water quality,
stream restoration, and habitat protection.
• Reduced environmental damage of flood events : raw sewage overflows, mold,
disease, and solid waste disposal.
Social :
• Social enhancement opportunities related to public recreation, education,
connection with nature, and pedestrian corridors.
• Reduced social impacts of flood events: loss of life, personal injury, and
emotional trauma.
Economic :
• Economic opportunities related to developing stormwater projects as urban
amenities (open space, riparian corridors, and parks) that improve the City' s
quality of life.
2
Page 2 of 27
• Reduced economic costs of flood events : structure and content damage,
transportation obstructions, cleanup and repair, and emergency response.
Proposed Purpose Statement
Using the guiding concepts of.
• protect and restore our watersheds and streams,
• develop a holistic/integrated program, and
• focus on the benefits of the triple bottom line,
the following Stormwater Utility Purpose Statement is proposed by staff:
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of a holistic
stormwater management program to protect and restore the City 's watersheds, streams
and the Cache la Poudre River for the mutual economic, social, and environmental
benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water quality, habitat protection, and public
welfare.
A list of the draft statements considered as staff progressed from the existing purpose
statement to the staff recommendation is Attachment 1 .
On November 20, 2008, Water Board considered this issue. After discussion and review,
Water Board indicated a preference for Alternative #5 from the list of draft statements.
After more discussion, Water Board made several wording changes and unanimously
voted to recommend the following Stormwater Utility Purpose Statement (Alternative 7
on Attachment 1 ):
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City 's integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic, social and environmental benefits of
public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare while protecting natural
areas and their features, protecting and restoring the City 's watersheds, its tributaries
and the Cache la Poudre River.
An excerpt of the draft Water Board minutes is Attachment 2 . In general, the Water
Board felt the core purpose of the stormwater utility was public safety and their
recommendation had more emphasis on that when compared to the staff
recommendation.
For comparison purposes, the existing Stormwater Utility Purpose Statement is also listed
on Attachment 1 .
3
Page 3 of 27
Recommendation
Staff recommends the adoption of the staff recommendation. However, because both the
staff recommendation and the Water Board recommendation incorporate the three
guiding concepts and much of the wording is similar, staff can support either.
Feedback Needed and Next SteMs
Staff would like to know if either the staff or Water Board recommended proposed
Stormwater Utility Purpose Statements should be scheduled for consent calendar
consideration and if so, which one. If not, what additional feedback does Council have
for staff?
The purpose statement is the first step of the comprehensive review of the Stormwater
Utility requested by City Council. Staff has been and will continue to work on the other
issues identified at the October 14, 2008 Work Session. Due to the crowded Council
Agenda between now and March 31 , 2009, these issues will be considered by City
Council after April 1 , 2009 . Staff will prepare a status report on all items related to the
stormwater program review for distribution to City Council by the first week in January
2009. That report will include a projected timeline for consideration of the various
elements of the program review so City Council will be aware of when to expect future
study sessions and action items.
4
Page 4 of 27
Attachment 1
Draft Purpose Statements
Existing Statement (Sec. 26=492. Declaration of purpose)
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of providing
stormwater facilities for the drainage and control of flood and surface waters within the
City, including areas to be subdivided and developed, in order that storm and surface
waters may be properly drained and controlled, pollution may be reduced and the
environment enhanced and that the health, property, safety and welfare of the City and its
inhabitants may be safeguarded and protected.
Alternative # 1
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of an integrated
stormwater management program for the protection and restoration of the City' s
watersheds and waterways ; and for providing stormwater facilities for the conveyance of
flood and surface waters within the City, in order that storm and surface water may be
properly drained, pollution may be reduced and the environment enhanced and that the
health, property, safety and welfare of the City, its inhabitants, and the natural
environment may be safeguarded and protected.
Alternative #2
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of an integrated
stormwater management program for the protection of the environmental and economic
health of the community through holistic solutions with the mutual benefits of flood
mitigation, public safety, water quality, habitat protection, and public welfare.
Alternative #3
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of an integrated
stormwater management program for the protection and restoration of the City' s
watersheds, tributaries, receiving waters, and the Cache La Poudre River for the mutual
economic, social, and environmental benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water
quality, habitat protection, and public welfare.
Alternaive #4
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of an integrated
stormwater management program that uses holistic methods to protect and restore the
City's watersheds, tributaries, receiving waters, and the Cache La Poudre River for the
mutual economic, social, and environmental benefits of flood mitigation, public safety,
water quality, habitat protection, and public welfare.
1
Page 5 of 27
Alternative #5
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City' s integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic, social, and environmental benefits of
flood mitigation, public safety, water quality, habitat protection, and public welfare while
being sensitive to natural areas and their features, protects and restores the City's
watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache la Poudre River.
Alternative #6 (Staff Recommendation)
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of a holistic
stormwater management program to protect and restore the City's watersheds, streams
and the Cache la Poudre River for the mutual economic, social, and environmental
benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water quality, habitat protection, and public
welfare.
Alternative #7 (Water Board Recommendation)
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City' s integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic, social and environmental benefits of
public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare while protecting natural
areas and their features, protecting and restoring the City' s watersheds, its tributaries and
the Cache la Poudre River.
Page 6 of 27
Attachment 2
Excerpt-Draft Water Board Minutes, November 20, 2008
Meagan Peil, Board Secretary
Stormwater Proaram Mission Statement
At the October 14, 2008 work session, Council indicated the stormwater program needed
a new mission statement to reflect a 21st Century Utility and a greater environmental
emphasis.
The existing purpose statement is in Sec. 26-492 of City Code. Staff produced several
draft purpose statements and presented the latest draft to the Water Board.
Recommended purpose statement:
"The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of a
holistic stormwater management program to protect and restore the City' s
watersheds, streams and the Cache la Poudre River for the mutual economic,
social, and environmental benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water
quality, habitat protection and public welfare."
Staff asked Water Board for a recommendation to City Council, who will consider this
item on December 16th
Discussion.•
The proposed purpose statement does not mention floodplain and riparian corridor
preservation ?
While not mentioned specifically, the wording "protect and restore the City' s . . . streams
for. . . environmental benefits (and) habitat protection" imply a very similar meaning.
Please keep in mind that this is a very broad and high level purpose statement. The finer
details of implementing this purpose statement will be considered by staff and City
Council (with input from Water Board) in the first quarter of 2009.
The statement uses the words "flood mitigation " Shouldn 't we be trying to prevent
floods ?
The City cannot prevent floods. We can however, reduce the risk. In that sense, mitigate
is a more accurate term. We try to raise awareness and prefer to use the term mitigate
instead of prevent, because floods cannot be prevented or predicted.
Does this statement reflect the desire of City Council?
Staff does believe the proposed statement reflects the desire of City Council. As
independent advisors to City Council, the Water Board certainly does not have to agree
with something just because they think it is what City Council wants.
After discussion and review of the various drafts provided by staff, Water Board
indicated a preference for the alternate statement #5 which reads :
Page 7 of 27
"The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City' s integrated
stormwater management program is for the mutual economic, social and
environmental benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water quality, habitat
protection and public welfare while being sensitive to natural areas and their
features, protects and restores the City' s watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache
la Poudre River."
A motion was made that the Water Board recommend alternate # 5 as the statement of
purpose for the Stormwater program.
Friendly Amendment:
Would like to remove "sensitive" and replace with "protect" and list public safety first
before flood mitigation.
A motion was made that the Water Board recommend alternative #5 with revisions as the
statement of purpose for the Stormwater program.
Friendly Amendment:
Would like to remove "habitat protection", because it also reads to protect natural areas
and its features.
The revised purpose statement for vote of the Water Board reads as follows :
"The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City' s integrated
stormwater management program is for the mutual economic, social and
environmental benefits of public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public
welfare while protecting natural areas and their features, protecting and restoring
the City' s watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache la Poudre River."
Motion to recommend the revised purpose statement for Stormwater to Council.
Vote : 9 for, 0 against. Motion passed.
Page 8 of 27
r Utilities
CI + " O* electric - stormwater • wastewater • water
F ■
rt C « 700 Wood Street
0 0 i n s PO Box 580
Fort Collins. CO 80522
970.221 ,6700
970 . 221 .6619 - fax
970.224.6003 - TDD
utilities@fcgov. com
tcgov.com/utilities
MEMORANDUM
TO : Darin Atteberry, City Manager
FROM : Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager G
THROUGH: Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
DATE : February 6, 2009
RE : Stormwater Best Management Practices Review Update
In August of 2008, while adopting the intergovernmental agreement forming the Boxelder Basin
Regional Stormwater Authority, City Council requested a review of the Stormwater program ' s
Best Management Practices (BMPs) including an assessment of Low Impact Development (LID)
practices.
Assisting staff with this review are Mr. Kevin McBride P.E. of McBride Water LLC and Dr.
Larry Roesner of the CSU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. After
interviews with persons and agencies recognized for excellence in stormwater quality
management, web searches, and personal experience, the team selected a benchmarking tool
developed by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) .
The Center for Watershed Protection grew out of efforts to protect streams in Maryland in 1992
and has grown into a respected organization offering many publications regarding stormwater
quality. They studied fifty communities around the country and found that:
• Many communities have made dramatic progress in improving their overall watershed
restoration capability in recent years.
• The integration of restoration programs has been poor in most communities, which has
prevented them from achieving measurable improvements in water quality.
• EPA and other regulatory agencies are increasingly requiring urban communities to
quantify pollutant reductions to meet regulatory mandates — at the same time
communities are having extreme difficulties in documenting improvements from long-
term restoration programs.
In order to help individual communities to assess program performance, the CWP developed
"The Smart Watershed Benchmarking Tool". It includes 14 programs that are subdivided into
1
Page 9 of 27
F�rt Collins
56 individual benchmarks. Using this benchmarking tool, the team has completed a preliminary
assessment of the Fort Collins program with the following results :
B+: "Good Job . While your overall program activity is high, further investments
to align and integrate your watershed programs can help you reach the next level
and improve the health of your watersheds".
The team is currently preparing recommendations for modifications to the City' s overall
stormwater quality program to raise our rating to an "A" which is defined as "Excellent, you are
doing a commendable job in implementing watershed restoration projects on the ground — and
are a model for comparably sized communities to follow". This report is tentatively scheduled
for the March Water Board meeting.
The status of numerous other activities related to stormwater Best Management Practices are as
follows :
• At the end of November, I attended the National Low Impact Development Conference
where over 500 professionals from 30 States and 5 Countries were in attendance. I have
been transferring this knowledge to City Utilities staff as well as other work groups in the
City. This is important because LID is as much about land development practices as it is
about stormwater practices. In order to make significant changes in our land
development practices, all departments of the City as well as the public will need to be
involved.
• There has been significant effort spent in identifying both public and public/private
partnership LID demonstration projects. Several of these are scheduled for construction
in 2009.
• Staff has applied for a non-point source grant from the EPA/Colorado Department of
Health in cooperation with AWARE Colorado (Addressing Water And natural Resource
Education) to fund BMP demonstration and education projects . We should find out in
March if we were successful .
• On the Front Range, the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District is an industry leader
and has devoted a whole volume of their standards to BMPs. Staff is proposing and will
be asking the Water Board and City Council to adopt their standards. In addition, we
have strategically placed a member of our staff on a region-wide committee to review and
update these standards to ensure we remain on the leading edge .
• Staff is preparing Geographic Information System (GIS ) coverage of areas covered by
BMPs in order to measure progress. The pilot area is complete and coverage for the full
City should be complete by the end of August.
• The City has contracted with a BHA, a landscape architecture firm, to prepare standards
for detention ponds to ensure they are environmental, social and economic amenities to
the community. A stakeholder meeting and public open house were just completed.
Page 10 of 27
1 I
Front Collins
These standards should be ready for Water Board and Council consideration near mid
year.
• Data from the urban stream sampling program was sent to CSU. Preliminary
recommendations are expected this spring regarding the effectiveness of using this data to
monitor watershed health. CSU will recommend any needed changes in scope or
protocols of the sampling effort by the end of the summer.
• Staff has inventoried over 500 privately owned BMPs and is performing periodic
inspections to ensure they are functioning properly. Staff works with property owners,
usually Home Owners Associations (HOAs) or businesses, to correct any problems
found. A pilot program was funded to help HOAs when major repairs are needed.
• CSU is evaluating the performance of selected City owned stormwater treatment BMPs.
After some preliminary modifications are completed this spring, data will be collected
this summer and recommendations for significant modifications (if any) will be made this
fall .
Running in a parallel process to the stormwater BMP review is an overall review of the
stormwater program as requested by City Council . Staff is working on the following issues as
identified in the October 14, 2008 Work Session Summary:
1 . Evaluate the Program Now. The time is right to review the overall stormwater
program. This comprehensive view of the Utility would include : capital improvements ;
water quality or best management practices ; floodplain management ; and emergency
response.
2 . Re-examine Adopted Policies. While the stormwater staff is doing competent work and
follows current policy, Council wishes to thoroughly evaluate current policy, specifically
the appropriate level of flood protection. Is the intensity of the capital projects
reasonable? A clear explanation of program objectives is needed, to include issues such
as protecting from wet basements versus protecting against major, life-threatening floods.
Council would like to see details such as the events that cause risk and the consequences
of various actions.
3 . Revise the Mission Statement. The stormwater program needs a new mission statement
to reflect a 2 1 " Century Utility and needs a greater environmental emphasis.
4. Evaluate Community benefits through Budgeting for Outcomes. The City needs to
evaluate how the program fits in with the bigger picture of the community. What is the
outcome of decreasing Stormwater rates to allow for increases in other needed City
services? The placement of the stormwater program in the Safe Community Result Area
in the Budgeting for Outcomes process should be revisited
5 . Review Capital Projects: Council wants to assess capital expenditures. What are we
protecting against? What is gained if the build out period is changed? Are there other
viable alternatives that will result in an appropriate level of protection such as moving
citizens from the floodplain instead of protecting them? What is the result if we cut all
capital projects ? What is the resulting rate for only on-going operations and maintenance?
How do the City of Fort Collins rates compare with that of like communities? A review
3
Page 11 of 27
Fort Collins
of staff methods to analyze and prioritize capital projects should be conducted, with a
focus on holistic and environmental impacts .
6. Evaluate the Rate Structure: Who pays and who benefits? Review how monthly rates
are calculated and how they relate to customer impacts on the stormwater system. Larger
lots with more impervious areas should pay more. Fewer improvements are needed in
the newer south part of town than the older north part, should the City maintain a city-
wide fee structure for distributed community benefits? Some Council members feel that
the city-wide fee is appropriate; others need to better understand how the rate structure
creates additional benefits. A study is needed of whether, under current criteria, runoff
rates from vacant ground are higher than runoff rates from developed ground and whether
there is a "double charge" when impact fees are collected.
7 . Understand Land Use Implications. A review is needed of policies for removal of
vacant land from floodplains . Areas of the review should focus on environmental and
equity perspectives . Of particular interest is whether other cities recover specific benefits
of removing vacant property from the floodplain from landowners . Should the City allow
development within the floodplain? How does this promote the objectives of other City
programs, especially Natural Areas, Transportation, and Water Quality as well as health
and safety?
8 . Enhance the Environmental Ethos of the City. Is the City doing all it can to ensure
that the capital projects result in true environmental enhancements? The stormwater
program should emphasize stormwater best practices and Low Impact Development
(LID) to protect water quality. How does Fort Collins compare to other cities with
respect to water quality treatment systems? Other innovations, such as a "rain barrel"
approach to capture stormwater for irrigation purposes, which might require a change in
state law, should be considered.
In December, the following proposed declaration of purpose for was sent to City Council for
feedback :
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the necessity of a holistic
stormwater management program to protect and restore the City 's watersheds,
streams and the Cache la Poudre River for the mutual economic, social, and
environmental benefits of flood mitigation, public safety, water quality, habitat
protection, and public welfare.
We are waiting for Council feedback on this proposed mission statement. Staff is preparing
information on all the above elements of the overall stormwater program review for City Council
to consider at a work session on June 9.
4
Page 12 of 27
`ty Of Utilities
electric • storm•.vate� • vastev�ater • watsr
��� Collins
700 Wood Street
Fort
Sox 680
�,.y, Fort Collins 052 CO 82
970,221 ,6700
970.22166619 - fax
970.224.6003 - MID
utilities 010gov.com
tcgov.carnlutifitres
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 22, 2009
1'0 : Mayor Hutchinson and Members of City Council
91HRU : Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Directo
I+'ROM : Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering & Field Operations Manager
RE: Stormwater Utility Repurposing Update
In 2008, the City Council directed -staff to review the purpose and components of the City 's
Stormwater Program. To that effect, staff began by summarizing the history of the program and
then identifying the major areas to be reviewed. Attachment 1 is a brief history from 1996 to
present of the Stormwater Program Guiding Policies and Codes.
Recognizing that this is a major undertaking and that it will require the Council to absorb a
massive amount of information when presented at a work session later this year, staff will he
providing regular updates over the next several months leading up to that meeting.
The program review was broken down into 14 categories :
a. Stormwater Purpose Statement
b. Best Management Practices (BMP) Policy Update
c. Stormwater Criteria Update
d . Detention Pond Construction/Landscape Guidelines
e. Stormwater Quality GIS Coverage
f. Low Impact Development (LID) Demonstration Projects
g. LID Policy Review
h . Stormwater Quality Sampling Review
i . City-Owned BMP Review
j . Horne Owners Association ( HOA) Assistance Program
k. Level of Protection Policy
1 . Rates
in . Floodplain Regulations
n . Urban Stream Health Assessment
The following will provide a brief description of each category, the process of review and
accomplishments to date, and what our next steps will be.
Page 13 of 27
Fort Collins
a. Stormwater Purpose Statement
The stormwater program mission statement was reviewed to reflect a 2141 Century Utility and a
greater environmental emphasis. To that end, a new purpose statement was developed using the
guiding concepts of:
• Protect and restore our watersheds and streams,
• Develop a holistic/integrated program, and
• Focus on the benefits of the triple bottom line.
The Water Board reviewed this item at its meeting on November 20, 2008 , and recommends the
following language:
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City 's integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic, social, and environmental benefits of
public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare while protecting natural
areas and their features, protecting and restoring the City 's watersheds, its tributaries
and the Cache la Poudre River.
The final step for this item is approval by the City Council .
b. Best Management Practices (BMP) Policy Update
Recent trends in stormwater quality management have emphasized the need for water quality
issues to be addressed in a comprehensive way, integrating all the impacts to a water body from
various sources in its watershed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has fully
endorsed this approach of watershed-based programs and implemented programs based on this
method throughout the nation.
The BMP Policy Update was necessitated by Council 's desire to have us look at our current
water quality policies and assess which policies need to be updated in order to better reflect the
values of the citizens of Fort Collins. To meet these objectives , Fort Collins Utilities initiated a
review of its current stormwater quality Best Management Practices .
The review used a benchmarking tool developed by the Center For Watershed Protection (CWP),
an independent watershed protection group. Using this tool, a committee comprised of City staff
and aided by the McBride Water, LLC consulting group, rated the City' s watershed protection
program. The City of Fort Collins program came out with a B+ rating. The committee then
developed a set of recommendations aimed at raising our efforts to protect urban watersheds and
achieve the highest achievable rating. This review produced a report in March 2009 titled Fort
Collins Stormwater Best Management Practices Review.
This item has been reviewed by the Water Board who recommended approval by Council of this
item. One of the items recommended by the BMP Update was the creation of a "BMP Citizen
Review Board". This recommendation is to be satisfied through the Citizen Advisory Board
2
Page 14 of 27
City of
Fort Collins
integrated into the upcoming City Plan Update for a wider range of experiences and greater
efficiency.
c. Stormwater Criteria Update
The City has historically used its own set of drainage criteria for development but adopted the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Volume III Manual for water quality
design criteria. As awareness of stormwater practices has grown and become more uniform
nationwide, we have seen the difference between the City' s criteria and the UDFCD manual be
reduced to only a few minor items . Therefore, in order to be better aligned with other
municipalities along the Front Range and to keep our criteria updated more efficiently, it was
decided it would be most effective to adopt the UDFCD manual in its entirety but create an
exception manual to maintain current drainage policies specific to Fort Collins, such as rainfall
standards.
Staff has developed a set of these policies which will remain Fort Collins specific and are in the
process of formatting them in a manner consistent with the UDFCD manual nomenclature . Once
this is complete, it is our intention to take these revised policies through an extensive public
review process prior to eventual adoption of the revised manual by Council .
This item will be presented to the City Council in a work session later this year with a request for
endorsement of this approach of revising and updating the manual . The proposed revision would
take place later after the public review is complete.
d. Detention Pond Construction/Landscape Guidelines
The Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities criteria are being
developed to provide direction in the design and construction of detention ponds and other
drainage facilities. The purpose is to facilitate infiltration of runoff, enhance stormwater quality,
increase habitat value and plant conservation, and increase the aesthetic appeal of detention
facilities . These guidelines were developed with help from BHA Design, a local landscape
architecture firm specializing in sustainable urban landscape design.
These guidelines have gone through significant outreach activities and efforts in order to solicit
and receive comments on the proposed guidelines. The outreach was done through stakeholder
group and public meetings. The stakeholder group consisted of members of the development
community, design professionals and maintenance professionals . An open house was held in
April with fifty people attending. From the initial open house and stakeholder meeting,
comments were gathered and incorporated into revised draft guidelines.
A second open house was held in August to solicit feedback on the revised draft guidelines from
both the stakeholder group and the general public. Highlights include:
• Disconnect impervious surfaces from direct connection to the storm system.
• Use of native plantings to reduce irrigation needs and encourage water
conservation.
3
Page 15 of 27
C�rt Collins
• Use varied side slopes and undulating bottoms in detention ponds to improve
detention pond aesthetics.
• Better utilize detention pond areas as multi-use facilities where multiple
objectives meeting the "triple bottom line" are achieved.
This item is being presented at the September Water Board meeting as an action item with a
request to recommend approval of these new guidelines by the City Council . It is proposed to
integrate the new Landscape Guidelines into the City Code through the City Plan Update.
e. Stormwater Quality GIS Coverage
Discussion of a Best Management Practice (BMP) can refer to a policy of managing stormwater
or it can refer to a constructed device, such as an infiltration pond, whose design is based on
these policies. The Stormwater Quality GIS coverage map will create a City-wide database of all
constructed water quality BMPs currently in place within the City of Fort Collins. This will be a
useful tool to help the City identify what geographic areas are currently being served by City
owned or privately owned BMPs . The information collected will include what type of BMP is
used, where it is located and what tributary area is being treated.
Once the database is complete, it will help us identify what areas lack various levels of water
quality treatment and prioritize future project needs. The database will also help ensure our
maintenance records are kept up to date and help ensure that we are fully compliant with our
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Staff anticipates completion
of the GIS database by the end of September 2009.
E Low Impact Development (LID) Demonstration Projects
The LID Pilot Project was envisioned as a way to test emerging technologies in our semi-arid
climate. In its conceptual formulation, LID is an ecosystem protection tool built on the premise
of stormwater control distributed more fully across the urban landscape. This means smaller and
more distributed BMPs seeking to detain, infiltrate, evaporate and utilize stormwater flows so
stream systems flow in an amount and duration, and with a similar quantity and quality, to what
occurred in predevelopment conditions .
The program partners with various development projects already in the process of being built.
The City agreed to pay for the difference in cost to implement LID practices over the cost of
traditional treatment processes. This project was funded by a $ 128,000 transfer of funds into the
developer repay program which is anticipated to cover the entire cost of these test projects. In
addition, the program guarantees the replacement costs of any of these sites in the case where a
structural failure occurs.
To that end, three test sites in the development review process were chosen to test these
techniques. These sites are the CTL Thompson parking lot located at 351 Linden Street, the
Mitchell Block building located at 260 E. Mountain Avenue where the future offices of the .
Bohemian Foundation will soon be located and the O ' Dell ' s Brewery expansion located at 800
4
Page 16 of 27
Fort Collins
E. Lincoln . Renderings of the O ' Dell ' s expansion and the Mitchell Block plan are included as
Attachment 2 .
The CTL Thompson parking project is a porous concrete parking lot installation completed in
May 2009. The water quality sampling equipment was installed at the site in July 2009 to
measure the effectiveness of this technique at removing pollutants, as well as to test whether the
infiltration capacity from this type of installation holds up over time.
The Odell ' s Brewery expansion is currently under construction. The LID techniques to be used
there are porous block pavement, inverted landscape islands and infiltrative detention ponds
(sometimes referred to as bio-retention cells). The site will also be used as an educational tool
for these new techniques .
The third location is at the Mitchell Block development (Bohemian Foundation Office Building)
with an anticipated completion time of November 2009. It will showcase two rain gardens in the
landscaped sidewalk area along Walnut Street, a tree filter along Mountain Avenue, and two
different types of porous paver cross-sections in the diagonal parking area - one on the Mountain
Avenue side of the building, and the other along Walnut Street. The runoff will be collected by
subdrains under the paver cross-sections on both sides of the building, and two stormwater
sampling boxes will be located near the inlets on either side of the building to collect stormwater
quality and quantity data. This data collection effort will be done with help from our CSU
interns .
g. LID Policy Review
This review will evaluate our current development practices and recommend whether a citywide
LID policy should be adopted by Council . Since this review will engender a multi-departmental
effort, it was decided this review will take place as part of the upcoming City Plan Update.
We will also look at the effort undertaken by UDFCD to update their criteria to evaluate what
techniques would work best in our area.
Additionally the LID demonstration projects should give us some data on the effectiveness and
viability of these techniques once data become available from our current monitoring efforts at
the various sites.
h. Stormwater Quality Sampling Review
The purpose of this effort was to take a comprehensive look at our current sampling program to:
• evaluate what information is being collected,
• determine whether this information is being analyzed and properly used, and
• recommend a more effective sampling program if needed .
This analysis is aimed at improving our data collection activities and see whether our BMP
policies are having an impact on the stormwater quality of our urban streams .
5
Page 17 of 27
City of
Fort Collins
This effort is being assisted by Dr. Roesner, Colorado State University (CSU), and his graduate
students. This group worked with City staff to create a sampling matrix which guides us on what
constituents to sample for and how often to collect data. Examples of constituents sampled
include dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, ammonia, E. coli, as well as physical
characteristics such as temperature and pH.
Sampling equipment has been placed at the Howes Outfall, the Udall Natural Area and the CTL
Thompson parking lot. More sampling equipment will be placed at the Mitchell Block site once
construction at this site is complete (anticipated in late November). A map of automated water
quality sampling locations is included as Attachment 3.
i. City Owned BMP Review
The City owned BMP Review was initiated in order to examine our current maintenance and
operational practices at regional, City owned constructed BMPs, review what issues we are
having and investigate whether there are steps that can be taken to improve the effectiveness of
each . The City currently owns and operates three regional BMPs primarily serving the Old
Town Basin. These were regional facilities built as retrofits since that part of town developed
prior to having any water quality requirements in place.
The three regional facilities are located at:
• The Udall Natural Area water quality ponds treating most of the middle part of
the Old Town Basin,
• The Howes Outfall wetlands and the water quality pond located on the east side of
Lee Martinez Park treating the northern portion of the Old Town Basin, and
• The channel and pond at the end of the Locust Outfall providing treatment for the
southern portion of the Old Town Basin .
In the case of the Udall Natural Area ponds, it was observed that maintenance activities there
were frequent due to the large amount of trash which collects in the trash racks and due to the
undersized water quality outlets from these ponds . We are currently redesigning the pond outlets
in order for the ponds to operate more efficiently, and we are looking at modifying the trash rack
to a more easily maintained design .
At the Howes Outfall, the water quality pond was originally built in 1999 and is severely
undersized due to lack of right of way and reluctance to disturb the existing park site.
Monitoring stations are in place to sample the water quality entering and exiting these wetlands
to measure the efficiency and decide whether enlarging the existing pond would be
advantageous. Data is being currently collected and will be analyzed prior to making any
operational changes at that location.
The Locust Street water quality pond was deemed to be undersized, and a retrofit design for that
water quality pond is being considered for the future based on priorities and the availability of
funding.
6
Page 18 of 27
,,Fort Collins
J. Home Owners Association (HOA) Assistance Program
All too often, stormwater BMPs are installed as part of a development as required by city codes
and then turned over to an HOA that lacks the understanding of what these are designed to do.
This leads to a lack of maintenance and ultimately failure of these devices as a means to protect
water quality. The purpose of this effort is to inventory all stormwater treatment BMPs not
under the direct control of the City and determine what assistance we can offer to ensure that
these deficient BMPs do not negatively affect the stormwater quality in our receiving waters .
Next, staff set up a schedule to inspect privately owned BMPs on a regular basis as required by
our state NPDES permit. Each existing BMP was rated based on their condition. HOAs were
notified by letter of any deficiencies identified , and offered technical assistance and expertise to
correct these issues.
In addition, staff developed a priority list of BMPs needing urgent repair and attention . In
instances where the HOA did not have the funds or were otherwise not capable of taking care of
the deficient BMPs, or where no HOA existed, the City offered financial and technical assistance
to the owners . Any technical or financial assistance included instructions to the owners on how
to operate and maintain their existing facilities in the future. This is an ongoing program under
which the City has repaired three privately owned BMPs to date.
k. Level of Protection Policy
The current Level of Protection (LOP) policy has not changed since the inception of the
Stormwater Utility and has been codified in the City Code . During the Stormwater Master Plan
updates in the early 2000s, Council asked staff to prepare a 50-year LOP alternative for
consideration. The Stormwater Master Plan for each drainage basin includes a simplified 50-
year LOP option with the associated benefit/cost analysis . Both the 100-year and 50-year
options were presented to the City Council at a work session in January 2003 . As a result of that
discussion , Council directed staff to continue to use the 100-year LOP.
As a result of this initiative on repurposing of the entire stormwater program, this issue is being
revisited to ensure the Water Board and City Council are still in favor of continuing to use the
100-year LOP. Consequences of increasing or decreasing these levels are being analyzed.
Staff presented background material for the Level of Protection discussion to the Water Board at
its August meeting. Staff would like to continue this discussion and offer their recommendation
to the Water Board at the Water Board work session on September 28th. Any recommendations
for change from the Water Board will be presented to the City Council at a work session later
this year.
1. Rates
The City Council first adopted a uniform , citywide, monthly fee rate structure in 1998 to fund
stormwater and flood protection operations for the City of Fort Collins . In 2001 , the City
Council adopted a stormwater financing plan for a 25-year stormwater capital improvement
7
Page 19 of 27
f.
Fort Collins
program. This plan called for an initial issuance of debt to begin the program. Future projects
would use a pay-as-you-go approach to finance future stormwater capital improvements. Rate
increases to support the plan were proposed for 2001 through 2008 in order to complete the
stormwater capital program in 25 years.
The City of Fort Collins quickly developed one of the most advanced stormwater programs in
the country. However, along with this program came the highest stormwater fees. Concerns
over this fee structure led the City Council in 2005 to freeze the stormwater rates at the 2004
level of $ 14.26 per month for a typical single family lot. The affect of this rate freeze extended
completion of the stormwater capital improvements program to 35 years.
A discussion of these rates will occur at the September 28th Water Board work session . This
discussion will include a comparison to other communities, a review of our funding priorities,
and how the overall stormwater repurposing may change the focus of the City' s stormwater
capital improvement program. Again, any recommendations for change from the Water Board
will be presented to the City Council at a work session later this year.
m. Floodplain Regulations
Staff presented floodplain regulation information to the Water Board at the August meeting. The
information presented included explanations of some of the key regulations, a summary of how
the regulations have changed in the past, and an update on recent state and federal initiatives
related to floodplain management. The State is proposing new higher standards for freeboard
and critical facilities which will require changes to the City' s floodplain regulations in the future.
Staff will continue to monitor these proposals and bring forward additional information when
available.
We will continue our discussion of the floodplain regulations at the September 281h Water Board
work session. If there are any recommended changes, staff will bring these to the City Council
at a work session later this year.
n. Urban Stream Health Assessment
The Urban Stream Health Assessment effort was a direct outcome of the BMP Policies Update
completed earlier this year. Sections of each creek through Fort Collins are rated on a scale of A
to E using ten different metrics :
• Channel flow status,
• Channel sinuosity — a measure of how much the channel winds back and forth,
• Frequency of riffles — shallow areas creating small waves which oxygenate the water,
• Embeddedness — a measure of how much silt is building up between and over the gravel
of a streambed and therefore reducing surface area for macroinvertabrates and fish eggs,
• Epifaunal substrate and available cover — measure of the rocks and gravel left from
aquatic life,
• Pool substrate characterization — the type of stream bottom cover,
• Pool variability,
8
Page 20 of 27
Cltyof
,Ebrt
• Bank stability (left and right banks),
• Vegetative protection (left and right banks), and
• Riparian vegetative zone width (left and right banks).
The method was developed as part of a CSU student doctoral thesis. The following streams were
included in the rating program and the results are recorded in the respective basins ' Stormwater
Master Plans: Boxelder Creek, Spring Creek, Soldier Canyon Creek (W. Vine Basin), Mail
Creek, Fossil Creek, Stanton Creek, Stone Creek, Lang Gulch, Burns Tributary (Fossil Creek
Basin), Foothills Channel, McClellands Creek, and Clearview Channel (Canal Importation
Basin).
New research findings which relate in-stream flow metrics to stream health will help us prioritize
stream segments for rehabilitation and improvement. The metric deemed to most reliably predict
stream health is referred to as the T,51 This represents the percent of time the flow rate in the
stream exceeds the peak flow rate of the 6-month storm. The smaller the value for T.5, the lower
the health of the stream.
The next step in the program is to collate existing stream gage data and develop T.5 values. We
can then compare this data to intensity of development and calculate erosion potential . From this
information, we will be able to determine whether LID retrofits or other improvements in
developed areas will reduce the number of times a stream has excessively high flows and thus
improve the T15 score.
9
Page 21 of 27
Page 22 of 27
Attachment 1
Stormwater Program
Guiding Policies and Codes
(A brief history from 1996 to present)
1 . Rate Structure (aka Stormwater Financing Plan) — Changes to either the monthly fees or
Plant Investment fees require Council adoption. The money generated by fees is
appropriated and approved for spending by Council through the budget process .
a. Chapter 26 of City Code sets monthly fees and Plant Investment (impact) fees
i. 1998- Council adopts uniform citywide monthly fees
ii . 2001 - Council adopts Stormwater Financing Plan
iii . 2005- Council adopts citywide Plant Investment fees
iv. 2005- Council adopts revised Financing Plan to freeze monthly fees at 2004
rates
v. 2005- Council reviews Capital Project Prioritization process
vi. 2008- Council adopts Boxelder Authority Intergovernmental Agreement
2 . Stormwater Master Plan — Each basin is studied to identify flood problems and recommend
solutions as well as guide new development to ensure new problems are not created . Major
changes to the master plans are adopted by Council . Minor enhancements can be approved
by the Utilities General Manager.
a. Chapter 26 of City Code references all basin master plans and requires all
developments to adhere to the plans.
i . 1999- Council adopts the revised 100-year rainfall standard; this requires a
full update of basin master plans .
ii . 2003 - Council approves 100-year level of protection at Work Session.
iii . 2004- Council adopts citywide Stormwater Master Plan .
iv . 2007- Council revisits 100-year rainfall standard and chooses to retain current
standard.
v . 2008- Council adopts Upper Cooper Slough Master Plan and Boxelder Creek
Regional Stormwater Master Plan .
vi . 2008- Council adopts Boxelder Authority Intergovernmental Agreement.
3 . Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality- this policy lays out the City' s approach to
protecting and improving stormwater quality. It is implemented through the design criteria,
water quality permit, and the master plan recommendations. The City is subject to the
NPDES non-source pollution permitting requirements.
a. Chapter 26 has no specific reference to the Watershed Approach.
i . 1991 - Council adopts Erosion Control Criteria.
ii . 1995- Council adopts the Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality.
1
Page 23 of 27
Attachment 1
iii. 1997- Stormwater BMPs added to the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and
Construction Standards (SDDCCS),
iv. 1999- Assessments of all flowing stream corridors are completed by Dr. Bob
Zeulig.
v. 2003 - City obtains its first MS4 water quality permit.
vi . 2004- Council adopts the citywide Stormwater Master Plan ; stream restoration
recommendations are included .
4. F000dplain Regulations — Changes to the floodplain regulations require Council adoption.
Regulations for FEMA designated floodplains must meet minimum FEMA criteria.
a. Chapter 10 of City Code
i . 1999- Council adopts revised rainfall standard; this requires an update to all
floodplains except the Poudre River.
ii. 2001 - Council adopts revised Poudre River floodplain regulations.
iii. 2001 - Council adopts interim floodplain regulations for areas outside
previously mapped floodplains.
iv. 2001 - Council adopts code change to authorize city floodplain delineations by
the Utilities General Manager.
v . 2002- New floodplain delineations based on revised rainfall (did not include
Poudre River) .
vi . 2005- Council adopts revised citywide floodplain regulations (except Poudre
River).
vii. 2006- FEMA adopts revised floodplains on Spring Creek, Dry Creek and
Cooper Slough/Boxelder Creek.
viii. 2007- Council adopts revised floodplain regulations for Poudre River
cooperatively with Larimer County.
5 . Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDCCS) - This
document, in conjunction with the Land Use Code and Stormwater Master Plan, sets
drainage criteria for new development and re-development. Criteria include detention
requirements, street capacity restrictions , stormwater runoff treatment, etc. Changes to the
criteria are done by ordinance and must be adopted by Council.
a. Chapter 26 of City Code references the SDDCCS and requires all development to
adhere to the criteria.
i. 1991 - Council adopts the Erosion Control Criteria.
ii. 1997- Stormwater BMPs added to criteria (references Vol . III of the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control Manual).
iii. 1999- Council adopts revised rainfall standard.
iv. 2008- Update to SDDCCS underway.
2
Page 24 of 27
Attachment 2
O
.jai ..jw,
t
O
TRUCK YARD dd1 � I
(OVERFLOW PARKING) PROPOSED DUSTING BUILDING
I, f EXPANSION - I V)
I • ` 1 Z
�rAtARlG _I X , 2
L , rrrvDL>�(RVLRs) i Lu t
I
• FASTING
UTURE PARKING I ILI y
Q
E�AysI Z :.
BUMLR WITH
ENHANCED
LANDSCAPE AND WALK r.3
� �ESTRIAN
BERMS
11 LTFNII0N NU[T�
-4 POND ! J
PROPFRTY LINE -- !� jy FXISTING
=' TREE, TYP. - J
-
1r 111
WWDFN BOARDWALK - T S •SE
0
PROPOSED AC SS IINCOIN AVENUE.. _•, EXISTING . .I
Y
. ACCESS- _--_
• — PERMEABLE PAVERS MITCHELL BLOCK
-- RAIN GARDEN CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
YM. / )IVI . Nv4-MdT Y
RAIN GARDEN
' TREE FILTER
YIN
LJ
PERMEABLE PAVERS
Page� 25 of 27
Page 26 of 27
OLD TOWN STORMWATER QUALITY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS lAttachment3
HIBDON CT RED CEDAR CIR ip
iaw
F t . `fiOkT.q/4 CLARK ST
� + NOKOMIS CcITKA ST
LU
HICKORY STLU
w CONIFER ST
. HEML06K ST p Q '�
U 0
Z : ;i pl.,
W
0
O J
J W
J
PINON ST 0 g Z
Poudre River Trail os,
Sampling Station CqF0 % MAIN.ST
• � sr t ;
i. Howes Street 1
•
Sampling Station
• ` E NE z - -
VI DR
L
Ste' 4 A � ~
`•• I I r W � tn :
�.
Cn
FNIV
_ { ,,��yy��,, .
• ; Z { ,yp� jj ���''` I _ �N
• 215 N Mason � CTL Thompson CD
CHERR ST Sampling Station n ♦� Sampling Stations BUCKINGHAM ST
�w
all-
MAPLE ST ` r
Mitchell Block
Imb-
N �� , Sampling Stations w
zIN
� II � 1II
w O v Q� � • � `�' ' E LINCOLN AVE <
a
a w �. : , m
W 0 Z
Z Z Z H W +
W MOUNTAIN AVE _ J Udall Natural Area m
Uj
Z �,; �'2� Sam lin Stations
O w w 'As
Q �0
W OAK ST J 9L
QQ INwLLZ N � Q� w
W OLIVE STN J N E OLIVE ST m -'rid; w
Uj
O N 2 3 = N
LU
INN,! IIIIII
Uj W MAGNOLIA ST O a E MAGNOLIA ST
City of
N
For ` Collins �' \ E 0 500 17000 2 ,000 Feet
GIs S 1 1 1 1 1 1 age 27 `'P,,,,ff
r?ft4d : 12/3/200
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Briefing Memorandum :
November 25 , 2009
ATTACHMENT 4
Utilities
CI }� O� electric • stormwater wastewater . water
F6rt
L 700 Wood Street
Coll o ns PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221 .6700
970.221 .6619 - fax
970,224.6003 - TDD
utilitiesOfcgov.com
fcgov.com/urlities
MEMORANDUM
DATE. November 25, 2009
TO: Mayor Hutchinson and Members of City Council
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Brian Janoms, Utilities Executive Director
FROM : Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering & Field Operations Manage
RE: Stormwater Utility Repurposing Update
In 2008 , the City Council directed staff to review the purpose and components of the City' s
Stormwater Program. Recognizing that this is a major undertaking and that it will require the
Council to absorb a massive amount of information when presented at the work session in
December, this is the second in a series of memos to update the Council on the progress of city
staff in these repurposing efforts_
In addition to the fourteen stormwater repurposing components to be discussed later in this
memo, the City Council has asked about the age of our stormwater system and the City' s
response to a survey conducted by Black & Veach in 2007.
Attachment 1 shows a history of the installation of storm sewer for the City of Fort Collins. The
City has over 1 . 1 million feet of storm pipe installed to date. As you can see, the oldest recorded
storm sewer pipe installation was done in 1902. Half of this amount was installed after 1994.
This total length of pipe continues to grow as the City develops and expands.
The Black & Veach survey provides an overview of how various organizations conduct
administration, planning, operations, financing, public information and other issues related to
stormwater. The survey is included as Attachment 2. Responses from the Fort Collins Utilities
have been inserted in red ink into the report.
A continued update of the fourteen repurposing components is as follows.
a. Stormwater Purpose Statement
As noted in the September 22, 2009 update, the following is the recommended revisions to the
Purpose Statement we will be asking the City Council to approve.
Page 1 of 30
Fort Collins
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City 's integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic, social, and environmental benefits of
public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare while protecting natural
areas and their features, protecting and restoring the City 's watersheds, its tributaries
and the Cache la Poudre River.
b. Best Management Practices (BMP) Policy Update
The report titled Fort Collins Stormwater Best Management Practices Review completed by
city staff and McBride Water, LLC was provided to the City in March 2009. The Water Board
has passed a motion recommending adoption of the report. As a result of recommendations in
this report, the City' s practices in regards to stormwater best management practices is a major
component of the upcoming City Plan update through 2010. The report is included as
Attachment 3 . The City Plan update will use this as a basis for incorporation of structural BMPs
as stormwater solutions allowed under City Code.
c. Stormwater Criteria Update
Staff is recommending that the City of Fort Collins adopt the Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District (UDFCD) manual as the basis for stormwater design criteria to better align ourselves
with other communities along the Front Range and stay current with new development in
stormwater best management practices more efficiently. The City would retain some of the
items specific to Fort Collins by creating an `exceptions manual ' detailing that information .
Staff will be finalizing a draft of this exceptions manual in early 2010.
Public outreach will be conducted in June and July of 2010 to inform the public and receive
feedback on his change. The results of this outreach will be then brought to the Water Board for
recommendations and finally the City Council for final action in the fall of 2010.
d. Detention Pond Construction/Landscape Standards and Guidelines
The Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities manual
has been completed and will be presented to the Water Board for final approval at their
November meeting. The manual is included as Attachment 4 for your review. Staff is
recommending the City Council approve this plan for inclusion in the City Plan update of the
City Code.
e. Stormwater Best Management Practices GIS Coverage
Attachment 5 is a GIS coverage map showing all portions of the City that are served by some
type of stormwater BMP. This may be stormwater retention to reduce the volume of
downstream runoff, some type of water quality treatment or a combination of both. Staff
continues to refine this information . It will be used in the City Plan update to focus our efforts
on future needs.
Page 2 of 30
Fort Collins
f. Low Impact Development (LID) Demonstration Projects
In addition to the three locations discussed in the September 22 update memo, staff has begun
discussions with the developer of the Union Place project to install and monitor stormwater
quality measuring devices on some of the Low Impact Development devices they will be
installing. Monitoring continues on the CTL Thompson site. Construction of the Mitchel Block
and ODells ' sites are nearly complete to allow for monitoring next spring.
g. LID Policy Review
The LID policy review has been incorporated in to the City Plan update and will continue
through 2010.
h. Stormwater Quality Sampling Review
The first full round of sampling was able to be completed after the storm during the last week of
October. Data has been analyzed and discussed by staff. This sampling will allow us to begin
narrowing down the scope of relevant evaluation criteria and will be an ongoing effort in
cooperation with CSU.
i. City Owned BMP Review
The City owned BMP Review was initiated in order to examine our current maintenance and
operational practices at regional, City owned constructed BMPs, review what issues we are
having and investigate whether there are steps that can be taken to improve the effectiveness of
each .
The City is analyzing three regional BMPs primarily serving the Old Town Basin ; the Udall
Natural Area, the Howes Outfall , and the Locust Street Outfall . These were regional facilities
built as retrofits since that part of town developed prior to having any water quality requirements
in place. Work continues on analyzing the best way to improve efficiency on these and other
structures.
The BMP Location map included as Attachment 6 shows the location of these structures.
J. Home Owners Association (HOA) Assistance Program
All too often, stormwater BMPs are installed as part of a development as required by city codes
and then turned over to an HOA or business that lacks the understanding of what these are
designed to do. This leads to a lack of maintenance and ultimately failure of these devices as a
means to protect water quality.
All stormwater treatment BMPs not under the direct control of the City have been mapped and
inspected. These privately owned BMPs are mapped on Attachment 7 . Staff has developed a
priority list and is working with the property owners to have these devices cleaned and repaired.
Page 3 of 30
Fort Collins
Ultimately, staff plans to have a record of each installation as well as simple instructions for
what and when the property owner needs to do to maintain the system.
k. Level of Protection Policy
The Water Board discussed the Level of Protection (LoP) issue at their September and October
meetings and agreed to continue the use of the 100-year LoP as the metric for evaluating flood
protection requirements of new development and redevelopment.
In regard to master planned capital projects that mitigate flooding in existing developed areas,
the Water Board also passed a motion recommending the City Council have staff research
appropriate and applicable methodologies for evaluating the social and environmental impacts
(both positive and negative) of capital projects and then use the Triple Bottom Line method as
the tool to evaluate capital projects.
1. Rates
The City of Fort Collins has one of the most advanced stormwater programs in the country. The
2001 Financing Plan was based on the stormwater capital projects that were providing a level of
protection for existing developed areas. The funding plan for this work did not include stream
enhancements or other major water quality initiatives. Under the current rate structure, this plan
will not be completed until 2036. Additional projects can be added but the City will not issue
additional debt to finance but rather will take a `pay-as-you-go ' approach to fund these projects.
There has long been concern over the high fees associated with the Stormwater Master Plan. In
addition, it is often viewed that individual properties and developments receive a direct benefit
from these stormwater projects at the expense of the general ratepayers. To address this, the
Water Board has passed a motion recommending the City Council direct staff to develop a new
cost share method for properties removed from the floodplain by a City capital project be created
to reflect a portion of the benefit to that property and help partially fund these projects.
As part of the repurposing effort and at the recommendation of the Water Board, staff will be
reviewing every project on the Stormwater Master Plan project list and reviewing its overall
feasibility, a preliminary or conceptual plan to complete it under current regulations, what water
quality and stream enhancements can be done in conjunction with each, and how LID, water
quality or stream enhancements projects could reduce the total capital costs of a project . The
Water Board also passed a motion recommending the City Council have the stormwater fees
revisited following the completion of the Stormwater Master Plan update.
in. Floodplain Regulations
The Water Board continues to have discussions on possible floodplain regulations along the
Poudre River. The discussion centers around the City should continue to enforce regulations at a
level equal to Larimer County or whether to go back to a higher level of floodway protection .
Page 4 of 30
of
Fort Collins
The Water Board would like staff to investigate the impacts of a total restriction of construction
of structures within the 100 year floodplain.
n. Urban Stream Health Assessment
A map depicting the Urban Stream Health Assessment effort is included as Attachment 8. This
provides a rating of stream health based on 10 metrics as noted in the September update memo.
Utilities staff continues to collaborate with CSU on collecting and analyzing this data
determining the best application of LID strategies to reduce high flows and erosion in developed
areas along these stream corridors.
Page 5 of 30
Fort CoUins
Water Board Resolutions
11 -20-2008 regarding the Stormwater Purpose Statement:
Water Board recommends the stormwater program purpose statement be revised to read as
follows:
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares the City 's integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic, social, and environmental benefits of
public safety, flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare while protecting natural
areas and their features, protecting and restoring the City 's watersheds, its tributaries
and the Cache la Poudre River.
4-23-2009 regarding the recommendations presented in the report prepared by McBride, Inc.
titled "Fort Collins Best Management Practices Review":
In order to improve the Stormwater Water Quality Program, the Water Board supports all five
recommendations as stated, provided staff returns to the Board with a recommendation for the
multidisciplinary watershed planning group.
11 - 18-2009
The Water Board recommends the City Council adopt the Fort Collins Landscape Design
Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities.
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that staff should change to using the triple
bottom line (TBL) philosophy of social, economic and environmental components to determine
flood control and stream enhancement projects. In this scenario, the numeric B-C ratio plays a
smaller role in determining capital projects, and projects can be recommended based on factors
without a numerical value.
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that staff should research appropriate and
applicable methodologies for evaluating the social and environmental impacts, both positive and
negative, of capital projects.
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that staff should re-evaluate the B-C ratio
criteria as part of the TBL approach.
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that partial or entire stream corridor
enhancements can be funded by the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program based on
prioritization through the TBL analysis.
The Water Board recommends the City Council direct staff to develop a new cost share method
for properties removed from the floodplain by a capital project be created to reflect a portion of
the benefit that property and help partially fund these projects.
The Water Board recommends the City Council revisit the stormwater rates after completion of
the stormwater master plan update.
Page 6 of 30
Fort Collins
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that the Poudre River floodplain regulations
be revised to not allow residential or mixed-use structures on LOMR-Fills.
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that the Poudre River floodplain regulations
be revised to adopt a 0. 1 ft floodway
The Water Board recommends to the City Council that the Poudre River floodplain regulations
be studied to not allow structures in the 100-year floodplain.
Page 7 of 30
Attachment 1
Storm Water Mains Pipe Footage Installed by Decade
Decade Storm Footage Installed Running Footage Percent of Running
Pipe Installed Age of Pipe by Decade Total Total Footage Percent Total
1902- 1909 100- 107 years 655 655 0 .06% 0.06%
1910- 1919 90-99 years 18 ,425 19,080 1 .66% 1 .72%
1920- 1929 80-89 years 54, 902 73, 982 4. 94% 6 .65%
1930- 1939 70-79 years 14,574 88 ,556 1 . 31 % 7. 96%
1940- 1949 60-69 years 379 88, 934 0 .03% 8.00%
1950- 1959 50-59 years 34, 125 123 ,059 3 .07% 11 .07%
1960- 1969 40-49 years 509287 1737346 4 .52% 15.59%
1970- 1979 30-39 years 163 , 307 3369654 14 .69% 30.28%
1980- 1989 20-29 years 146 , 186 482 , 840 13. 15% 43. 42%
Halfway Point in
1994 15 years 555 ,967 50%
1990- 1999 10- 19 years 2929300 775, 140 26 .29% 69 .71 %
2000-2008 1 -9 years 3369793 111119934 30 .2906 100.00%
TOTAL T: 1 3111 , 934
F
Page 8 of 30
Attachment 2
BUILDING 1 ' 1 OF DIFFERENCE
111 Fool
IF IF
OF
opoI
- '- ofl!k -
Jr
i S 41
+_y
_ r .:
'rIF
Of.14
ago If I
4 OFF
w40 1 IF
, , J
Q r sT' �� • �
IF
OF Oo FOP
fo. of
IF
"fir" -' _ i , ! '� - , �a �' • ' t , . .(.
If
fir � ,� j Yrr C. \ 1, 1, r . nr jQ. rl ir, ' 1 t\ -
r
r r . r 114 r !
/rt9/C• if / - J/ / ir • i " 1 l 14; ` . � � i ` aa t ) r „ 14 r� l. 11 .- `,r I •� Hr♦� 1 s r
1 OF
%
• r1 r 1 ,j IF A
/ ' �r. � r �YrY \ice j r 1 •'•f � . rlr ' N ,
�f ri<4'd/ i .. _ r ,- . ry'') S's. i 1 �, ��9� �y.•t� :. R� y • y• .t f rill,• l j. +T • .-� .A 7 1
r i Ltd t�. ,�� �1 , - /fJnn e A Tq rye I �IIr ✓ cA
'�Iffi rG� /S:�!•o/l.�f±I�Iw' - s '.Re l 'h7�Tia r. . . • ..rs_M . 1 / , a
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Sponsored and administered by Enterprise Management Solutions,
the management consulting division of Black & Veatch
ffjBLACK & VEATCH
Building a world of difference:
Page 9 of 30
BUILDING ► WORLD OF DIFFERENCEO
To help those involved with stormwater utilities stay well - informed regarding how others in their industry are
addressing important issues, Black & Veatch has conducted its seventh national Stormwater Utility Survey . The survey
results provide insight into the following topics :
► Organization/Administration ► Quality Issues — Best Management Practices
► Planning ► Public Information/Education
► Operations ► Major Challenges Recently Faced
► Finance/Accounting ► Significant Events Affecting Utilities
► Stormwater User Fees and Billing
► Responses were received from 71 utilities in 22 states. ► For those utilities that base charges on gross property
All of these utilities are funded in whole or in part area, equivalent residential units ranged from 1 ,225
through user fees. square feet total area to 20,000 square feet, with a mean
► Approximately 82 percent of the respondents serve a of 6,254 square feet. For those utilities that base charges
city, rather than a county or region. on impervious area, impervious areas per equivalent
► The population served by the respondents ranges from residential unit ranged from 40 square feet to 4,000
12,000 (Auburndale, FL) to 3 .9 million people (Los square feet, with a mean of 2,477 square feet.
Angeles, CA) and the area served varies from 2 to 3 ,675
square miles.
Our previous question regarding quality based user fee 61 percent of the credits are both quality and quantity
credits was expanded to include quantity based user fee based. Of the 11 percent of respondents that provide
credits and incentives other than user fee credits . Of the incentives other than user fee credits, 22 percent of the
39 percent of respondents that provide user fee credits, incentives are both quality and quantity based.
Black & Veatch conducted similar stormwater utility trends, because the respondents may be different.
surveys in 1991 -92, 1993-94, 1995-96, 2001 -02, and It is our hope that the information provided in this
2004-2005 . Comparisons of current and prior survey report will be a valuable resource to those involved
results provide an insight into possible industry changes. in the stormwater industry. To learn more about
Look for comparisons of responses to selected questions Black & Veatch services, please refer to the back
in the following survey results . Please note, however, cover for contact information.
that these comparisons are not necessarily indicative of
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 10 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
OrganizationlAdministration
eele
How is your operation organized ? S
2007
49% Separate utility Survey
37% Combined with Department of Public Works
8% Combined with wastewater utility 2005
6% Other Combined with water, wastewater and Survey
electric, but has separate fees
What area does your utility serve ? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Region
82% Within city limits City only County
17% County
1 % Region
Does your state have specific statutes that govern the ID
formation of stormwater utility and user fee financing ?
61 % Yes Yes I
39% No
off pro I"Il
What is the status of your NPDES permit? Phase 11 (under 100,000 population )
Application submitted and approved)
Phase 1 Phase 2
> 100,000 Population < 100,000 Population
- 82% . . . . . . . . . .Application submitted and approved . . . . . . . . .46%
12% . . . . . . . . . .Application submitted and pending . . . . . . . . . .46%
6% . . . . . . . . . .Application has not been submitted . . . . . . . . . . 8%
When was your most recent stormwater plan or stormwater facilities plan ?
25% 2007 Prior to 1997
21 % 2005-2006 2007
17% 2003-2004 2004 1997-2000 r
11 % 20012002
11 % 1997-2000 2001 -2002 2005-2006
15% Prior to 1997 2003-2004
What stormwater computer models do you use for planning ENT OF RESPONDENTS
401ko V
32% HEC-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32% XP-SWMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents
were given the
30% EPA SWMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . opportunity to
28% HEC- 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . select more than
24% TR-55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . one response, so
° the percentage
17 /o HEC-RAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . total is greater
11 % HEC-HMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . than 100percent.
11 % Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
XP-SWMM, other: MOD-SWMM, HEC- RAS
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 11 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Planning (continued)
What return periods do you use to design your major stormwater structures ?
Residential Commercial Major Streets
2-year 13 % 10% 7% 21ee1 eet Vent SVeetSVeat eat eat
5 -year 13 % 8% 7% 5v 10, 1 2 " 50'� 100V
10-year 34% 38% 31 % Residential
15 -year 2% 2% 2%
Commercial
25 -year 20% 23 % 17%
50-year 2% 2% 5 % Major Streets
100-year 16% 17% 31 %
0% 20% 40% 60% 60% 100%
Several respondents provided a range of return periods.
The percentages above represent the smallest return period provided.
100-year for residential areas, commercial areas and major streets
Which performance indicators do you consider most important in measuring improvement
stormwater management success ? PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
42% Flood control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repnondents were
35 % Monitoring pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . given the
18% Customer complaints/satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . opportunity to
11 % Maintenance select more than
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . one response, so
10% Erosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the percentage
8% Cost-control measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . total is greater
°
1 /o Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . than 100 percent.
a . Benefit to cost ratio 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
b. Compatibility with other City master plans
c. Stream enhancement rating from existing to proposed
Operations
What is your utility responsible for?
80% Stormwater facilities only Combined sewer Both Other
facilities 41,
2% Combined sewer (sanitary/stormwater) facilities
11 % Both
7% Other Stormwater only
Stormwater facilities only
Who provides the majority of your O&M services ? Private
9 Other contractors/agencies
1 % Own Staff
governmental staff`
6% Other Governmental Staff
3 % Private contractors/agencies
90% Own StaffOwn staff
10% Private contractors/agencies
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 12 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
FinancelAccounting
What are your major (at least 90 percent of total income)
revenue sources ? Multiple revenue
sources
(Excludes 3 utilities that reported no single major source) Stormwater
80% Stormwater user fee 85% Stormwater user fees user fee
19 /o
0 Multiple revenue sources 1 % Permitting/other fees other
1 % Other 3% New development impact fees
11 % Other (FEMA grant, interest earnings)
e� 91- 6 No
How adequate is available funding ? PdeQ�eaSo�e PaeQ�a ease PdeQ�u geo��No�a6°'ge 'N °eea5
8% Adequate to meet all needs a��°� �05` �o5ti �ee�
2005 13 °% • 2002 8% 1999 16% 2007
39% Adequate to meet most needs
2005 32% • 2002 53 % 1999 = 44% 2005
40% Adequate to meet most urgent needs
2005 43 % • 2002 30% • 1999 34% 2002
13 % Not adequate to meet urgent needs
2005 = 12 % 9 2002 9% 1999 = 6% 1999
Adequate to meet most needs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
How is the majority of capital improvement needs financed ?
76% Cash financed 50% Cash financed
64% From user fees 50% New development impact fees
2% From ad valorem taxes
10% Other GO bonds Other
24% Debt financed Stormwater revenue bonds ,
Combined bonds
10% Stormwater revenue bonds
8% General Obligation (GO) bonds Ad valorem taxe0ther
User fees
4% Combined bonds
2% Other
Does your accounting system permit cost tracking by operating activity
(e .g ., inlet cleaning ) ?
57% Yes
43 % No No
Does your accounting system identify user-fee revenues by customer class
(e .g ., residential ) ?
79% Yes Yes
21 % No
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 13 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Stormwater User Fees i Billing
Other
How are your user fees billed .
With tax bills dip&
77% With water or other utility bills
16% With tax bills With water/utility bills
7% Other With water or other utility bills
What types of properties are exempt from user fees ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
61 % Streets/highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52% Undeveloped land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41 % Rail rights-of-way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23 % Public parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19% Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents were given
13 % School districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the opportunity to select
7% Colleges/universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more than one response,
o so the percentage total is
7 /o Water front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . greater than 100 percent.
3 % Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 % Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19% None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Undeveloped land, streets/highways,
rail rights-of-way
What customer classifications are recognized in your
stormwater fee structure ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
89% Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57% Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents were given
27% Other . . . . . . , , the opportunity to select
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o
26 /o Combined commercial/industrial than one response,lridustrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so the percentage total is
0
23 /o Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . greater than 100 percent.
10% No designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FF
Residential , commercial , other (multi-family) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Are rates the same for all service areas or watersheds ?
96% Yes Yes
4% No
Are your user-fees for single family dwellings the same as for individual multiple
residential units, such as apartments and condominiums ?
60% No No
40% Yes
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 14 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Stormwater User Fees and Billing (continued)
Were your rates revised in the last 12 months ?
54% Yes Yes - increased 10% (PIF) Increases ranged from
40
46% No I percent minimum to 10
300 percent maximum
What are your user fees designed to pay for?
7% Operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses only Other O&M only
,Capital improvements only
3% Capital improvements only
87% Both O&M expenses and capital improvements Both
3% Other
Both O&M expenses and capital improvements
What is the basis for your user fees ?
65% Impervious area Gross area - intensity
6% Gross area with intensity of development factor Both ij
9% Both impervious and gross areas a Lq a
14% Other number of rooms, water use, flat fee Other Impervious area
(e.g., )
6% Gross area with runoff factor
Both impervious and gross areas Gross area-runoff
If user fees are area based , what principal resources were employed to create and maintai
the customer database used to compute charges ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
46% Property tax assessor records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64n rcen of
52% Aerial ortho photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . responding utili ies
42% On-site property measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . utili e two or m re of
55% Geographic Information System (GIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . thes6 resp rcen to
25% Planimetric map take-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . crea a and mair, tain
16% Other (e.g. , building permits, site plans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . their billi g dat base
Property tax assessor records, GIs, other (site plans) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2007 AVERAGE MONTHLY
v N M
W � m O O O Cq N vl
%6 W W Ln n ^ b O aD vi O O O
O O aD ri ri ri vi vi O n V
J V n 4
_ J N
Q O V : d 2' -O : O J LL T Q Q V O
O - Q O V Q O O Q O J H v LL N C 4 al J LL O
fl. N -O 0
'° O Y m LL Y v O
E v O E o v m > y 0 s
m .M rn u v L � m c O
d OC LL Q VI d lJ.l d VI Z 'V Vl LL Q J F LL V) 0 Q 0 W V) 0 V J O J V) H as 0
. T O N M 7 vl
N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 15 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Are your stormwater charges based on individual or class average characteristics ?
Residential Non-Residential
39% Individual parcel 89% Individual parcel
61 % Class average as: 4-tier, 5-tier 6-tier 11 % Class average
45% Single tier 3-tier , Individual - - Class
4% 2-tier rate 2 tierA ,
o Individual
6 /0 3 -tier rate � �
2% 4-tier rate single Individual -- (net lot scl ft x citywide
2% 5-tier rate Individual -- (net lot scl ft + share of common Base Rate x Rate Factor
2% 6-tier rate area x citywide Base Rate x Rate Factor
y 3 percent of respondents who answered class average
(based on % of impervious area) did not provide the number of rate tiers.
Who is responsible for the payment of user fees? Other
4
67% Property owner Property owner 0Resident
20% Resident
13% Other (e.g. , water or other utility bill recipient) 40
Property owner
How frequently do you bill ?
62 /o Monthly Monthly PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25% Annually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6% Bimonthly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4% Quarterly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 80 90 100
What system do you use to maintain and process customer parcel information ?
33% Stormwater utility billing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
28% Water or wastewater utility billing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16% Geographic Information System (GIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13% Property tax assessment system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9% Stand-alone stormwater database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 % Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other - unified utility billing system 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 70 80 M 100
RESIDENTIAL CHARGE
t] I
0 0
O O M O� O O O O O O N vi
� 00 O O, � ^ N O M O O 1� n n O� vl O O O O � 1� D\ ^ �
M t+l M O N lV hj N
� LL 4 Hl t+1 t+f �
O z LL
c r V1 ai C m N C d O c Y O O V c V y y
0 0 .� y c n E E E w v >
O >i
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 16 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Are credits provided for private PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
detention/ retention facilities ? zoos
46% Yes Zoos
2005 = 46% • 2002 = 53 % 1999 = 50%
54% No No 200
1999
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 N 90 100
Have your user fees faced a legal challenge ?
Settlement reached Challenge sustained
76% No No Fees sustained
24% Yes Outcome Pending ----
15% Fees sustained
7% Outcome pending
1 % Settlement reached
1 % Challenge sustained
On what basis is payment of your user fees enforced ?
Other
47% Shut off water Lien on property Shut off water
33 % Lien
20% Other Property lien
Is a significant share of your utility costs attributable to stormwater run off from
outside your service area ?
97% No No
3 % Yes
Quality Issues — Best Management Practices
Which programs and ractices are being used to protect
or improve water qua I ity? PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
97% Public education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 % Erosion/sediment controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 % Street sweeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 % Detention/retention basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87% Illegal discharge detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86% Inlet stenciling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78% Stormwater quality monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67% Residential toxins collection . . (paint, oil, etc,) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64% Commercial/industrial regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rtheopportunity
ts were given
o to select
61 /o Constructed wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . one response,
32% Lawn herbicide/pesticide control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so the percentage total is
30% Treatment . .Reg.lo.nal water .quallty pon.ds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . greater than 100 percent.
9% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
All of the above except 'other'
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 17 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
ManagementCluallity Issues Best (continued)
Have you installed any stormwater treatment systems
in your stormwater conveyance system ?
58% Yes Yes
42% No
Devices installed . PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
56% Stonnceptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33 % CDS Separator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21 % Stonn Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 % Downstream Defend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents were given
10% VortechmCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the opportunity to select
o
5 /o Bay Saver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more than one response,
5% Crystal Stream so the percentage total is
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 % Abtech greater than 100 percent.
Stormceptor and underground water quality ponds 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Have these devices met your expectations ?
Yes
31 % Yes Stormceptors are older versions and not
18% No very efficient or easy to maintain . Undecided
51 % Undecided Underground water quality pond
was recently installed and no data has been provided. No
What contaminants are your greatest concern ? PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
81 % Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72% Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53 /o Oil and d grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents were given
the opportunity to select
46% Heavy metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more than one response,
37% Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so the percentage total is
22 o greater than 100 percent.
/o Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nutrients, Sediments, Other (Bacteriological)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Is your utility providing end -of- pipe treatment at outfalls into waters of the states or U . S . ?
30% Yes Yes
70% No 2-cell wetland sediment ponds, treating for
sediment and trash removal
Are quality- based user-fee credits, or other incentives, provided to encourage customers
control or reduce stormwater pollution ?
22% Yes No
78% No qF
Are user-fee credits provided to encourage customers to control or reduce stormwater
pollution ?
quantity
68% No No quality both
32% Yes
1 % Quality only
11 % Quantity only
20% Both quality and quantity
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 18 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Are incentives other than user-fee credits provided to customers to control or
reduce stormwater pollution ?
89% No No
11 % Yes quality
4% Quality only both
0% Quantity only
7% Both Quality and quantity
Public Inf ormationlEducation
How important is an organized public information /education effort to the continuing
success of a user-fee funded stormwater utility?
74% Essential Helpful
26% Helpful
0% Not necessary Essential
What means have you found to be the most effective in educating the public about
utility services, program needs and financing, and citizen responsibilities ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
46% Bill inserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
28% Speakers bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27% Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23% Public schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20% Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20% Open houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents were given
15% Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the opp rtun ty to Yelect
13% Public hearings/presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more th n one res once,
°
11 /o Brochures/flyers/newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so the p erceage i otal is
8% Direct marl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . greater than 100p rcent.
8% Neighborhood associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7% Newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4% Storm drain markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Bill inserts, Web pages, news media, mailings,
open houses and one-on-one discussions
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 19 of 30
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
ChallengesMajor Recently
Financial, rate and billing related issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 utilities
(e.g., financing growth, capital replacements, NPDES and other environmental mandates;
rate increases, rate equitability, rate challenges; and billing database updating or
conversion to GIS)
Regulatory and quality control compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 utilities
(e.g., illicit discharges, quality monitoring and difficulties of complying with more
stringent state and federal quality mandates related to Endangered Species Act,
TMDLs, et al.)
Weather and flooding issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 utilities
(e.g., high amounts of rainfall, standing water, West Nile concerns and localized flooding)
Infrastructure planning issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 utilities
(e.g., need for integrated flood, quality and environmental planning; remedy of specific
infiltration/inflow or local flooding problems; and system-wide flood control master planning)
Jurisdictional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 utilities
(e.g., incorporation of added cities into service area and co-permittee coordination)
Public education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 utilities
(e.g., need for increased education regarding new programs or rate increases)
Erosioncontrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I utility
(e.g., run-off and erosion problems)
SignificantAffecting Utilities in Past Two Years
NPDES compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 utilities
CIP related (funding, projects started/completed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 utilities
User fee related (increases, lack of increases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 utilities Some respondents
listed the same events
Weather related (heavy rains storms drought) 6 utilities as positive, negative or
both (e.g., heavy rains
Urban growth/decline in service area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 utilities or flooding brought
both damage and
Public education/awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 utilities increased public
awareness of needs).
Organization/administration/staffing changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 utilities
Legal challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 utilities
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
Page 20 of 30
Notes/Observations
Page 21 of 30
BUILDING 1 ' 1 OF DIFFERENCEO
About Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch is a leading global engineering, consulting Black & Veatch's Water Division focuses on the best and
and construction company specializing in infrastructure most advanced ways to clean, move, control and conserve
development in energy, water, telecommunications, water. B&V Water finds innovative solutions to protect
management consulting, federal and environmental markets. water at its source, treat it to the highest standards, deliver it
Founded in 1915, Black & Veatch develops tailored to homes and businesses, then collect and treat wastewater
infrastructure solutions that meet clients' needs and provide before reintroducing it safely back into the environment.
sustainable benefits. Solutions are provided from the broad Additional information on Black & Veatch and Black &
line of service expertise available within Black & Veatch, Veatch Water can be found at the company's web site
including conceptual and preliminary engineering services,
www.bv.com.
engineering design, procurement, construction, financial
management, asset management, program management, Enterprise Management Solutions (EMS) is the management
construction management, environmental, security design consulting division of Black & Veatch. Focused exclusively
and consulting, management consulting and infrastructure on the Water and Energy markets, EMS provides tailored
planning. strategic, process and technology solutions to deliver
improved operations, cost savings, new revenue streams and
With more than $2 billion in revenue, the employee-owned greater customer loyalty. More information on EMS is
company has more than 100 offices worldwide and has available at www.bv.com/consult, by emailing
completed projects in more than 100 countries on six stormwater@bv.com, or by calling (913) 458-3440.
continents.
LEGAL NOTICE: Please be advised, this Survey was complied DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR
primarily based on information B&V received from third-parties CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR
and B&V was not requested to independently verify any of this RELATING TO THIS REPORT OR RESULTING FROM THE
information. Thus, B&V's reports ' accuracy solely depends upon USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
the accuracy of the information provided to us and is subject to DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, USE, DATA OR OTHER
change at any time. As such, it is merely provided as an additional INTANGIBLE DAMAGES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN
reference tool, in combination with other due diligence inquiries ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
and resources of user. B&V assumes no legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any In addition, user should place no reliance on the summaries
information, or process disclosed, nor does B&V represent that its contained in the Surveys, which are not intended to be exhaustive
use would not infringe on any privately owned rights. This Survey of the material provisions of any document or circumstances. If any
may include facts, views, opinions and recommendations of point is of particular significance, reference should be made to the
individuals and organizations deemed of interest and assumes the underlying documentation and not to this Survey.
reader is sophisticated in this industry. User waives any rights it This Survey (and the content and information included therein) is
might have in respect of this Survey under any doctrine of third- copyrighted and is owned or licensed by B&V. B&V may restrict
party beneficiary, including the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) your access to this Survey, or any portion thereof, at any time without
Act 1999. Use of this Survey is at users sole risk and no reliance cause. User shall abide by all copyright notices, information, or
should be placed upon any other oral or written agreement, restrictions contained in any content or information accessed through
representation or warranty relating to the information herein. this Survey. User shall not reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, sell,
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. B&V distribute, perform, display, publish, broadcast, circulate, create new
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS works from, or commercially exploit this Survey (including the
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY content and information made available through this Survey), in
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A whole or in part, in any manner, without the written consent of B&V,
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. B&V, nor use the content or information made available through this
NOR ITS PARENT COMPANY, MEMBERS, SUBSIDIARIES, Survey for any unlawful or unintended purpose.
AFFILIATES, SERVICE PROVIDERS, LICENSORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS OR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY
BUILDING 1 ' I OF DIFFERENCE@
For custom strategies, proven processes
and high-value results, contact:
Anna White
Black & Veatch
11401 Lamar Avenue
Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
Tel: 785- 749-2550
Stormwater@bv. com
"'Black & Veatch Holding Company 2007. All Rights Reserved. The Black & Veatch R
name and logo are registered trademarks of Black ei Veatch Holding Company. V LACK & V E ATC H
Other services marks and trademarks included herein are the trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective companies. 10-07 ZI
Building a World of difference`:
Page 23 of 30
( this page intentionally left blank )
Page 24 of 30
Attachment 3
Refer to Attachment 7
of December 8 , 2009 AIS
Fort Collins Stormwater
Best Management Practices Review
i '4.• �.'Yy1
�;X
l • 1 \ 1
f
` { • _
R j
McBride Water LLC
March 2009
Page 25 of 30
Attachment 4
Refer to Attachment 15
of December 8 , 2009 AIS
Forta Collins
Co '
City of Fort Collins
Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines
for
Stormwater and Detention Facilities
November 5, 2009
PREPARED BY BHA DESIGN INC .
WITH CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITY SERVICES
Page 26 of 30
City of Fort Collins Stormwater BMP Coverage
I` W DUUULAb RDAS RD E COUNTY ROAD 5
r o m t o
Q A u_nw a
z p K < K
C F F
J m
O
z
COUNTY ROAD 54G z DID
qy 1�— ttlt'tiiiRu�'tMR�RU•'•'r»•-•.
.46
1 i p
N
r COUNTRY CLUB RD — —" z
p 1
m X LN E WILLOX LN '`u \ ! MOUNTAIN VISTA DR DAIENTY ROAD 5
w 7. >
Z f Q
J-J z _•
C OAD 48
44V Dam
@as Suisse
LAFQ �'e _s.._.._•, _.._6rw,
W MOUNN IN A E •,.
1
• rt N 1 y'p
_ T W MULBERRY OS z L
100008 y.
j_„ ` W ELIZABETH ST 6�,. _ . 1 ••�I
E PROSPECT RD E PEtT Re`
1 _
i"Vol
r
1 _
W DRAKE RD - o E DRAKE RDJL
ILL r-.. � 1 ,f
f
Lj
40
i
♦ r �,. ry
a +n
_ r C
44 _ 1
N
i
r — , �` 1 ly�Rt'r. ,•, I + ' Q �E TY ROAf3�" E OA 6.set
Consul
i
1 1 1 �� ✓ I Mir
some
1.•1 i :y_.a � i i
_ ' 1 .._, RD
96
r ti„r ��--•G�t Imo . - J7 all
tomorl
DID
x i i I r �A
CARPEft{3rRD•�.•_.._lr .•�
1 0
i 0
i
rn
N
o 1 2 4 November 16 , 2009
Miles
Legend Water Quantity Detention D
City Limits Water Quality Detention
CD
V CD
0
Subbasin Boundary Water Quantity and Quality Detention
City of Fort Collins BMP Structure Locations
I, W DUUULAb RD ?��• AS RD E COUNTY ROAD 5
r o m 1 • ♦ o
z o rc ' y t
D r
w i ,. .+.. w i
> 2 n F •� n
z
o z 1
z F z O,P� - ? r ! z
COUNTY ROAD 54G Z �O.Ap r I Lr�XRUS[SiA 1td"••+n+•' =y
1el
COUNTRY CLUB RD ` Z
z
m X LN E WILLOX LN - w 1 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR �MNTY ROAD 5
N — >Wboll
Jovialy .+Y
! z 1 i 0dot
�75...� ;
W VME -: — u+rrrn WA kwv,... , ..�
y�.ry J WVINE.PR y �•+..r..rnr..rr R CO�NT(�2OAD 48
lot lot
ANN
IL RTE AVE E LI 14.
^ � ,'.+L +•.:.r..r..r..+.. +. r .
4Y9
YV 7ULBERRY SP � 1 �'� ' L
51
a as
to' bit R
!r•• W ELIZABETH ST ■ - _ , ' 1 ♦••� - 1
r
• '� + a - _
ow
o . ' w ■ 1
1No, 1 ®I L4tr1% 1 1 y
411
,r"; > PROSPECT RD EPROSPECT RD EPROS�E'LY ♦A I. E
"ynd �y 1 ICI 60&0
At
DRAKE RD • - yE �..+.� e
1
At
JJ J ■ z j
♦ m i F
IN
�♦ 1 NLHORSETOOTH RD 0 E HORSETOO `■"ram ig
1ANdim — N W
!• 1 . i✓ a + N�j Will N
1 = aS
• L
Oe R.pur..rn1 W HARMO
1 m tw 1 ■ � r • 1 '♦
_ 1
02 1 ■
C 1 W 0,► .r.v ■ 1 1
m 1 ® Alt
_ r••r•'1�L ""1 _" "'" - - ECMUTY ROAVJV'0d KECHTER RDE RDA 6
Y, Pw.l
i w•• f.r..i ; 1 it
t
T,R ■ .. rn� 1 ' � o.. ..rc rut
;r.r..+..: 1••1 1 yr.:1
.r a.r..��! WTRIE� �'..r,x.nrn•i . r its! w ETIFI YRD tol�..r..r..i ! � .
1, 1 1 1 NIS
nrrle
7u
.Z � � rn... •., . ,.:..,.. - ten Sr..rnr ur,.rnr. CARPEf�EYjRU`urur..r yr..� •,•'�"EC6JRfFV'RtlAb•0T"rs�
1 D
i $
.n
N
o 1 2 4 November 16 , 2009
Miles
Legend City Water Quantity BMP D
City Limits ❑ City Water Quality BMP
Z3
0
Subbasin Boundary City Water Quantity and Quality BMP °'
Privately Owned BMP Structure Locations
IN DUUULA5 RD ?"I, EDOUGLAS RD ECOUNTY ROADS
ox❑ m 1 _ ❑
❑ A . _. . e ..�
z ❑ < 0
D r�
O O Aor
'.� m •,ter O
z LL U C •� ( U
z COUNTY ROAD 54G z rFCOaA +�..•••• ••i :•, IttlCliiiRUSCStR�RU .•'rn r+ �Y
.pe
1 ❑
COUNTRY CLU§,FD i
IS
$SN ArlL{'A LN 1 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR TY ROAD 5
•
1
j 60.
o to
❑ ! r .j u .P.r, .l
j
W VINEI�y: � • . • y /urnr•.1 . I. R
JJ, ,r„r,.r. ��•r• E COONOAD 48
elk
some III #94M
Me -4,000 Steel
� - - it %z LAORTE AVE E{I �.� rt
WMOUNTAIN AVE Opel,� !
W MULSE7IRY ST. z Z',Y _ ..� L 1
.P - o _ of
�-r _
O _ W LAUREL ST •`w.. �' •�. ..t 1.
Jr r„rur•0' ELIZABETH S'P' � } • -
[' J /
4 Am
B Ct
1 zr•' PROSPECT E PROSPECT RD• FWD• " _ CT —� _ �'i PROS159FA h I E 1 SPEtti?'
d • C '
It
,f • ter : • • __
,VAIt
debt(rur ✓'} -
1 3
?, DRAKE RD ..r,t"''ri' p
f.• •
�• r.•r .• w ORS RDA E HORSETOOTH RD sI m -
�'+ ! S<
[pr �, -� • �" V
1PI
1
f�
2
•� • i Y
3 s ..J �
1 m It
1 _
1 / 3r. -
r..ru(�� r°A • �• E COUNTY ROAD 36 - KECHTERRDE COUNTY ROAD 36
pull
1 tire.% j • _❑ - -
1 - 1 orur IBM,
Pei
;rwe .r..r.. 1..1 ter• • • .,. :r.ti _
•.a joelffmosmet
._ w r'.• .••mwor r !`N •••j E�TII1V RD (.'=r..r.. I..i
I- N .Se We
�.• • jJ w yl rt2
!.reel m r. • L N B
....�. .•s 'j
to
GETd +rnrn ., r•.rv�..iM C,,...ysurl.Yi•r. ,•CARPEfTMIZRUrnrururnre,��,..pj...� 'ten@C'QuNfVk"OtfYi$g••.rn.]
1 0
' i 0
,n -
j i
N
0 1 2 4 November 16 , 2009
Miles
Legend Subbasin Boundary
r•'r"r' City Limits D
v v
HOA Ponds Needing Assistance O Private Water Quantity BMP 3
00
O Private Water Quality BMP
'� HOA Ponds Assisted by City
CD 0 Private Water Quantity and Quality BMP
Habitat
• r ollins
1 11 51000 MOW
Feet
• � �� ■ 1111
7w` 11�1111
�I � �■r'1�1111- � �I' �77 ��� A �I
���� 7■:IIIINIINIII � � �_
�IIIIIPI•lilllllll .1.1- .� +__
Ij`nnnl_IYall!1■LI■OM� nn i■A 1�
�-��_IIIINNi�llr__
- ITS ■ i•�-ISr111111111I/NI 1111�1111. � �
1111::••=11:11111■NNIIIIII_IIIIII.
_ _ 1111_+�+�+1■IIIVIIIIN■IPIIIIIIII► ��� �_ _ - - ■�ii:_ I �
� C� 1111i1iiG '!C9f:9'�F9flIN;11111111�► w �------ �• G
�-�11 � � �� �1'u�llllll_II_IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII"` ��r 11i1Iv ��
ilYl� 17 Y ..;;nm'iiii e t 11111 11
`7� nall
' _= 11 � n'nee■�1■I��pl�
1 �'iiii===eeer�� II Ji
• ' � ' ` �SIIIIIIIIIIL'-JI■���lO1L'�.1 � �I
_ _ �� � min■■ r��':rE r�
� � 1��1 ■,,J,� � L�♦111111 � ; � �
.pimWIN
■� 11
H��j��
�� ■i7�i�•w ram.
ATTACHMENT 5
Stormwater Program Guiding Policies and
Codes Summary - 1996 to present
ATTACHMENT 5
Stormwater Program
Guiding Policies and Codes
(A brief history from 1996 to present)
1 . Rate Structure (aka Stormwater Financing Plan) — Changes to either the monthly fees or
Plant Investment fees requires Council adoption. The money generated by fees is
appropriated and approved for spending by Council through the budget process .
a. Chapter 26 of City Code sets monthly fees and Plant Investment (impact) fees
i. 1998 - Council adopts uniform citywide monthly fees
ii. 2001 - Council adopts Stormwater Financing Plan
iii . 2005 - Council adopts citywide Plant Investment fees
iv. 2005 - Council adopts revised Financing Plan to freeze monthly fees at 2004
rates
v. 2005 - Council reviews Capital Project Prioritization process
vi . 2008 - Council adopts Boxelder Authority Intergovernmental Agreement
2 . Stormwater Master Plan — Each basin is studied to identify flood problems and recommend
solutions as well as guide new development to ensure new problems are not created. Major
changes to the master plans are adopted by Council. Minor enhancements can be approved
by the Utilities General Manager
a. Chapter 26 of City Code references all basin master plans and requires all
developments to adhere to the plans
i. 1999- Council adopts the revised 100-year rainfall standard; this requires a
full update of basin master plans
ii. 2003 - Council approves 100-year level of protection at Work Session
iii . 2004- Council adopts citywide Stormwater Master Plan
iv. 2007- Council revisits 100-year rainfall standard and chooses to retain current
standard
Page 1 of 3
v. 2008 - Council adopts Upper Cooper Slough Master Plan and Boxelder Creek
Regional Stormwater Master Plan
vi. 2008 - Council adopts Boxelder Authority Intergovernmental Agreement
3 . Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality- this policy lays out the city' s approach to
protecting and improving stormwater quality. It is implemented through the design criteria,
water quality permit, and the master plan recommendations . The City is subject to the
NPDES non-source pollution permitting requirements .
a. Chapter 26 has no specific reference to the Watershed Approach
i . 1991 - Council adopts Erosion Control Criteria
ii. 1995 - Council adopts the Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality
iii . 1997- Stormwater BMPs added to the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and
Construction Standards (SDDCCS)
iv. 1999- Assessments of all flowing stream corridors are completed by Dr. Bob
Zeulig
v. 2003 - City obtains its first MS4 water quality permit
vi. 2004- Council adopts the citywide Stormwater Master Plan; stream restoration
recommendations are included
4. Floodplain Regulations — Changes to the floodplain regulations require Council adoption.
Regulations for FEMA designated floodplains must meet minimum FEMA criteria.
a. Chapter 10 of City Code
i. 1999- Council adopts revised rainfall standard; this requires an update to all
floodplains except the Poudre River.
ii. 2001 - Council adopts revised Poudre River floodplain regulations
iii . 2001 - Council adopts interim floodplain regulations for areas outside
previously mapped floodplains
iv. 2001 - Council adopts code change to authorize city floodplain delineations by
the Utilities General Manager
Page 2 of 3
v. 2002- New floodplain delineations based on revised rainfall (did not include
Poudre River)
vi . 2005 - Council adopts revised citywide floodplain regulations (except Poudre
River)
vii. 2006- FEMA adopts revised floodplains on Spring Creek, Dry Creek and
Cooper Slough/Boxelder Creek
viii. 2007- Council adopts revised floodplain regulations for Poudre River
cooperatively with Larimer County
5 . Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDCCS) - This
document, in conjunction with the Land Use Code and Stormwater Master Plan, sets
drainage criteria for new development and re-development. Criteria include detention
requirements, street capacity restrictions, stormwater runoff treatment, etc . Changes to the
criteria are done by ordinance and must be adopted by Council .
a. Chapter 26 of City Code references the SDDCCS and requires all development to
adhere to the criteria
i. 1991 - Council adopts the Erosion Control Criteria
ii. 1997- Stormwater BMPs added to criteria (references Vol. III of the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control Manual)
iii . 1999- Council adopts revised rainfall standard
iv. 2008 - Update to SDDCCS underway
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 6
Glossary of Acronyms for Stormwater
Terminology
ATTACHMENT 6
Glossary of Acronyms
B/C — Benefit Cost ratio
BMP — Best Management Practice(s)
CWP — Center for Watershed Protection
FEMA — Federal Emergency Management Agency
HOA — Home Owner Association
LID — Low Impact Development
LOMR — Letter of Map Revision
LOMR-Fill — Letter of Map Revision based on fill
LOP — Level of Protection
PIF — Plant Investment Fee
SEMSWA — Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority
SFR — Single Family Residence
TBL — Triple Bottom Line
UDFCD — Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 7
Fort Collins Best Management Practices
Review Report
ATTACHMENT 7
Fort Collins Stormwater
Best Management Practices Review
Will
r,
pp
1 p
i
L
a.:
_ y
__ TT33� ry 4
f
McBride Water LLC
March 2009
Page 1 of 37
Fort Collins Stormwater Best Management Practices Review
Proiect Purpose /Introduction
The goal of this project is evaluate the City' s stormwater quality programs and make
recommendations to achieve excellence in this area of environmental management. To
accomplish this goal the City has formed a team to review state of the art practices in
stormwater quality management and compare that to the City' s current programs . Mr.
Kevin McBride P .E. of McBride Water LLC has prepared this report in consultation with
Dr. Larry Roesner of the CSU Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Engineering and key City staff involved in stormwater management. This paper provides
a background on :
• the City ' s adopted policy on stormwater quality,
• current stormwater quality regulatory programs,
• "Low Impact Development" (LID) tools and
• water quality regulatory trends .
We then use a benchmarking tool developed by the Center for Watershed Protection
(CWP) to evaluate the City ' s current state of the practice. The benchmarking includes
action items recommended to meet the objective described above with the City
becoming recognized as a leader in stormwater quality management practices.
The information presented here was gathered by a combination of team experience,
interviews with persons and agencies recognized for excellence in stormwater quality
management, web searches, and professional judgment. Summary recommendations for
modifications to the City' s overall stormwater quality program including, staffing,
funding and design practices are discussed in the conclusions following the
benchmarking. Further review and adoption of structural "Best Management Practices"
(BMPs) including LID design, with a particular emphasis on those used by leading
jurisdictions will follow in a subsequent design report. This review will aid the City in its
incorporation of all appropriate technologies into its stormwater management programs in
order to create sustainable stormwater systems throughout its jurisdiction and lead
watershed partners to successful stormwater management in the region.
Background
In order to make appropriate recommendations for the City ' s stormwater quality program
it is important to understand the programs history, regulatory requirements, what "LID"
encompasses , and water quality regulatory trends . Particularly with Fort Collins mature
stormwater program, an understanding of its history is important when suggesting
improvements. The City must meet Clean Water Act requirements so recommendations
must be cognizant of these . Emerging technologies must be evaluated based upon an
understanding of their strengths and limitations . The following sections provide a brief
review of the program' s history, current regulatory requirements, emerging LID
technologies , and future trends in control of water quality from federal agencies.
Page 2 of 37
The City of Fort Collins Utilities has a long history of excellence in environmental
stewardship, from the Environmental Action Plan of the 1990 ' s to today ' s 21st Century
Utilities Initiative . The City has one of the oldest stormwater management agencies in
the country, creating its utility in 1980 . Starting with its flood control programs the City
exercised leadership in the field of urban hydrology with the first master planning of the
City ' s drainage basins completed in 1980 . The City made major strides in stormwater
quality management by adopting resolution 95 - 14 the "Watershed Approach to
Stormwater Quality Management" in 1995 . This policy included programs now
recommended by the CWP for state of the art stormwater quality management programs
and provided a start to meeting current regulatory requirements . The practice of
stormwater quality management has been brought into the public awareness in part by the
educational and public involvement programs started by the City and now required by
stormwater permits . This information feedback loop has increased concern for
stormwater quality protection and scrutiny of stormwater management practices . With
this report, our intent is to provide an improved understanding of the direction of the City
of Fort Collins Utilities in stormwater management.
An annual report to City Council in 1995 states : In 1995 The Stormwater Utility
formalized its approach to water quality, with a City Council resolution adopting the
Utility 's plan titled, "STORMWATER QUALITY.- A Watershed Approach ". This
approach responds to an action item in the City 's "Framework for Environmental
Action '; and upcoming NPDES permitting requirements. The resolution adopted by
council in February of 1995 recognizes the Stormwater Utility as the lead department in
this environmentally holistic and departmentally integrated framework. It insures that
the protection of water and associated environments is fully incorporated into the
Stormwater Utility 's work protecting public safety and property.
The City recognized early on that a coordinated approach to stormwater quality would be
required to meet Council ' s objectives and coming regulatory requirements . The initial
framework included creation of public education and involvement programs regarding
stormwater quality, incorporation of stormwater quality treatment in the City ' s
stormwater Design Manual, and the incorporation of habitat protection and restoration in
the City' s Drainage Basin Master Plans . In short, the Watershed approach called for
three main topics to be addressed by the Stormwater Utility with regards to ecologic
health:
• Preventing the introduction of pollutants into the City ' s watersheds,
• Treating the runoff and the pollutants carried by stormwater prior to reaching
receiving waters and,
• Protecting and restoring receiving water habitats .
These objectives formed the basis of the programs to meet then anticipated regulatory
objectives and encompass suggested program elements for a state of the art stormwater
quality program.
Page 3 of 37
Re2ulatory requirements, the six "Minimum Control Measures".
The City ' s stormwater discharge permit is required under the Federal Clean Water Act
and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) . This permit is
typically referred to as a Phase II Stormwater Permit or the MS4 permit (for Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System) . MS4 permits are administered in Colorado by the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment through the Colorado Discharge
Permit System (CDPS). All municipal separate storm sewer systems owned or operated
by public agencies in a U. S . Census Bureau designated "Urbanized Area" must have
these permits.
Stormwater permits are part of the point source regulatory program formerly associated
with treatment of domestic wastewater or industrial discharges . During the formation of
the regulations for stormwater permitting in the 1980 ' s cities argued against numeric
effluent limits . Difficulties in monitoring individual stormwater discharges due to their
random nature in timing, volume, and pollutant loading, have made determining the
pollutants contained in stormwater and their concentration problematic . Therefore, the
stormwater regulatory framework has more in common with non-point source pollution
control programs than the technologically based wastewater programs . Non-point
programs have typically relied on the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) .
Essentially any activity undertaken to reduce environmental impact is called a BMP .
This includes activities that are preventative such as educational activities about urban
runoff, liter control, proper street and parking lot cleaning practices, using fewer
chemicals on turf, etc . BMPs also include stormwater treatment measures like settling
ponds, constructed wetlands, and sand filters that are built as part of the drainage system.
Also included in the list of BMPs are land management techniques such as buffer strips
along streams and techniques for stream restoration. Long lists of BMPs are available for
various situations .
Different from other types of water quality discharge permits that typically require a
quantitative measurement of chemical water quality parameters, MS4 permits call for
municipalities to "reduce the discharge of pollutants from its municipal separate storm
sewer system to the maximum extent practicable" (MEP) . To meet the MEP standard
municipalities have been encouraged to choose BMPs that are appropriate for their
jurisdictions. This MEP standard has been interpreted to mean that the permittee will
establish six programs called the minimum control measures and establish measurable
requirements for each program. The six required programs are :
1 ) Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts
2) Public Involvement/Participation
3) Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
4) Construction Site Runoff and Pollution Management
5) Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development/Redevelopment
6) Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Page 4 of 37
Many individual activities are included in each of the programs . For example, Post-
Construction requires municipal ordinances mandating BMPs , design criteria for them,
design review for each individual development proposal, inspection during their
construction, and maintenance activities in perpetuity. A detailed description of goals
and measurement methods for each program make up the majority of the permit itself.
Detailed descriptions of the City ' s programs are available in its MS4 permit
documentation. A comprehensive evaluation has been performed by the City to assess
compliance with the permit. All measurable goals to date have been met and evaluations
are ongoing to document compliance .
Many of the requirements of the six permit minimum control measures are included in
the following CWP Benchmarking Tool .
Low Impact Development (LID)
Emphasis has been given recently to LID technologies as a basis for stormwater
programs . LID is a stormwater design philosophy containing BMPs that fit into the
regulatory framework under program 5 , Post Construction Stormwater Management in
New Development/Redevelopment. As a design philosophy, proponents of LID theorize
that the use of these BMPs in a systematic framework will solve many of the ecologic
problems observed in developed watersheds . Most sources attribute the first uses of the
term LID to Prince Georges County Maryland. LID definitions from various sources
follow and some of the pros and cons of the technology are discussed.
Low Impact Development as used in Stormwater Management is typically used by
proponents as an alternative design strategy to what is seen as "typical" design
procedures for land development. The literature the Low Impact Development Center
defines LID as follows :
"Although the term "low impact development " can be loosely defined (much like
sustainable development), the appropriate definition of LID is distinct and should not be
confused with other stormwater management and development strategies. The key
distinction of LID from these other strategies is that it is an ecosystem based approach.
LID seeks to design the built environment to remain a functioning part of an ecosystem
rather than exist apart from it. The approach relies more heavily on smarter and
advanced technologies than it does on conservation and growth management; it is not a
land use control strategy. "
They further state
"Low Impact Development (LID) is an innovative stormwater management approach
with a basic principle that is modeled after nature: manage rainfall at the source using
uniformly distributed decentralized micro-scale controls. LID 's goal is to mimic a site 's
Page 5 of 37
predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store,
evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source ". Low Impact Development (LID)
Center, Beltsville MD . (lid-stormwater.net/)
EPA ' s Literature Review defines LID in slightly more technical terms .
LID is a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the predevelopment
hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques to create a
functionally equivalent hydrologic landscape. USEPA Low Impact Development
Literature Review, 2000 http ://www. epa. gov/owow/nps/lid/lid.pdf (PDF)
For all the claims that LID is a pure hydrologic or stormwater management tool in a
review CENews .com wrote the following.
"Low Impact Development (LID) is a relatively new practice that attempts to unite site
planning, land development, and stormwater management with ecosystem protection.
Put briefly, LID is a comprehensive development and design technique that strives to
preserve predevelopment hydrology and water quality through a series of small-scale,
distributed structural and non-structural controls. CENews. com,
hqp ://www. cenews . com/article. asp?id=211
In its conceptual formulation, LID is an ecosystem protection tool built on the premise of
stormwater control distributed more fully across the urban landscape. This means more,
smaller BMPs seeking to detain, infiltrate, evaporate, and utilize stormwater flow so that
stream systems flow in amount and duration and with a similar quantity and quality to
what occurred in predevelopment conditions .
The theory is that this design technique will protect the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the receiving water body. Significant work has been published on the
theoretical basis for the use of LID techniques . The hydraulic, hydrologic, and chemical
treatment function and efficacy of many LID techniques is promising. In fact most of the
individual techniques or BMPs were in existence prior to the term LID . Proponents
claim the difference is the use of LID techniques at an individual lot scale will eliminate
the need for and use of traditional stormwater management tools such as curb and gutter,
stormwater inlets, pipes and water quality detention ponds . Through the use of a
combination of LID techniques proponents claim LID will reduce costs and protect the
environment in urban environments .
Our literature review and phone surveys found many jurisdictions considered leaders in
stormwater management moving towards encouraging LID techniques in design manuals
for their jurisdictions . Significantly many of the jurisdictions are using the technologies
to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) where domestic sewage is released into
stormwater drainages due to an overloading of pipes with stormwater. This is not a
problem with most modern separate storm sewer systems such as exist in Fort Collins .
We did not find examples of LID techniques incorporated at a watershed scale significant
enough to be linked to the achievement of a desired level of ecosystem function, except
where used to limit CSOs. LID, at this point, is an evolving practice for stormwater
Page 6 of 37
management. It is founded in sound science and engineering enough that it is being
embraced by many jurisdictions. Its incorporation into the full range of stormwater
management for both flood control and ecologic benefits is not yet a proven technology
evidenced by incorporation into standard development practice nationally.
The individual BMPs considered LID technologies generally contain infiltration and/or
filtration as part of their function. These techniques have long been known to provide
superior water quality treatment when compared to surface measures relying on
settlement for treatment of stormwater flows .
A note of caution on the limitations of LID flow controls in Western U. S . situations .
Many streams in the semi-arid west have been significantly altered by mining, irrigation,
water resource management, and urbanization in the past. Along Colorado ' s Front Range
it was not possible to find a "reference" stream containing biota comparable to historic
records during research conducted by CSU. For example in Fort Collins, Spring Creek
has a significantly changed watershed area since the construction of Spring Creek Dam
on Horsetooth Reservoir and flows are influenced by current water users ' needs as well
as urbanization. Soldier Creek is essentially non-existent downstream of Soldier Canyon
Dam, and significant alteration has occurred on Boxelder Creek even in a relatively non-
urbanized watershed. The limitations of using LID to create "natural" flow regimes
where streams are already significantly altered should be noted, so that all appropriate
environmental management tools are utilized.
Water Quality Control and Regulatory Trends
There is general agreement that water quality problems must be addressed in a
comprehensive way integrating all the impacts (regulated and non-regulated) to a water
body from sources in its watershed. The EPA endorsed the idea of watershed based
programs in 1991 and has moved toward this idea as evidenced by the implementation of
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) permitting for impaired streams throughout the
nation. Where urban stormwater discharges occur they are often incorporated into these
permits in a quantitative way. This goes beyond what is typically required in MS4
permits . No waterways within the jurisdiction of Fort Collins are currently listed as
impaired so TMDLs do not have an immediate impact on the Stormwater Program.
However, the control of pollutant loading will minimize the risk of TMDL development
for local waters receiving stormwater, reclaimed domestic wastewater, and/or industrial
discharges .
Though stormwater permits seek to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable there is recognition that all impacts to urban waterways do not come
from the discharge of what is traditionally considered a pollutant. The discharge of
additional quantities of water can also cause significant erosion in stream channels,
causing changes in channel morphology and leading to loss of aquatic habitat. Direct
impact to waterways due to channelization, piping, concrete lining, etc. have taken place
in most urban jurisdictions and this is true in Fort Collins as well . Future efforts should
Page 7 of 37
address impacts from the changes in runoff quantities as well as traditional pollutant
loadings where appropriate .
Assessment of "State of the Practice" for Fort Collins
The previous sections introduced the City' s Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality,
Clean Water Act Stormwater Regulations, LID practices, and future regulatory trends .
Complete control of the physical and chemical characteristics of precipitation runoff and
the environments through which this water flows is a daunting challenge. The City has
adopted a policy to prevent pollution, treat runoff, and protect habitats . The EPA has
adopted a regulatory program to the maximum extent practicable for urban runoff. New
LID management practices have been advanced that may alter the way land development
occurs . The federal government seeks new regulatory mechanisms to achieve Clean
Water Act goals . Even with these efforts nationally and locally there has been a lack of
clear and affordable scientific measurement criteria for stormwater quality. This fact
necessitates other programmatic assessment methods .
For this project we sought a review method for the Fort Collins programs that goes
beyond the regulatory requirements and embraces the City' s environmental values . We
sought a tool that would address the breadth of the City ' s goals for sustainable
development and a tool that comes from a credible source to insure impartiality. We
selected the CWP ' s "Smart Watershed Benchmarking Tool" as an outline because it
addresses a wide range of methods to protect waterways from the impacts of
urbanization. The following describes the CWP , the development of the Benchmarking
Tool, and its use to evaluate the City' s stormwater quality program.
Center for Watershed Protection Benchmarking Tool
The Center for Watershed Protection grew out of efforts to protect streams in Maryland
in 1992 and has grown into a respected organization offering many publications
regarding stormwater quality. A national roundtable convened by the CWP recognized
that individual site practices reduce pollutant loads and improve runoff water quality.
However, they write that "a broader approach was needed to organize municipal
programs to restore conditions at the watershed scale ". They studied fifty communities
around the country and found that :
• Many communities have made dramatic progress in improving their overall
watershed restoration capability in recent years.
• The integration of restoration programs has been poor in most communities,
which has prevented them from achieving measurable improvements in water
quality.
• EPA and other regulatory agencies are increasingly requiring urban communities
to quanta pollutant reductions to meet regulatory mandates at the same time
Page 8 of 37
communities are having extreme difficulties in documenting improvements from
long-term restoration programs.
In order to help individual communities assess program performance the CWP developed
"The Smart Watershed Benchmarking Tool" . The 14 assessment programs are arranged
from the most general, watershed planning, move to monitoring/reporting functions and
then become more specific tasks such as financials, natural areas management,
engineering criteria, and public education among others . These 14 programs are
subdivided into 56 individual questions (benchmarks). Each question is given a
maximum number of points and scoring criteria for each question is provided as guidance
for users . Many terms used in the tool such as "subwatershed restoration", "natural area
remnants" and "upland restoration" are defined in the CWP publication. Essentially
watershed restoration means using all available BMPs in a drainage basin to protect and
restore the chemical, physical and biological integrity of a stream. For reference to other
terms, the entire CWP Smart Watershed Benchmarking Tool is included as Appendix A.
Benchmarkiniz Results
The summary of results from a benchmarking working group representing stormwater
permitting, development review, education, master planning, capital projects, and
McBride Water LLC are presented in this section. The group met on December 8 , 2008
to quantify benchmarking values. The process gives a point value for each question
based upon the CWP ' s criteria for the City ' s current programs . Appendix B details the
procedure and contains each question with the total number of points in parenthesis, the
number of points awarded by the team, a brief summary of the discussion for each
question, followed by an action item addressing weaknesses found in the City ' s current
programs . It should be understood that the assigned numerical grade is somewhat
subjective and using them as a tool for discussing and recommending future actions is the
most important result of using the benchmarking tool.
Page 9 of 37
The point total comes from the following scores .
PROGRAM Total 2008
Points * Benchmarking Percentage
1 Subwatershed Restoration Planning 13 6 . 5 50 . 0
2 Stream and Subwatershed Field Assessment 7 6 . 5 92 . 9
3 Subwatershed Monitoring and Reporting 5 2 . 75 55 . 0
4 Watershed Restoration Financing 5 3 . 3 66 . 0
5 Management of Natural Area Remnants 10 10 100. 0
6 Stormwater Retrofitting 10 8 80 . 0
7 Urban Stream Repair/Restoration 7 5 . 5 78 . 6
8 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 8 7 87 . 5
9 Maintenance, Inspection and Enforcement 5 4 . 5 90. 0
10 Smart Site Practices During Redevelopment 5 3 . 5 70 . 0
11 Watershed Education and Personal 9 7 77 . 8
Stewardship
12 Public Involvement and Neighborhood 5 3 60 . 0
Consultation
13 Pollution Prevention at Stormwater Hots pots 4 3 . 5 87 . 5
14 Pollution Prevention at Municipal 7 6 . 5 92 . 9
Operations
100 77 . 6
Our Benchmarking exercise yields a final point total of 77 . 6 out of a possible 100 point
total. The CWP give the following table for comparison purposes to other medium size
cities
Page 10 of 37
TABLE 7: SMARTWATERSHED BENCHMARKING • • ' MEDIUM COMMUNITIES
( POPULATION 50,000 250,000)
A 80or more points. Excellent. Given the size and resources available to your community, you are doing a commendable
job on implementing watershed restoration projects on the ground — and are a model for comparably sized
communities to follow.
B 70 to 79 points. Good job. While your overall program activity is high, further investments to align and integrate your
watershed restoration programs can help you reach the next level and improve the health of your watersheds.
C 60 to69 points. Good start, but a ways to go. Carefully review your individual program scores to look for low cost
opportunities to add or expand local watershed restoration programs. Look for creative ways to engage new partners
to leverage resources.
D 40to59points. Need improvement. Your watershed restoration activity is not comprehensive enough to meet local
water quality goals or the spirit of your MS4 NPDES Phase I or II permit or other looming water quality regulations.
F 39orfewerpoints. Poor. It's time to immediately review your local stormwater and watershed restoration programs
since they do not appear to comply with the minimum requirements of your MS4 NPDES Phase I or II permit.
The total points give the City of Fort Collins a B+ rating according to the CWP
procedure. This relatively high grade is not surprising given the attention to stormwater
management the City has provided over the span of decades . However, more important
to the goals of this project are the areas where the City has the most potential to raise its
performance. The program areas of subwatershed restoration planning, subwatershed
monitoring, watershed restoration financing, and public involvement have the most
potential for improvement.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Using the Center for Watershed Protection ' s benchmarking scale the City of Fort Collins
earns a B+ rating in its efforts to protect urban watersheds . The City is very active on
both the stormwater regulatory front, and in the protection of natural areas . The City has
expressed that this B+ rating is under its performance expectations and seeks to be as a
leader in the field of stormwater quality management.
To that end the tool used here confirms both what the Center for Watershed Protection
has found nationally and what City staff indicated during several meetings and
interviews . According to the CWP "many communities have made dramatic progress
in improving their overall watershed restoration capability in recent years"; however
"integration of restoration programs has been poor in most communities" . This statement
summarizes the findings of benchmarking Fort Collins efforts . For example, the efforts
made for the municipal MS4 discharge permits rated highly, and even the non-regulatory
urban stream repair and restoration work gave 79% of available points showing the City' s
capability in restoration work. However, integration of this capability into subwatershed
plans through the basin master plans in order to protect and restore the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of Fort Collins urban streams is needed.
Page 11 of 37
As evidenced by the low score in the CWP benchmarking program 1 "Subwatershed
Restoration Planning, there is a need for coordination focused on individual urban
watersheds . The City has very detailed stormwater master plans for flood control in its
urban drainage basins ; however it lacks the integration of similar detail from a
stormwater quality planning perspective. These master plans currently include habitat
restoration potentials of streams ; however master plan implementation focuses on flood
control projects for implementation of stream habitat restoration. The benchmarking tool
calls for "subwatershed restoration" planning (a CWP term) . In our opinion integrating
this planning along with the flood control necessities can take the City of Fort Collins
beyond being highly rated separately in the flood control or stormwater quality arenas
and have a truly integrated stormwater program.
In order to improve the efficacy of the City' s Watershed Approach addressing the
program areas with the lowest scores is suggested. The following are recommendations
for steps towards program improvement along with the benchmarking question each step
will address :
1 . Formation of a watershed planning team led by a planning coordinator(s)
• Addresses benchmark 5 and 6
2 . Formation of a citizen review group for the watershed team
• Addresses benchmark 46 and 48
3 . Completion of Master Plan updates (subwatershed restoration plans) that define
the BMPs (including LID techniques) that should be used in order to protect and
restore the chemical, physical and biological attributes of each stream within each
drainage basin (note that this will require updating of engineering criteria) .
• Addresses benchmark 1 , 2 , 4 and 7
4. Revise timelines and budgets for implementation of each Master Plan.
• Addresses benchmark 17 and 18
5 . Formalized coordinated long term monitoring programs to provide feedback to
the watershed team in order to track progress.
• Addresses benchmark 13 , 14 and 16
It will be important for the watershed planning team to be an empowered
multidisciplinary group representing departments with a stake in urban infrastructure
design and maintenance as well as those that manage land and water resources . Goals for
the team should be clearly defined and address the benchmarking questions referenced
above in light of the City ' s Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality or other
appropriate policies.
The citizen review group would ideally represent a diverse set of stakeholders that have
an interest mirroring those of the staff representatives . Communication so that
stakeholder involvement in restoration planning is achieved is essential to this
recommendation. In the authors experience involvement of those already on existing
boards and commissions that have an interest in the topic of stormwater can provide a
reliable source of input. Alternatively, the Water Board could serve as the citizen review
board for the watershed planning group.
Page 12 of 37
The completion of "subwatershed restoration plans" integrated with the existing
stormwater master plans has been discussed at some length with Utilities staff. This is, in
the author' s opinion, the key element to meeting the suggestions of the CWP
benchmarking. It also is an efficient use of the resources the City has already invested in
both stream rehabilitation and flood planning. In discussions with other leading
municipalities, the lack of integrated stormwater quality and quantity planning hinders
the implementation of restoration efforts. Sound budgets and timelines for these master
restoration plans will certainly be helpful in their implementation.
Scoping the elements of the subwatershed restoration plans by the watershed team and
citizen review group should be the first step in their implementation. Suggested elements
include :
• review of current stormwater quality infrastructure in each basin
• evaluation of the coverage and expected efficacy of the treatment types
• selection of type and location of additional structural BMPs appropriate to
each basin
• evaluation of the stream system ecologic condition in each basin
• capacity for restoration of stream system
• conceptual rehabilitation designs integrated with flood plain evaluations
• evaluation of costs and setting up prioritization lists
In conjunction with the planning and implementation of subwatershed restoration plans
monitoring progress in scientifically valid ways will move the City and the region
forward in meeting the challenges of sustainable development and redevelopment. Fort
Collins is in the unique position of having significant water resources research capability
available at Colorado State University. It can use these resources to the advantage of
both entities in recording and reporting the efficacy of not only individual BMPs but
watershed approaches to watershed restoration in the urban west.
These steps will provide the mechanisms needed to coordinate regulatory and non-
regulatory efforts departments are currently undertaking. The watershed group can focus
efforts on the restoration of urban streams unique to each basin while at the same time
meeting regulatory requirements .
Full implementation of these steps will yield at least 90 points using the benchmarking
tool (see Appendix A for rating spreadsheet) . This equals an A rating for medium sized
cities and a low A for large municipalities (over 250,000 in Population) . It is likely
implementing the above recommendations will yield even higher numbers . The
following is a quote from the CWA, "90 points or more . Congratulations ! Your
community is a national leader in watershed restoration and is a model for other
communities to follow. Your local restoration programs are integrated and aligned, and
the rate of actual implementation is high. "
Page 13 of 37
Appendix A
The Center for Watershed Protection' s
Smart Watershed Benchmarking Tool
Page 14 of 37
Appendix B
A Ranking of the City of Fort Collins '
Stormwater Quality Programs
Using the Center for Watershed Protection ' s
Smart Watershed Benchmarking Tool
Page 15 of 37
City of Fort Collins use of the CWP Benchmarking Tool .
Program 1 Subwatershed Restoration Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The CAT states that the best scale of approximately ten square miles is optimal for
restoration planning. It allows for the "unique characteristics of each subwatershed" to
be considered in restoration planning. The City' s Drainage Basin Master Plans are an
appropriate scale and indeed are currently used for some components of restoration
planning. Additional work will be necessary to incorporate all recommended planning
benchmarks .
1 . Subwatershed-based restoration planning ( 1 point) :
Do you conduct watershed restoration planning based on subwatersheds less than ten
square miles in area?
Points — 0. 5
Discussion — This level of planning was one of the key elements of the City ' s Watershed
Approach to Stormwater Quality. This planning integrates stormwater quality and
quantity decisions in order to facilitate coordination between the two . Additionally,
planning at this scale allows the characteristics of each basin to be considered. Council
resolution 2000- 82 recognized the uniqueness of each watershed with regards to
floodplain regulations. These basins will continue to be used as a basis for restoration
planning as evolving techniques are incorporated in the program.
Action — Continue using master plans for stormwater quality planning and modify as
needed, for example in planning retrofitting of stormwater treatment in the system.
2 . Subwatershed planning activity (2 points) :
How many subwatershed restoration plans have been initiated and/or completed in your
community in the Iasi three hears ?
Points — 1
Discussion — The twelve master plans adopted in the last several years focused on flood
control but also included stream restoration activities. It was assumed that requirements
in the MS4 permit would control pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable
in all basins within the City. Master plans for each basin were most recently adopted by
Council in 2004 . The physical components of each stream (where they existed) were
evaluated for ecological health and restoration potentials. We think the time frame in this
question is somewhat arbitrary. However there is a need to revisit each master plan with
respect to evolving technology for environmental protection and to incorporate new
policy objectives . For example, will LID techniques for new development reduce
impacts on the receiving waters? The answer is likely different for less developed basins
such as Boxelder Creek compared to Old Town Basin. Does current policy reflect
increasing interest in stream restoration and thus its inclusion in revised master planning?
Page 16 of 37
Action - Reevaluate each basin with respect to habitat restoration and pollutant reduction
(watershed restoration) .
3 . Clear goals driving restoration efforts (2 points) :
Have you clearly articulated the goals that guide your watershed restoration efforts ?
Points — 2
Discussion — Current policy is to protect and enhance surface waters . Policy Goals were
made clear in the City ' s adoption of the 1995 report "Stormwater Quality: A Watershed
Approach" . More detailed goals for restoration efforts in habitat improvements were
made clear by an evaluation method for master planned improvements to the storm
drainage system. A ranking method was developed for habitat components, and
stormwater treatment BMPs for all new and redevelopment is included in permit
compliance . Additionally, the Old Town Basin included regional wetland treatment as
relatively little redevelopment (in areal extent) was anticipated.
Action — Review policy to ensure appropriate watershed restoration goals are articulated.
Consider incorporating LID techniques at the site level into stated goals ; clearly state the
environmental functions water bodies are to meet.
4. Comparative subwatershed analysis ( 1 point) :
Have you systematically screened all the subwatersheds in your community (e.g. , using
desktop GIS analyses) to prioritize the ones with the greatest restoration potential or
most severe impacts ?
Points — 0
Discussion — All flowing waters have been evaluated as well as habitat grades given for
each reach of stream. Preliminary opinions of achievable improvements are included in
each master plan. However there is no clear prioritization for watershed restoration, as
stream restoration was to occur as part of master planned projects that were prioritized for
flood control. Environmental prioritization is necessary to ensure current policy is
adequately addressed in the plans .
Action — Create a prioritization of watershed restoration sites in each master plan. Map
on GIS software .
5 . Dedicated staffing for watershed coordination (2 points) :
Do you have dedicated staff to coordinate your watershed planning process ?
Points — 0
Discussion — Many "watershed restoration" activities are currently undertaken throughout
the Utilities, Natural Resources, and other departments . The City ' s watershed restoration
Page 17 of 37
efforts could benefit by additional coordination. An effort to further coordinate programs
of the stormwater permit, City staff that implement permit compliance, master planned
improvements (including their construction), Natural Resources ' restoration efforts and
other key environmental programs is important. Currently the City employs an
environmental regulatory specialist to coordinate the Stormwater Permit. Indeed the
activities of the permit are integral to many efforts in restoration planning. However
other important tools are beyond the scope of the permit. These typically include the
habitat components . Planning for habitat work in Utilities is part of the stormwater
Master Plans . Also the Natural Resources open space program and Parks includes stream
systems and wetlands (see CWP program 5) . It is imperative that these environmental
programs are coordinated with stormwater master plans as stormwater quality and flood
control activities are interrelated with physical habitat components . It is appropriate that
coordination of these watershed programs is given additional attention.
Action —Formally designate (a) "Watershed Coordinator(s)" to work with a watershed
restoration team (or formally add this to an existing job description(s)) . The watershed
coordinator should facilitate the efforts of a watershed team (see next question below)
6 . Watershed management structure ( I point) :
Does an interagency workgroup or watershed group exist to guide the subwatershed
planning process ?
Points — 0
Discussion — Stormwater master plans once completed and adopted moved to
implementation. Similarly the Stormwater Permit focuses on implementation of its six
programs . Various stormwater staff, advanced planning, capital projects managers,
Utilities education Staff, Natural Resources staff and other departments are involved in
implementation of projects . The City is currently engaged in several environmental
initiatives all of which will have a positive impact upon waterways . The challenge of
integrating stormwater quality concerns into green or sustainability initiatives is one of
the reasons that the CWP and many other agencies advocate for watershed based
planning. It should be recognized that stormwater programs typically have difficulty
leading the environmental agenda due to competing objectives involving control of
stormwater. Particularly problematic is control of stormwater around streets due to the
potential for structural problems due to moisture. The watershed team must include
stakeholders who have knowledge of these competing interests with objectives of
restoration clearly understood and supported by management for each area represented on
the team.
Action — Formally Designate an interagency "Watershed Restoration Team" (expand
scope and members of current team or form as part of Master Plan update team.)
7 . Watershed-based GIS mapping system (2 points) :
Do you utilize a watershed-based GIS mapping system that integrates all the data layers
needed to support watershed restoration planning efforts ?
Page 18 of 37
Points — 1 . 5
Discussion — The City utilities has both GIS and CAD based systems to track a variety of
watershed activities . Both ESRI based GIS and the Utility ' s own U-map system have
layers that contain important information.
Action — Ensure the proper information on stream grades, stormwater quality treatment
facilities and monitoring are represented on computer based information systems .
8 . Tracking of restoration information ( 1 point) :
Is a watershed-based geographic information system used to track cumulative restoration
project implementation ?
Points — 0. 5
Discussion — This is not currently done.
Action — Use GIS system to track cumulative progress. See above .
9 . Mechanism for plan adoption ( 1 point) :
Have you defined the process by which subwatershed plans will be adopted, budgeted
and implemented in your community ?
Points — I
Discussion — Stormwater master plans and their adoption serve this purpose .
Action — Ensure that reevaluated and adopted Stormwater Master Plans include
appropriate stream restoration, budgets, and implementation schedules . Provide for Re-
adoption by council if necessary.
Program 2 Stream and Subwatershed Field Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10 . Rapid stream corridor assessments (2 points) :
Have you conducted stream corridor assessments within priority subwatersheds in thlast i4ee years
Points — 1 . 5
Discussion — Evaluation of stream corridors was part of the previous Master Planning
process. See next question for more detail on assessments .
Action — Reevaluate corridors where projects have occurred in order to address the
timing portion of the question.
Page 19 of 37
11 . Field evaluation of restoration potential in the stream corridor (3 points) :
Does your rapid assessment methodology employ parameters that assess stream impacts
and restoration potential?
Points — 3
Discussion — Assessment methods were developed by graduate students Mr. Scott
Hoffman and Mr. Robert Zuellig under the guidance of Dr. Boris Kondratieff at CSU.
Mr. Hoffman' s thesis evaluated the appropriateness of the use of EPA ' s Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Streams in the Fort Collins setting. Mr. Zuellig built upon
that work by refining the evaluation techniques and evaluating all flowing water bodies
within the City. The assessment method and screening included channel stability,
riparian health, aquatic insect diversity, and stream habitat. Additional setbacks have
been adopted along some streams due to stability concerns .
Action — Review previously developed methods for evaluating restoration projects and
incorporate lessons learned into potential in new projects. (wetland banking?)
12 . Field evaluations of upland restoration potential (2 points) :
Do you conduct any field assessments in upland areas of subwatersheds to evaluate
restoration potential?
Points — 2
Discussion —Upland restoration such as those in natural areas, associated with forestry
practices, landscaping requirements and stormwater treatment occur throughout Fort
Collins . This question relates to the many efforts some of which are part of other
departments primary mission such as Natural Resources and Forestry as well as pollution
screening efforts under the stormwater permit and educational efforts started as part of
the Watershed Approach. Much of this work should be part of the watershed group
discussed previously in question 6 .
Action — Continue coordination with Natural Areas Program, City Forestry Department,
stormwater hotspot surveys and outfall screenings . Evaluate retrofitting potentials in the
engineered stormwater system.
Program 3 Subwatershed Monitoring and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13 . Subwatershed monitoring program (2 points) :
Do you have a monitoring program that measures key aquatic indicators at the
subwatershed level?
Points — 1 . 5
Discussion - Initial monitoring of biological indicators was completed in approximately
2004 and water quality monitoring exists at key locations . The rapid assessments done as
part of the original stream evaluations included detailed aquatic macro invertebrate
Page 20 of 37
monitoring. Long term sentinel monitoring occurs on the Poudre River. The City has a
water quality monitoring program that measures key aquatic chemical and biological
indicators based on the designated use of the stream. The monitoring program includes
sample sites on Spring Creek, Fossil Creek, Boxelder Creek, Parkwood Lake, Cache La
Poudre River, and will soon be expanded to include Fossil Creek Ditch and the Cooper
Slough. The Poudre River monitoring agreement includes USGS sampling stations .
Action — Develop a sentinel monitoring program using biotic indicators equivalent to
those used in the Zuellig Report. Coordinate this data with current water quality
monitoring efforts and relate that to stormwater quality concerns .
14. Aquatic indicators linked to watershed goals ( 1 point) :
Does your monitoring program employ aquatic indicators that reflect the goals and
objectives of your watershed restoration effort so that progress can be quantified?
Points — 0
Discussion — Water Quality Monitoring is related to stream standards set by the Colorado
Department of Health and Environment, no benthic or fish goals have been adopted. The
aquatic indicators currently employed are based on the designated use of the stream.
CSU will be evaluating the parameters and monitoring data to determine if they are the
correct indicators for measuring progress of watershed restoration efforts . Due to the
range of chemical, physical and biological impacts to urban water ways indicators
provide only a gross understanding of impacts .
Action — The City should seek to tie its monitoring efforts to larger watershed monitoring
and research efforts for example the USGS National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) or CSU research programs to leverage its efforts, linking the monitoring
program results to goals defined by the watershed group .
15 . Public notification of water quality problems ( 1 point) :
Does your program provide timely notification to the public about spills, sewage
discharges and other water quality problems that make it unsafe for the public to swim,
recreate or consume fish from local waters ?
Points — 1
Discussion — The City has procedures in place for responding to spills and illicit
discharges, which includes notifying the State in the event of a water quality or health
issue . The State then directs the requirements for issuing a public notification based on
the risk to public health and/or the environment.
Action — Continue current response actions .
Page 21 of 37
16 . Data Management and Reporting ( 1 point) :
Has your community analyzed monitoring data and reported results to the public and
other stakeholders in the last three years ?
Points — 0.25
Discussion — The monitoring data has not been evaluated with respect to sub-watersheds,
but the Cache La Poudre data is analyzed for trends and is available to the public on
STORET, EPA ' s environmental data web site.
Action — Perform an analysis (see # 13 ) and present results for public education and
information programs .
Program 4 Financing Watershed Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
17 . Total watershed program expenditures (2 points) :
How much does your community spend on a per capita basis for watershed restoration
programs in comparison to other municipal programs ?
Points — 0 . 8
Discussion — Funding for the 2008 -2009 funding cycle totaled $ 1 ,052,000 . This equates
to $ 8 per capita using Fort Collins 2007 population estimate of 131 ,200 . This falls
slightly below the $ 10 pre capita number suggested by the CWP thus the proportional
number of points . Watershed restoration expenditures are done through different facets
of the stormwater program. These include expenditures for salaried employees that deal
with stormwater management, administering the permit, capital projects, developer
repays, development review activities and maintenance operations . The City' s per capita
expenditures are not tracked specifically for watershed restoration activities, since these
are spread across several departments including Utilities, Parks and Natural Resources
this estimate is somewhat low.
Action — Need to provide a way to track these expenditures by creating a budget code that
will identify all items that deal with watershed restoration activities .
18 . Long-term funding for plan implementation ( 1 point) :
Does your community have a long-term capital budget that extends beyond the current
budget year to provide dedicated funding for design and construction of watershed
restoration projects ?
Points — 0. 5
Discussion — No separate line item for watershed restoration is included in capital
budgets . However the point total here shows the need for coordination of these activities,
it is not a reflection of a lack of funding for watershed restoration. Watershed restoration
Page 22 of 37
projects are funded as part of multiple programs including master planning, stormwater
capital projects, stormwater permit activities, and natural areas programs among others .
Funding is derived from the Stormwater Utility fees as well as Natural Areas Open Space
tax. Some watershed restoration activities are the result of private development.
Action — Evaluate current funding levels for watershed restoration including all pertinent
environmental programs . Within Utilities revise budgets to include stream restoration
activities . Coordinate with other departments through watershed planning for accurate
accounting of watershed restoration projects .
19 . Local funding for Smart Watershed programs (2 points) :
Does your local budget include operating and/or capital funding to support Smart
Watershed programs ?
Points — 2
Discussion — Scoring guidance for this question is based upon the how many of the 14
programs have operational or capital funding. Ten programs funded yields a full two
point total. We think that programs 1 , 3 , 4 and 7 need attention. Respectively these are :
Subwatershed Restoration Planning, Watershed Monitoring and Reporting, Financing
Watershed Restoration, and Public Involvement and Neighborhood Consultation. The
other ten programs yield the full point total for this question.
Action — Refine smart watershed activities through the watershed group and within
current budgets .
Program 5 Management of Natural Area Remnants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
20. Inventories of natural area remnants (3 points) :
Does your community have a current inventory or map of natural area remnants
available at the watershed level to prioritize their management?
Points — 3
Discussion — Natural Resources has extensive inventory of "Natural Areas" including
habitat mapping and restoration is prioritized within their planning process.
Action — Present and discuss within the watershed management team.
21 . Natural area planning and management (3 points) :
Does your subwatershed planning approach address conservation, restoration and
reforestation of natural areas ?
Points — 3
Page 23 of 37
Discussion — See question above and include Forestry Department regarding
reforestation.
Action — As above include Forestry Department.
22 . Dedicated funding for natural area restoration and reforestation ( 1 point) :
Do you have an annual budget of at least one dollar per capita for on the ground
implementation of natural area restoration and reforestation projects ?
Points — I
Discussion — Dedicated funding for the Natural Resources Department includes Natural
Areas . Forestry is funded through the Parks Department.
Action — Continue these within Natural Resources and Forestry Departments .
23 . Subwatershed restoration and reforestation activity (3 points) :
How many acres has your community restored/reforested to improve subwatershed
conditions in t e 'ffivt t lree , ,, r"O
Points — 3
Discussion — 1 , 800 Acres have been restored.
Action — Continue Natural Areas and Forestry programs and coordinate these with
subwatershed planning.
Program 6 Stormwater Retrofitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
24. Subwatershed retrofit inventory (4 points) :
Has your community conducted stormwater retrofit inventories within priority
subwatersheds within the
last three
ears ?
Points — 2
Discussion — Retrofit sites are being identified and inventoried through GIS mapping of
all stormwater quality treatment facilities .
Action: Complete the retrofit inventory. Assign priority levels for retrofit activities .
25 . Level of stormwater retrofit implementation (4 points) :
What is the level of activity in retrofit design and/or construction iii the IHst three „ectils '�
Points — 4
Discussion — The Udall treatment facility retrofit covers a significant portion of the Old
Town Basin. Retrofitting occurs as part of some redevelopment.
Page 24 of 37
Action — Other opportunities for retrofits will be identified in subwatershed planning.
26 . Demonstration of innovative retrofit technology (2 points) :
Do your retrofit projects incorporate innovative stormwater technologies ?
Points — 2
Discussion — The review of LID practices will help determine this effort. The City has
identified a variety of techniques to test them out. Some of these techniques involve
using filtration and infiltration techniques . New sites are currently in the design process
works including permeable pavers, rain gardens, bio-swales and porous concrete.
Action- Complete LID pilot project designs, construct pilot projects, monitor
performance and evaluate effectiveness of different techniques .
Program 7 Urban Stream Repair and Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
27 . Systematic subwatershed approach (2 points) :
Are stream repair practices explicitly designed to address restoration objectives at the
subwatershed level?
Points — 1
Discussion — Stream restoration projects are included in the master plans .
Action — Work on master plan priorities for stream restoration.
28 . Level of stream repair implementation (2 points) :
How many stream miles have been covered by urban stream cleanup and stream repair
practices in
A last three year-s ?
Points — 2
Discussion — There have been a total of 5 . 9 miles of stream restored to date . However,
not all of these projects were listed in the master plan and not all were restored to specific
criteria. Many of these projects were done as the opportunity arose and were simply
instances where the channel was regraded rather than piped and the term "restoration" is
a relative term.
Action — Work on master plan priorities for stream restoration. Ensure connection from
planning thru design, construction and maintenance of stream repair practices
29 . Sophistication of stream repair practices (2 points) :
Do you apply a variety of stream repair practices to improve stream habitat, structure
and aquatic diversity ?
Page 25 of 37
Points — 2
Discussion — Stream restoration practices use a variety of sophisticated approaches
including pools and riffles, drop structures, riparian restoration, geomorphic channel
design, and fish barrier removal among others .
Action — Continue training in leading stream restoration techniques through seminars and
classes for staff. Coordinate with CSU faculty for expertise. Implement new techniques
as appropriate.
30. Post-construction project evaluation and monitoring ( 1 point) :
Have you conducted any post-construction monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the
stream repair installations ?
Points — 0 . 5
Discussion — Some monitoring occurs post project through 404 permitting.
Action — Coordinate evaluations through watershed group.
Program 8 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
31 . Possess discharge control authority ( 1 point) :
Does your community possess adequate legal authority to prohibit non-stormwater
discharges to the storm drain system, including access to private property to investigate
and enforce compliance ?
Points — 1
Discussion — The City of Fort Collins Municipal Code provides adequate legal authority
to prohibit the discharge of pollutants and contaminated water to the storm sewer system.
Currently, there is a potential of a fine of up to $ 1 ,000 . 00 per day per violation. Although
right of entry exists, the City is in the process of updating the code to allow employees to
conduct inspections inside private facilities and buildings for illicit discharges. This is
scheduled to occur in early 2009 .
Action — Continue with process to update code
32 . Discharge mapping and screening (2 points) :
Have you conducted desktop analysis to screen the potential risks of illicit and/or sewage
discharges at the subwatershed level?
Points - 2
Discussion — Priority areas with a high potential for illicit discharges and sanitary sewer
connections were identified as part of the MS4 permit Illicit Discharge Detection and
Page 26 of 37
Elimination minimum control measure. Procedures in the City' s "Plan for Finding and
Eliminating Improper Connections" include identifying priority areas based on the age of
the system, rather than at the subwatershed level.
Action — Continue regulatory programs related to discharge screening.
33 . Outfall reconnaissance inventory (2 points) :
Have you performed afield inventory of stormwater outfalls to look for potential or
suspected illicit discharges ?
Points - 1
Discussion — The City has performed dry-weather screening on stormwater outfalls into
State waters . This included visual observation of the outfall and surrounding area for
signs of non- stormwater discharges, sampling of any flow detected, and tracking of
analysis data in the City' s Stormwater Infrastructure Management (SWIMS) database.
Action — Continue outfall reconnaissance inventory
34. Pollution hotline and response ( 1 point) :
Have you established and advertised a hotline to report spills, discharges and water
quality problems ?
Points — 1
Discussion — The public can report spills, discharges, and water quality problems via the
City ' s nuisance hotline, which is advertised on the City' s web site. It offers a telephone
number and a reporting form to send via email . City front office personnel have been
trained to forward this information to the Regulatory and Government Affairs (RGA)
Division.
In addition, City field personnel have been trained to respond to spills and abandoned
waste. This procedure utilizes a decision tree that directs staff in response and follow-up
on incidents, including guidance on when to call 911 . Phone numbers for Dispatch,
Larimer County, Utilities front office, and those of RGA staff are provided.
Action — Continue current regulatory activities and add reporting information to the MS4
permit web site. This is due to be launched in 2009
35 . Activity in eliminating discharges (2 points) :
How quickly are illicit discharges and sewer overflows eliminated after they are
discovered?
Points — 2
Page 27 of 37
Discussion — Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) responds as soon as possible to illicit
discharges and sanitary sewer overflows that have the potential to impact state waters .
The PFA HazMat team carries materials and is trained to stop the flow of a spill into the
MS4 or state waters . The party responsible for the spill is charged with informing the
State and ensuring that the material is cleaned up immediately. If the responsible party
cannot be identified, then the City has procedures in place to hire a contractor to clean up
the waste as soon as possible.
Action — Continue regulatory activities .
Program 9 Maintenance, Inspection and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
36 . Inspect and maintain stormwater practices (2 points) :
Does your community regularly inspect stormwater treatment practices to assess ongoing
maintenance needs ?
Points — 2
Discussion — The City has developed and implemented a Post-Construction Program to
inspect stormwater BMPs on an ongoing basis to assess maintenance needs. Owners of
privately-owned BMPs in need of maintenance are contacted, educated, and given a
deadline to correct the deficiencies . The City developed an Enforcement Response Plan
that includes procedures to follow if enforcement actions are needed to correct
deficiencies. The City stormwater maintenance crew inspects and maintains City-owned
BMPs.
Action — Continue regulatory activities .
37 . Inspect and maintain watershed restoration practices (2 points) :
Do you regularly inspect the condition of all restoration projects after they are installed
to ensure they meet project objectives ?
Points — 1 . 5
Discussion — Stormwater maintenance on public sites is inspected by Utilities crews and
private sites are controlled by the regulatory program through a regular inspection
program.
Action — Continue regulatory activities and Utilities maintenance .
38 . Water quality enforcement activity ( I point) :
Do you actively enforce local ordinances that help protect local water quality?
Points — I
Discussion — An Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) has been developed to guide
enforcement for elements of the MS4 permit including illicit discharges, construction site
Page 28 of 37
stormwater runoff control, and post-construction stormwater management in new
development/redevelopment. As required by the permit, the ERP includes procedures for
enforcing upon chronic and recalcitrant violators . Recently, two cases have gone to trial
for illicit discharges .
Action - Continue the ERP program
Program 10 Smart Site Practices during Redevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
39 . Conduct audit of redevelopment codes and ordinances ( 1 point) :
Has your community assessed its codes and ordinances to identify barriers to
implementation of Smart Site practices during redevelopment?
Points — 1
Discussion — Smart Site activities during redevelopment should be evaluated in a
watershed context. The City is planning to adopt new criteria that will incorporate
additional smart site practices . The use of these will be dependent on watershed planning
expected to be incorporated into master plans . We expect discussions within stormwater,
with planning, and streets, and others including the State Division of Water Resources in
order to evaluate the utilization of LID techniques .
Action — Use the Watershed Group to address codes that include LID and other Smart
Site practices.
40. Adopt Smart Site practices to redevelopment projects ( 1 point) :
Has your community actually revised or modified existing codes to promote Smart Site
practices for infill and redevelopment projects in highly urban watersheds ?
Points — 0. 5
Discussion — As above. EPA' s publication "Using Smart Growth Techniques as
Stormwater BMPs" will be useful for this discussion.
Action — See question 39 .
41 . Demonstrate in municipal construction projects (2 points) :
Have Smart Site practices been incorporated in any municipal construction projects in
your community i ?
Points — 2
Discussion- Several municipal projects have Smart Site practices. Filtration devices are
used on Mason Street site, a regional wetland was constructed for a significant portion of
Old Town Fort Collins and wetlands were constructed for the Utilities building.
Page 29 of 37
Action — Continue to enforce post development controls, pollution prevention at
municipal facilities, advocate for Smart Site practices, and coordinate with project
managers and the sustainability team.
42 . Financial incentives for the private sector ( 1 point) :
Does your community provide financial incentives to the private sector to encourage
Smart Site Practices during redevelopment? (e.g. , financial and technical assistance,
streamlined plan review, tax credits)
Points — 0
Discussion —The city is currently implementing a LID pilot project that will partner with
the private sector to encourage them to use innovative stormwater management
techniques . Financial incentives to encourage the use of innovative techniques have been
used through the developer repay program. Additional incentives could be in the form of
reduced detention requirements which will in turn make projects more financially
attractive to the private sector.
Action — Consider other financial incentives .
Program 11 Watershed Education and Personal Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
43 . Watershed education and outreach activity (3 points) :
Does your community have a watershed outreach and education program ?
Points — 2 . 5
Discussion — The City' s Public Education and Outreach program includes many elements
that are available to a wide variety of citizens . These programs include :
• WaterSHED (Stormwater Habitat Education Development)
• Storm Drain Stenciling
• Children ' s Water Festival
• Master Naturalist Program
• Booths at public events
• Periodic web and newspaper articles
• Outdoor classrooms
Action — Continue all education activities
44. Diversity of watershed education programs (4 points) :
Do your watershed education efforts include diverse opportunities for involvement
among many sectors of the public ?
Points — 3
Discussion — The City reaches diverse audiences through participation in public events
that are well advertised, free, and open to the public. WaterSHED activities are taught in
Page 30 of 37
public, private, and home schools, including bilingual and English as second language
schools . Outdoor classrooms located throughout the City are free, open to the public, and
are used by organizations such as local scout troops .
Action — Continue all outreach activities.
45 . Convenient access to municipal stewardship services (2 points) :
Does your community provide convenient access to direct services that enable residents
to become good watershed stewards ?
Points — 2
Discussion — WaterSHED staff participates in free local events to disseminate
information on citizens ' roles in stormwater pollution prevention. WaterSHED staff
educates citizen volunteers through the Master Naturalist Program. WaterSHED activities
are compiled in a notebook, and materials are distributed to schools and citizens upon
request.
Action — Continue all outreach activities.
Program 12 Public Involvement and Neighborhood Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
46 . Stakeholder involvement in restoration planning (2 points) :
Does your small watershed restoration program involve stakeholders in restoration plan
development and implementation ?
Points — 1
Discussion — Significant outreach occurs with construction of master planned
improvements. We have found this to be where most individual interest lies. Larger
scale planning involvement will continue through City Boards and Commissions .
Action — Continue to involve Boards and Commissions (particularly Water, P&Z and
Natural Resources) in Watershed Planning
47 . Neighborhood consultation about restoration projects (2 points) :
Are adjacent residents and landowners routinely consulted about major restoration
projects to solicit their feedback?
Points — 2
Discussion — Typically the best attended meetings are those in the "back yard" of
Citizens. The City places significant effort at this level .
Action — Continue outreach at the project level
Page 31 of 37
48 . Public access to restoration information ( 1 point) :
Does your community make watershed plans and mapping products available to the
public through web-based tools ?
Points — 0
Discussion — Master plans are available via the web but little emphasis is placed on
watershed restoration.
Action — Make watershed restoration master planned information available via web.
Program 13 Pollution Prevention at Stormwater Hotspots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
49 . Identify and map stormwater hotspots ( 1 point) :
Have you developed a list or map of potential hotspot operations to aid in tracking and
inspecting these sites ?
Points — 1
Discussion — Stormwater hotspots are identified by business sector as part of the Business
Outreach Plan. Lists of businesses that are targeted for outreach and education are
maintained as a part of the plan.
Action — Continue businesses outreach.
50. Target businesses for education and outreach (2 points) :
Does your community target specific local businesses to educate them on stormwater
impacts and basic pollution prevention practices ?
Points — 2
Discussion — The City ' s Business Outreach Plan for stormwater includes an annual
process to evaluate current challenges and plan for outreach and education. Business
sectors are targeted based on spill complaints received throughout the year, and annual
education and outreach on stormwater pollution prevention practices and illicit discharges
are aimed at these business sectors .
Action — Continue businesses outreach.
51 . Business recognition and partnerships ( 1 point) :
Does your community recognize businesses that employ good pollution prevention and
stewardship practices ?
Points — 0. 5
Page 32 of 37
Discussion - The City' s Climate Wise Program is dedicated to helping local business and
the environment. Through environmental assessments and creative solutions, the City of
Fort Collins Climate Wise Team helps businesses tackle modern-day business challenges
that impact bottom lines and the quality of life in Fort Collins . The goal of the Climate
Wise program is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by promoting waste reduction,
energy savings, alternative transportation, water conservation, and practicing pollution
prevention.
Action - Incorporate more stormwater pollution prevention practices into the program.
Program 14 Pollution Prevention at Municipal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
52 . Municipal pollution prevention operations (2 points) :
Does your community have current pollution prevention plans for its own municipal
facilities and operations ?
Points — 2
Discussion — The City has developed Runoff Control Plans (RCPs) for ten facilities
whose operations have the highest potential to impact stormwater quality. The RCPs
identify potential pollutants from the facility and its operations. It then lists BMPs to
prevent the discharge of the potential pollutants into the MS4 system. Development and
inventory of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for municipal operations will be
complete by December 31 , 2009 . This is a new MS4 permit requirement.
Action — Complete SOPS
53 . Municipal road and storm drainage system maintenance (2 points) :
Does your community maximize pollutant reduction and/or prevention during its routine
road and storm drain maintenance operations ?
Points — 2
Discussion — Street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, integrated pest management in rights
of way occur. Pollution prevention is practiced City wide.
Action - Road maintenance should be discussed with the Streets Department as part of
the watershed group .
54. Ongoing employee training ( 1 point) :
Does your community offer routine pollution prevention training to all appropriate
municipal staff?
Points — I
Discussion — The facilities required to have RCPs receive annual pollution prevention
and good housekeeping training. This training includes waste management procedures,
Page 33 of 37
an overview of the RCP, best management practices, and instructions on how to identify
and respond to illicit discharges and abandoned waste using the Decision Tree for Spills
and Abandoned Waste .
Action — Continue training program
55 . Emergency spill and discharge response ( 1 point) :
Does your community have the capability to rapidly respond to contain spills that occur
during transport and industrial accidents ?
Points — 1
Discussion — As outlined in Program 8 , the PFA HazMat team responds as soon as
possible to spills that occur during transport and industrial accidents .
Action — Continue response training.
56 . Environmental Management System ( 1 point) :
Does your community have an Environmental Management System (EMS) or other
institutional policy governing environmental performance of municipal operations and
practices ?
Points — 0 . 5
Discussion - The City ' s Environmental Management Team (EMT) commenced in 2007 .
The team is actively involved in developing environmental and pollution prevention
programs that will be combined to build the City' s Environmental Management System.
Action — Continue development of EMT programs and EMS
Page 34 of 37
Total Points for current program
Total Points 2008
PROGRAM Benchmarking Percentage
1 Subwatershed Restoration Planning 13 6 . 5 50 . 0
2 Stream and Subwatershed Field Assessment 7 6 . 5 92 . 9
3 Subwatershed Monitoring and Reporting 5 2 . 75 55 . 0
4 Watershed Restoration Financing 5 3 . 3 66 . 0
5 Management of Natural Area Remnants 10 10 100 . 0
6 Stormwater Retrofitting 10 8 80 . 0
7 Urban Stream Repair/Restoration 7 5 . 5 78 . 6
8 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 8 7 87 . 5
9 Maintenance , Inspection and Enforcement 5 4 . 5 90 . 0
10 Smart Site Practices During Redevelopment 5 3 . 5 70 . 0
11 Watershed Education and Personal Stewardship 9 7 77 . 8
12 Public Involvement and Neighborhood
Consultation 5 3 60 . 0
13 Pollution Prevention at Stormwater Hotspots 4 3 . 5 87 . 5
14 Pollution Prevention at Municipal Operations 7 6 . 5 92 . 9
100 77 . 6
* without "extra credit" points
Page 35 of 37
Future score estimate
Total Points 2008 Future
PROGRAM Benchmarking score
1 Subwatershed Restoration Planning 13 6.5 13
1 . 1 Subwatershed -based restoration planning 1 0 . 5 1
1 . 2 Subwatershed planning activity 2 1 2
1 . 3 Clear goals driving restoration efforts 2 2 2
1 .4 Comparative subwatershed analysis 1 0 1
1 . 5 Dedicated staffing for watershed coordination 2 0 2
1 . 6 Watershed management structure 1 0 1
1 . 7 Watershed -based GIS mapping system 2 1 . 5 2
1 . 8 Tracking of restoration information 1 0 . 5 1
1 . 9 Mechanism for plan adoption 1 1 1
2 Stream and Subwatershed Field Assessment 7 6 .5 6. 5
2 . 1
2 . 11
2 . 12
3 Subwatershed Monitoring and Reporting 5 2 ,75 5
3 . 13 Subwatershed monitoring program 2 1 . 5 2
3 . 14 Aquatic indicators linked to watershed goals 1 0 1
3 . 15 Public notification of water quality problems 1 1 1
3 . 16 Data management and reporting 1 0 . 25 1
4 Watershed Restoration Financing 5 3 . 3 5
1 . 17 Total Watershed Restoration financing 2 0 . 8 2
4 . 18 Long Term Funding for plan implementation 1 0 . 5 1
4 . 19 Local funding for smart watershed programs 2 2 2
5 Management of Natural Area Remnants 10 10 10
5 . 20
5 . 21
5 . 22
5 . 23
6 Stormwater Retrofitting 10 8 8
6 . 24
6 . 25
6 . 26
7 Urban Stream Repair/Restoration 7 5 .5 5.5
7 . 27
7 . 28
7 . 29
7 . 30
8 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 8 7 7
8 . 31
8 . 32
8 . 33
8 . 34
8 . 35
9 Maintenance , Inspection and Enforcement 5 4.5 4.5
9 . 36
9 . 37
9 . 38
Page 36 of 37
10 Smart Site Practices During Redevelopment 5 3 .5 3 . 5
10 . 39
10 .40
10 .41
10 .42
11 Watershed Education and Personal Stewardship 9 7 7
11 .43
11 .44
11 .45
12 Public Involvement and Neighborhood Consultation 5 3 5
12 .46 Stakeholder involvement in restoration planning 2 1 2
12 .47 Neighborhood consultation in restoration 2 2 2
12 .48 Public access to restoration information 1 0 1
13 Pollution Prevention at Stormwater Hotspots 4 3 . 5 3 . 5
13 .49
13 . 50
13 . 51
14 Pollution Prevention at Municipal Operations 7 6. 5 6 . 5
* without "extra credit" points 128 77 . 6 90
Page 37 of 37
ATTACHMENT 8
Comparison of Stormwater Rates
COMPARISON OF STORMWATER RATES ATTACHMENT 8
City Monthly Ops & Capital SW Transfers Debt Annual Numberof Population Yearly Area Formula Plant investment fee (sfr) Notes
fee maint projects quality to others payments budget accounts expenditure (sq mi)
(85600 per person
sfr)
Fort 13% 40% 8% 13% 26% $16,6449535 40,566 1379200 $121 .32 53.38 (Lot sf + Share of Common Area) x Avg SFR = $436 Gross Acre SW quality included with CP &
Collins Rate Factor x Base Rate x $4,420 x Runoff Coefficient OPS
$14.26 $1 .85 $5.71 $1 . 13 $1 .86 $3.71
Loveland 42% 50% 2% 6% 0% $3,6357510 65,710 $55.33 30.83 SFR tiered chart based on Lot size Avg SFR = $520 System Invest fee: 2110/acre-insti-
Commercial = $62.98/acre tutional, 4500/acre-industrial, 4785/
acre-commercial, 2920/acre-high
res, 2665/acre-med res, 2410/acre-
low res, 522/acre-est res
$10.39 $4.36 $5.20 $0.21 $0.62 $0.00
Colorado 50% 39% 11 % 0% 0% $15,8159000 1473000 407,902 $38.77 194. 16 Tiered chart based on Impery area & capital construction cost of the $2.3 million annually from General
Springs ratio impery area/total area proposed drainage facilities by fund for infrastructure maintenance.
the number of un-platted acres in Developer repays under review
the basin.
$6.00 $3.00 $2.34 $0.66 $0.00 $0.00
Long- 30% 15% 3% 0% 52% $5,702,339 35,000 84,636 $67.37 22.00 per unit SFR = $650 Non-resid = Non Residential Unit = 20,000 sf or
mont* $. 1063 x impery area billed by electric meters.
$7. 13 $2. 14 $1 .07 $0.21 $0.00 $3.71
Boulder* 33% 36% 14% 5% 12% $4,336,650 235205 1032650 $41 .84 25.48 Size of parcel Add $2 UDF $1 . 17 x impev area
$7. 10 $2.34 $2.56 $0.99 $0.36 $0.85
Greeley 33% 41 % 8% 18% 0% $32032,480 26, 180 933543 $32.42 46.42 Monthly Fee:The fee per bill is Total Based on the MP and pro-
Square Footage X C-Factor for the posed drainage imps in the
land use X $0.001361 . basin.
$5.27 $1 .74 $2. 16 $0.42 $0.95 $0.00
Windsor 28% 66% ** 0% 6% $6932569 191000 $36.50 23.25 {(O&M x rate factor x area)+$2) + Rate factor x Impact fee factor
(Basin rate x area x rate factor) x area
$4.09 $1 . 14 $2.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.25
Denver 15% 61 % 2% 16% 6% $4024277000 1585000 592,052 $68.28 156.00 Add $2 UDF See rate comparison N/A Developer must provide required
(combined chart for details onsite SW facilities
WW &
SW)*
$7.40 $1 . 11 $4.51 $0. 14 $1 . 18 $0.44
SEMSWA* 41 % 43% 8% 0% 8% $10,5202861 60,000 93.00 Tiered rate based on % impery area Varies by Basin Impery area x
(Estimate) x Amt of impery area basin rate
$6.83 $2.66 $3. 14 $0.55 $0.00 $0.48
Redmond, 46% 45% 9% 0% 0% $5715977562 51 ,530 $12117.75 16.85 SFR flat rate Base rate x # IU x $958 x # of IU (Impery Unit = If not providing WQ/detention #IU x
WA rate adj (IU=2,000SF) 27000 sf of impery area) $43292
$16.56 1 $7.62 $7.45 $1 .49 $0.00 1 $0.00
Auburn, 56% 39% ** 1 % 4% $5,855,000 673005 $87.38 29.83 SFR Flat ESU=2,600 sf impery area SFR $1 ,162 + $26 per parcel Non
WA I Non SFR $8.82 x ESU rate (per unit) SFR $207 + $1 ,162 per ESU
$13.38 $7.49 $5.22 $0.00 $0. 13 $0.54
Portland, 23% 27% 15% 7% 28% $112,088,746 860,000 $130.34 253.00 Residential = ((Impery area/1000) $135/1 ,000sf impery area
OR (com- x #days x .26) Commercial =
bined WW ($8.43/1000 sf imperv)
& SW)
$19. 13 $4.40 $5. 16 $2.86 $1 .34 1 $5.36
Austin, TX 48% 27% 12% 13% 0% $36,447,571 774,037 $47.09 299.97 Flat Rate (per unit) N/A fees paid by developers in lieu of
providing on-site detention.
$7. 15 J $3.431 $1 .93 $0.86 $0.93 $0.00
* Part of the Urban Drainage Flood Control District for water quality and capital projects ( Equivalent to approximately $1 .90-$2.00/month) Page 1 of 1
** Not a separate budget line item
ATTACHMENT 9
Comparison of Stormwater Rate Uses of
Front Range Communities
Comparison of Stormwater Rate Uses of Front Range Communities
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 % Colorado
Windsor Greeley SEMSWA Boulder Longmont Denver Loveland Fort Collins
$4 . 09 $4.90 Springs$6.00 .
$6.83 $7. 10 $713 $7.40 $ 10. 39 $14.26
�
■ Debt $0.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.48 $0.85 $3.71 $0.44 $0.00 $3.71 n
N
■ Transfers $0.00 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.36 $0.00 $1 . 18 $0.62 $1 .86 =
❑ WQ $0.00 $0.39 $0.66 $0.55 $0.99 $0.21 $0. 15 $0.21 $1 . 13 m
■ Capital Projects $2.70 $2.01 $2.34 $3. 14 $2.56 $1 .07 $4.51 $5.20 $5.71 z
0 0 O&M $1 . 15 $1 .62 $3.00 $2.66 $2.34 $2. 14 $1 . 11 $4.36 $1 .85
ATTACHMENT 10
City of Fort Collins Flood Risk Map
N
Collins CITY OF FORT COLLINS IN E
FLOOD RISK MAP
a
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
70
d
PO W DOUGLAS RD E DOUGLAS RD E COUNTY ROAD 54
> i o Richard SJ,ake z o
m o o Terry Lake yF o 0
S ¢ z pORJ. t J z p E COUNTY ROAD
z y� ong Pond o —
p e COUNTRVCLU RD z
I '
z Claymore Lake y --4. �i .J F t
0 WWIELD Id Can MOUNAIN VISTADR UNT ADM
W alLin enmeierL ke z
m I a w
Le Lake Lari �rVidiWeld•Can an rand 11 Caj al
a l� z z I
Go E ly =—+ E VI ••DR p�N O D 46
ILL
POTE AVE IFLINCOLN VE
no
w z Ca he dre Ri er , ••\ I z
BERRY S it Park Lak ' ' LBERR
College Lake J
09
W PRO ECT RD rc0 al
ur _E PROSPECT ID
, o a"
0
W D
w K
_ z
Horsetooth Rese coJNN RCAD tI a m 'o
al 1 O
DRA RD w Pa od Lake f E DRAKE RD miL N
u G —
e 0
o
w Lake Shemoot � )
LL
rA N
m2 W HORSE OOTH RD E HORSE OOTH RD \• \
rc z�
a I----• I Warren Lak w
P ,J J w wl a
Harmony Ra
se oir
ARMORY RD E HARMONY RD m i J UNTY ROAD 38
r N
or •1 c
N l L
vo
Po
__ - '
m I w
1 _ E Cl ^ RO 36 K�Lt� TER RD T
i l
i Portner Rese i --,`--� rW '� o
Will
ti, r J li
r
l W TRI BY RD l -J RI BV RD
'' \Fb3sil Creek Reservoi �
•\ I L__J L::� z
z
l ''---J Robe Benson Lake " o'
0
•` J _-- -- I E C UNTV ROAD 32 CARPENTER R ck [.a E COUNTY ROAD 32 STATE IGHWAY 382
z zo<
O 0 mil�j
O0 ¢M z
OO
0
m E CCU ROAD 30 E UNTY Roil D 30
Floodplain Legend Legend
High Risk Moderate Risk
D
ED May include: City Llmlts �. Fstest velocities
of 100-yearflootlplain with greatest depths and - Areas of FEMA or City 1 flootlplain (FEMA ZonetX-shaded)
with D
fastest velocities_ - Areas of FEMA or City 100-year Flootlplains (sheet flow) with
average depths of less than 1 foot.■ G M A =Flood Fringe - May Include_ - Areas protected by levees from the 100-year Flood.
- Areas of FEMA 100-year flootlplain (FEMA Zones A, AE, AO, and AH) Low Risk
- Areas of City 100-year flootlplain including ponding areas and sheet ITI
flow areas with average depths of 1-3 feel Areas outside of FEMA and City mapped 100-year and 500-year — Major Streets Z
_ There is a 1% annual chance that these areas will be flooded. floodplains. Loral drainage problems may still exist z
O
1 Water Features o
' 100 year floodplain is shown as the maximum extent of FEMA and City floodplains combined.
ATTACHMENT 11
Historical Perspective on City of Fort Collins
Floodplain Regulation Changes
ATTACHMENT 11
Historical Perspective on
City of Fort Collins Floodplain Regulation Changes
---- Regulations became more restrictive ---- Regulations became less restrictive
• 1975 — First Floodplain Ordinance Adopted (Poudre)
— 18" freeboard
— Residential development prohibited in floodway
— 25 % substantial improvement
— No floatables in floodway
• 1977 — Substantial improvement changed to 50% (Poudre)
• 1979 — Expanded Ordinance — more detail, more basins
— Spring Creek and Dry Creek basins recognized
— Residential except mobile homes allowed in floodway
— 0 . 5 ft floodway established
— Floatables allowed, must prove no-rise
• 1995 — Many new higher regulatory standards
— Critical facilities prohibited in 100- and 500-year floodplain
Substantial improvement cumulative over life of structure
— Certain types of change of use for non-conforming structures prohibited
• i. e. , cannot convert non-residential to residential use
• 1999 — rainfall updated after the 1997 storm
— Increased 100-yr, 2-hr storm from 2 . 9 inches to 3 . 7 inches .
More rainfall = more water in basins
— Floodplains became wider and deeper
• 2000 — New Poudre River regulations adopted
— 2 . 0 ft freeboard
— 0 . 1 -ft floodway
— Floodway modifications prohibited
— No residential in floodway
— Floatable materials not allowed in 100-year floodplain or floodway
— Critical facilities definition expanded
• 2004 — All Basins other than Poudre River revised
— Floodway mapped for all streams so area in fringe can be more easily
developed
— 6 " freeboard for additions and substantial improvements
— In City floodplains, improvements above flood elevation don 't count
toward substantial improvement.
— Critical facilities no longer prohibited in 100-year sheet flow areas of City
floodplains
— Erosion buffer regulations formalized
• 2007 — Poudre River revised to be consistent with County
— 0. 5 foot floodway mapped
Floodway modifications allowed
Hazardous material critical facilities no longer prohibited in 500 -year
floodplain.
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 12
Floodplain Regulations for the Poudre River -
Quick Guide
City of Fort Collins
Floodplain Regulations for the Poudre River
I i k ide
Note : This guide was prepared as an educational tool to help explain portions of the floodplain regulations , and is not intended as
a complete or detailed explanation of the legal requirements that may apply to a particular property . Article II of Chapter 10 of the
City Code specifies the requirements and prohibitions that are outlined generally in this guide and is the controlling legal document
in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between this guide and the City Code. The Code provisions can be found on the Web at
http://www. colocode. com/ftcollins/municipal/chapterl0. htm. D
D
City Of =
M
o Prepared by Fort Collins Utilities , PO Box 580 , 700 Wood St . , Fort Collins , CO 80522 -0580 Fort Collins z
N (970) 221 -6700 • www. fcgov. com/stormwater/fldplain.php Utilities
3/09 N
Purpose of Floodplain Regulations
Minimize damage to Protect new properties
existing properties from damage
Protect human
life and health Protect the natural areas
6 Q° along the river corridor required
to convey flood flows
Floodplain Facts
Property in the 100-year floodplain has a 1 percent chance in any given year of being flooded .
Over a 30-year period, there is a 26 percent chance that a property in the 100-year floodplain will be flooded . For comparison, there
is only a 5 percent chance that the building will catch fire during that same 30-year period .
Some properties have an even higher risk of flooding because they are in areas where smaller, more frequent floods cause damage.
Table of Odds for Different Events
Event Odds
Structure in the 100-year floodplain being flooded in any given year 1 in 100
Matching one number plus Powerball in the Powerball Lottery 1 in 124
Structure in the 500-year floodplain being flooded in any given year 1 in 500
Annual chance of being killed in a car accident if you drive 10 , 000 miles/year 1 in 4, 000
Being struck by lightning 1 in 600 , 000
N Winning the Powerball Lottery jackpot ( matching five numbers and the Powerball ) 1 in 120 , 526, 770
0
N
N
Types of Floodplains
• In Fort Collins, floodplains are designated by the City as well as by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .
The FEMA-basin floodplains cover only the major drainages . Changes in these floodplains must be approved by FEMA (p . 5) .
• The City-basin floodplains further identify the flood hazard . Some of the flooding in City-basin floodplains is from irrigation
ditch spills or undersized storm sewers that result in overland flooding. Changes in these floodplains can be approved by the
City (p . 5) .
• For floodplain regulation purposes, a floodplain property is either in a FEMA-basin floodplain, a City-basin floodplain or the
Poudre River floodplain.
Floodplain Designations
Floodplain Name Poudre River FEMA -Basin City-Basin
Poudre River X
Spring Creek X
Dry Creek X
Cooper Slough X
Boxelder Creek X
Fossil Creek X
Old Town X
Canal Importation X
McClellands Creek X
Mail Creek X
Foothills Channel X
West Vine X
v
cn
m
w
0
N
N
Floodway
100-year Floodplain
Flood Fringe City Floodway Flood Fringe
❑ ❑
-------
611rise
Area of floodplain that
is allowed to be filled
• The floodway is the portion of the floodplain with the greatest depths and velocities .
• The floodway is the area of highest risk.
• The floodway must be preserved to allow the floodwater to pass through without being obstructed .
• Areas along the flood fringe are allowed to be filled and developed, but this raises the 100-year flood level .
The City has set an allowable rise of 0 .5 feet.
ED
cQ
m
0
N
N
Floodway Modifications
• Floodways can be modified, but the applicant must be able to show that the project causes no-rise in the 100-year flood level.
• In the Poudre River floodplain, the applicant must submit information to FEMA for approval before and after construction if the
boundaries of the floodplain or floodway change .
• If the applicant's project causes a rise, the applicant must show the entire rise is on their property or obtain easements from other
property owners . No structures can be impacted by a rise in the flood level.
• The floodway modification will be evaluated based on broad criteria, including:
-effects upon lands upstream, downstream and in the immediate vicinity;
-effects upon the 100-year flood and channel stability;
-any adverse environmental effects on the watercourse, including bank erosion, streamside trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat;
-any adverse effects on the flood elevation, velocities, rate of rise, channel stability and sediment transport; and
-protection of the natural areas required to convey flood flows and retain flow characteristics.
Example of a Floodway Modification
Original Floodway New Floodway
100-year
100-year flood level flood level
fill ` cut
m
cn
0
N
N
Summary of Floodway Development Regulations
Residential Development Non - Residential Development Mixed -Use Development ( Residential
and Non- Residential in the same building )
• New residential development is not • New non-residential development is not • New mixed-use development is not
allowed. allowed . allowed .
• Fill is not allowed unless the • Fill is not allowed unless the applicant • Fill is not allowed unless the applicant
applicant can show no-rise (Floodway can show no-rise (Floodway Modifications, can show no-rise (Floodway Modifications,
Modifications, p. 5) . p. 5) . p. 5) .
• Residential additions are not allowed. • Non-residential additions are not • Additions are not allowed to a mixed-use
allowed. structure.
• Remodels are allowed subject to the • Remodels are allowed subject to the • Remodels are allowed subject to the
substantial improvement requirements substantial improvement requirements substantial improvement requirements
(p. 14-15) . (p . 14-16) . (p . 14-16) .
• Manufactured homes are allowed only Mobile buildings (modular offices) are
in existing manufactured home parks . allowed only in existing mobile building
developments .
• Redevelopment (rebuild) of an existing Redevelopment (rebuild) of an existing Redevelopment (rebuild) of an existing
structure is not allowed. structure is not allowed. structure is not allowed.
• Detached garages and sheds are not Detached garages and sheds are Detached garages and sheds are not
allowed. not allowed . allowed .
v
cQ
m
M
0
N
N
Summary of Floodway Development Regulations (continued)
Residential Development Non - Residential Developmem Mixed -Use Development ( Residential
and Non- Residential in the same building )
• Critical facilities are not allowed (See Critical facilities are not allowed (See Critical facilities are not allowed (See
proposed alternatives on p. 18) . proposed alternatives on p. 18) . proposed alternatives on p. 18) .
• New basements are not allowed below New basements are not allowed below New basements are not allowed below
the freeboard level (p. 10) . An existing the freeboard level (p. 10-11 ) . An the freeboard level (p. 10-11 ) . An
basement in a substantially improved existing basement in a substantially existing basement in a substantially
structure is not allowed to remain improved structure can remain if improved structure is not allowed to
(p. 10 and 14-15) . floodproofed (p. 10-11 and 14-16) . remain if it is in residential use (p. 10
and 14-15) . An existing basement in
a substantially improved structure
is allowed to remain if it is in non-
residential use and floodproofed
(p . 10- 11 and 14-16) .
• New outside storage of material or New outside storage of material or
equipment, including flotable materials, equipment, including flotable materials,
is not allowed (p. 20). is not allowed (p. 20).
v
cQ
m
0
N
N
Summary of Floodplain Fringe Development Regulations
Residential Development Non - Residential Development Mixed - Use Development ( Residential
and Non - Residential in the same building )
• New residential development is not New non-residential development New mixed-use development is
allowed . is allowed . Must meet the freeboard not allowed .
requirements (p. 10-11 ) .
• Fill is allowed . • Fill is allowed . Fill is allowed .
• Residential additions are not allowed. Non-residential additions are allowed . Residential additions are not allowed to
Must meet the freeboard requirements a mixed-use structure . Non-residential
(p. 10-11 ) o additions are allowed to a mixed-use
structure . Must meet the freeboard
requirements (p. 10-11 ) .
• Remodels are allowed subject to the Remodels are allowed subject to the Remodels are allowed subject to the
substantial improvement requirements substantial improvement requirements substantial improvement requirements
(p. 14-15) . (p. 14-16) . (p. 14-16) .
• Manufactured homes are allowed only Mobile buildings (modular offices) are
to replace an existing manufactured allowed only to replace an existing
home or fill a vacant lot in an existing mobile building or fill a vacant lot in an
manufactured home park. existing mobile building development.
• Redevelopment (rebuild) of an existing Redevelopment (rebuild) of an existing Redevelopment (rebuild) of an existing
structure is allowed (p . 14-15) . Must structure is allowed (p. 14-16) . Must meet structure is allowed (p. 14-16) . Must meet
meet the freeboard requirements (p. 10) . the freeboard requirements . (p. 10-11) . the freeboard requirements (p. 10-11) .
• Attached garages are not allowed . Attached garages, detached garages and Attached garages, detached garages and
Detached garages and sheds are sheds are allowed (p. 17) . sheds are allowed (p. 17) .
allowed (p. 17) .
v
Critical facilities are not allowed (See Critical facilities are not allowed (See Critical facilities are not allowed (See
CD
00 proposed alternatives on p. 18) . proposed alternatives on p . 18) . proposed alternatives on p. 18) .
0
N
N
Summary of Floodplain Fringe Development Regulations (continued)
Residential Development Non - Residential Development Mixed - Use Development ( Residentialand Non - Residential in the same building )
• New outside storage of equipment New outside storage of equipment or
or materials that are considered materials that are considered "floatable"
"floatable" is not allowed (p. 20) . is not allowed (p. 20) .
• New basements are not allowed New basements are allowed . Must New basements are not allowed below
below the freeboard level (p. 10) . An meet freeboard requirements and be the freeboard level for residential
existing basement in a redeveloped or floodproofed (p. 10-11 ) . An existing portions of mixed-use structures (p. 10) *
substantially improved structure is not basement below the freeboard level in a An existing basement in a redeveloped
allowed to remain (p. 10 and 14-15) . redeveloped or substantially improved or substantially improved structure
structure can remain if floodproofed is not allowed to remain if it is in
(p. 10-11 and 14-16) . residential use (p. 10 and 14-15) .
New basements are allowed for
non-residential portions of mixed-
use structures . Must meet freeboard
requirements and be floodproofed
(p. 10-11 ) . An existing basement in a
redeveloped or substantially improved
structure is allowed to remain if it is in
non-residential use and floodproofed
(p. 10-11 and 14- 16) .
Summary of 500 -Year Floodplain Development Regulations
Residential Development Non - Residential Development Mixed - Use Development Residential
and Non - Residential in the same building )
cQ Life-safety and emergency response Life-safety and emergency response Life-safety and emergency response
m critical facilities are not allowed (p. 18) . critical facilities are not allowed (p. 18) . critical facilities are not allowed (p. 18) .
co
0
N
N
Freeboard
• Freeboard is a factor of safety that accounts for the allowed rise in flood level due to development in the flood fringe and for larger
floods and debris that may cause the flood elevation to be higher.
• Freeboard is a measure of how high above the flood level the structure must be built or floodproofed .
Residential Structures and Residential Portions of Mixed -Use Structures
• Freeboard is 24 inches;
• Must elevate the structure; not allowed to floodproof; and
• The lowest floor of the structure (p. 12 -13), including the basement, all HVAC and electrical, must be elevated above the
freeboard height.
Fill • ❑
Fill
ductwork
elevated 24 elevated 24" crawl space
100-year 100-yea r
flood level flood level
Slab on grade foundation Crawl space foundation
v
m N. Example of redevelopment residential elevation
0
o (See p. 12- 13 for detailed foundation designs)
h
N
N
Freeboard continued
Non - Residential Structures and
Non - Residential Portions of Mixed - Use Structures
• Freeboard is 24 inches;
• Allowed to either elevate or floodproof the structure;
• In the floodway, new basements are not allowed;
• If elevating, the lowest floor of the structure (p . 12- 13),
including the basement, all HVAC and electrical, must be
elevated above the freeboard height; and
• If floodproofing, the structure as well as all HVAC and
electrical, must be floodproofed to the freeboard height.
Floodproofing uses various techniques to make a
building water tight .
• Sealants and waterproof membranes ;
• Closure shields in front of doorways ; and
• Mini -walls to protect window or stair wells .
Floodproofing generally works only when flood
depths are less than 3 feet .
Store
100-year I FEI floodproofed 24"
flood level above flood level
Basement
floodproofing
v
Example of new development
onon-residential floodproofing
N
N
Determination of Lowest Floor Based on Type of Foundation
Slab on Grade Enclosure (above grade crawl space )
The lowest floor elevation of a slab on 1 . The lowest floor elevation of a
grade structure is measured at the top structure with an enclosure
of the slab . that is built in accordance
with the venting criteria
(p . 17) is measured
at the floor of the
first finished
❑ ❑ Lowest floor floor . ❑ ❑ Lowest floor
elevation Freeboard elevation
Freeboard W E� Enclosure Unfinished area
Floor " b noHVAC
gradeon
1 Vents 1W
b
Basement 2 . The lowest floor
The lowest floor elevation of elevation of a structure
a structure with a basement with an enclosure that is
is measured at the top of the not built in accordance
basement slab . with the venting criteria
(p . 17) is measured at the
lowest interior grade of
❑ ❑ the enclosure .
❑ ❑ Can have
HVAC in
Basement Lowest floor enclosed area
Pr
Freeboard elevation Freeboard Enclosure Lowest floor
CD Basement
\ , elevation
N
O
N
N
Determination of Lowest Floor Based on Type of Foundation continued
Crawl Space ( below grade )
The lowest floor of a structure with a crawl space is measured
at the lowest finished floor if the following conditions are met:
a. The velocity of the flood flows hitting the structure is less
that 5 feet per second;
b . The interior grade elevation that is below the flood
elevation is no lower than 2 feet below the lowest
adjacent grade;
c. The height of the crawl space, as measured from the
lowest interior grade of the crawl space to the top of the ❑ ❑
foundation wall, does not exceed 4 feet at any point;
Duct d . An adequate drainage system is in place, including a Freeboard f Vent Work c No more than
totally immersible pump; Crawl space 4 feet to top of
d foundation wall
e. All ductwork, HVAC, hot water heater and electrical is b ' A-
elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation; and
f. Venting requirements (p. 17) are met. Velocity < 5 ft . per sec .
If the above conditions are not met, the lowest floor is
determined based on the criteria for a basement (p. 12) .
v
CD
w
0
N
N
Remodels or Repair of Damaged Buildings
Remodels and repairs are allowed subject to the substantial improvement requirements (p. 15- 16) .
Vertical additions (pop-tops) are considered a remodel and are subject to the substantial improvement requirements (p . 15-16) .
All remodel work , , Vertical
including vertical /` ( Pop-top )
addition , counts �� addition
toward substantial
improvement ❑
Basement
v
m
0
N
N
Substantial Improvement and Redevelopment
Substantial improvement occurs when all of the following conditions are met:
1 . A building permit is requested for any repair, reconstruction or improvement to a non-conforming structure, involving alteration
of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building;
2. The cost of the improvement, or the amount of damage, equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either
before the improvement or repair is started or before the building was damaged; and
3 . The cost is calculated cumulatively over the life of the structure.
A substantial improvement policy ensures that non-conforming structures are brought into conformance over time and are therefore
protected from flood damage and the risk to occupants is reduced .
Redevelopment occurs when there is a substantial improvement and more than 50 percent of the wall perimeter of any floor of a
structure that is partially or completely below the flood elevation is removed or replaced and the building footprint is not increased.
Residential Structures and Residential Portions of Mixed - Use Structures
If a substantial improvement occurs, the lowest
floor (p. 12-13) of a non-conforming structure,
including the basement, and all HVAC, electrical
and utilities, must be elevated 24 inches above the
flood elevation. After improvements, the structure
will be protected from flood damage .
If a redevelopment occurs, the lowest floor (p. 12- 100-yea r ❑ ❑
13) of a non-conforming structure, including the flood level ❑ ❑ 100-year
basement, all HVAC, electrical and utilities, must flood level Televated 24
be elevated 24 inches above the flood elevation.
After improvements, the structure will be protected Basement I Basement
from flood damage. filled - in
v
CD% Before improvement After improvement
cn
0
N Example of residential substantial improvement or redevelopment
N
Substantial Improvement and Redevelopment continued
Non - Residential Structures and Non - Residential Portion of Mixed - Use Structures
If a substantial improvement occurs, the lowest floor (p. 12-13) of a non-conforming structure,
including the basement and all HVAC and electrical, must be elevated or floodproofed 24 inches above
the flood elevation. After improvements, the structure will be protected from flood damage .
If a redevelopment occurs, the lowest floor (p. 12- 13) of a non-conforming structure, including
the basement and all HVAC and electrical, must be elevated or floodproofed 24 inches above the
flood elevation. After improvements, the structure will be protected from flood damage .
m m m m
Apartments Apartments
m m m m
Store Store Store Floodproofed Store
24" above
flood levefBasement
100-year El El ❑ El100-year flood level flood levelStore Store
Basement Basement Basement
Before improvement After improvement
v
cn
m
Example of non-residential and mixed-use substantial improvements or redevelopments
0
N
N
Garages , Sheds and Accessory Structures
• Used only for parking or storage;
• Is an accessory to a main structure;
• Must be anchored to resist flotation;
• All HVAC and electrical must be elevated to the
Primary
Use flood freeboard level (p. 10-11 );
resistnt
y Structure I� Garage materials • Can either elevate to freeboard level (p. 10-11 ) or be
100- ear
flood level or Shed to 24" above built at grade; and
�� � flood level
R • If not elevated to freeboard level, the garage or shed
\ fill vents
must meet the following requirements .
• Must have 1 square inch of venting for every
square foot of enclosed area;
Example of detached structure • Must have at least two vents located on different
sides of the structure;
• Have at least one vent on the upstream side
of the structure;
Primary • Bottom of vents cannot be higher than 1 foot
Structure
above grade; and
Garage Use flood resistant Flood resistant materials must be used below the
100-year materials to 24"
flood level or Shed freeboard level ( . 10-11 ) ,
above flood level p
fill vents Venting Calculation Example
600 square foot shed
600 square inches of venting required
Example of attached structure
Vent size : 12 " x 10 " = 120 sq . inches per vent
0 600 divided by 120 = 5 vents
N
N
Critical Facilities
100-year floodplain :
• All critical facilities not allowed in the 100-year floodplain.
500-year floodplain :
• Life-safety and Emergency Response critical facilities are not allowed in the 500-year floodplain.
Life-safety And Emergency Response
Critical Facilities Examples
Police or
Fire Station
NURSING HOME SCHOOL
Hazardous Materials Critical Facilities Examples
GAS STATION
WAREHOUSE
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
STORAGE
v
cn
m --
00
OL fl r,
a r ® tA o
N
N
Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
• A Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-Fill) is a FEMA process whereby a property in the flood fringe can be filled and is no
longer considered in the floodplain for insurance requirements .
• A community must sign-off on the application to FEMA and certify that all existing and future structures will be "reasonably safe
from flooding. "
• To meet this "reasonably safe from flooding" standard, all floodplain requirements (p . 8-9) must be met even if fill is placed and the
property is "removed " from the floodplain by FEMA .
100-year Floodplain
Floodway
1 00 year Fill
flood level elevated 24"
Floodplain Fringe
Example of fill placed in the flood fringe
Plan View :
v
m Fill
Floodplain Fringe
o - - - - - - - - - - Floodway - - - - - � _ _
N - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
Outside Storage of Materials or Equipment and Floatable Materials
• "Floatable material" is defined as material that is not secured in place or completely enclosed in a structure so that it could float
off-site during a flood and potentially cause harm to downstream property owners or that could cause blockage of a culvert, bridge
or other drainage facility.
• In the floodway, all outside storage of material or equipment, including floatable materials, associated with any non-residential use
is not allowed .
• In the flood fringe, floatable materials associated with any non-residential use is not allowed .
In the flood fringe, outside storage of material or equipment that is not considered "floatable material" is allowed .
Stacks of Lumber Containers and Drums Fleet Vehicles
i
0 0
0
' 00 OD
0
Equipment Material Stockpile
All of these examples are
floatable materials if not
adequately secured .
� o
m
N
CD
O h o
N
N
Required Documentation and Submittals
(Note: Some items may require a registered professional engineer.)
Building Permit and Development Review Approval Requirements
• Floodplain Use Permit for any work being done on a structure or property in the
floodplain. The permit fee is $25 or $325 if modeling is required.
• Building plans showing foundation design, flood elevation, floor elevations,
HVAC elevations, size and locations of vents, floodproofing design and other
relevant information.
• Floodplain Modeling Report if doing a floodway modification (p. 5) . (See separate
modeling guidelines handout. ) No-Rise certification may be required.
• Other plans or reports to document information such as grading, fill, channel
stability and floodplain boundaries.
Certificate of Occupancy Approval Requirements
• FEMA Elevation Certificate or FEMA Floodproofing Certificate for any new structure,
addition, substantial improvement or redevelopment built in any floodplain.
Allow two weeks for review and approval. Requires licensed surveyor or engineer
for elevation certificate; requires licensed engineer or architect for floodproofing
certificate .
• Grading certification if working in the floodway.
• As-built modeling report, if applicable.
Variances
The Fort Collins Water Board has the authority to issue variances to the floodplain regulations if certain requirements are met. The
Board meets the fourth Thursday of the month. An application packet must be submitted three weeks prior to the board meeting, with
a $325 application fee . (See separate variance submittal handout for documentation and justification requirements. )
Floodplain Determinations and Assistance
m
Call Fort Collins Utilities at (970) 221 -6700 or e-mail utilities@fcgov .com to determine if a property is in the floodplain or to discuss
o floodplain regulations . More information about floodplain managment in Fort Collins is availalbe at www .fcgov.com / stormwater /
N fldplain.php .
Attachment 10
N
J
I �
Om
J
0
N
MO
O
O
LL
� O
V/ p
OL
q I
X
W High Risk Example of Flood Risk Map
. Floodway - Area of 100-year floodplain with greatest depths and
fastest velocities. This information is based on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the City of
■ Flood Fringe - May Include: Fort Collins Master Drainageway Plans. This letter does not imply
that the referenced property will or will not be free from flooding or
- Areas of FEMA 100-year floodplain (FEMA Zones A, AE, AO, and AH) damage. A property not in the Special Flood Hazard Area or in a
- Areas of City 100-year floodplain including ponding areas and sheet City Designated Floodplain may be damaged by a flood greater
flow areas with average depths of 1 -3 feet. than that predicted on the map or from a local drainage problem
There is a 1 % annual chance that these areas will be flooded . not shown on the map. This map does not create liability on the
part of the City, or any officer or employee thereof, for any damage
Moderate Risk that results from reliance on this information.
May include: All floodplain boundaries
- Areas of FEMA 500-year floodplain (FEMA Zone X-shaded). are approximate.
- Areas of FEMA or City 100-year floodplain (sheet flow) with
average depths of less than 1 foot.
Low Risk Areas protected by levees from the 100-year flood.
0 60 120 240 Feet
Areas outside of FEMA and City mapped 100-year and 500-year I I I I I I I I I
floodplains. Local drainage problems may still exist. N
Page 22 of 22
ATTACHMENT 13
Poudre River Floodplain Map and Floodway
Comparison
• • SEE
• • • • •
� _•i 11.EIS ,m■n�i -,
u� I IIIIIIIII�I•' I � ■■� : Y: ����i• _ ' ■ ' I ■
•
�I.�_IIIH � - lip,. .'-. . _- -o— , ■� `
.I�
� S
IN SEE
111111111■11■111 ■ _� _. -� vyl-
pppp
Samoan
.a7LMu / ■
ME
twill
I _�IIII=1p1 �:-�. • _ • 7511• �ir 11 �i\I ♦,\ r s1Ci.L—,•
04
��L11 , , r 11 - 1 / ♦ I . I �'. I.IR.ii■ v�OI��■ s �J�111,11 _ ���
. n•IIIII� , ,'I� I , d�� ■ ■�/�y • I ., �..—�
■ =1 - h: ` - na■ 1 jl IIII II ♦ y+\ r•- . .
r�� ■ �.�-+ — , gran ..;\I - - ■ � 1 �I�` _ EME
ill ' ice
. Pn
_■ MEN INNIS ,
s - � -. I � 11111. ■-'r ' � � ■ �� ' � I , �:111IIIr� 1,1111�1
J : i i• . Ji \r1ii .. _ - I• -,.7 p...0 -■ ■ u �� . I 7M•: �� .�. ' .�_
■ . III S — rlNIMBI't� l���n r 1� u. 1 ■ �il �►�I��I ��n~I
H, - � .I IIII��� -, '� ` � �i r illl��?T■� 7 , � 111 � ��1■.� C �I � all � �=rlr - -- _
-9 MEMO
Legend
El Parcels
l
■
I
•, r■. ■� IIII I■ 1 _ ' .F .3I � �/ — `I� � s 1 1 � � -��;�■IIIII ■ /�
I1 ��� . _:�. Gk ' Sim. r ter ♦
I • ms
Pou • III L■\—.Yn nm ( 4 ., IIIIIIIIt (� -
I . � . . ■ �
5 Foot Flood
way
►'�'�� ■
0-Year Floodplain
I■ IHII
1 Foot Floodway
,
PTACHMENT' � a
Stormwater Master Plans Presentation to
Water Board August 27 , 2009
ATTACHMENT 14
Stormwater Master Plans
Water Board Presentation
Susan L . Duba Hayes , P . E . , CFM
August 27 , 2009
(Water Board discussion included in October 22 , 2009 Meeting Minutes)
City of
Fort Collins
Agenda
• Purpose of Stormwater Master Plans
• Technical Components
• Level of Protection
• Approaches to Alternative Analysis
• Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Capital Project Prioritization System
• What Do Other Communities Do?
• Where Do We Go From Here?
- city of
Fort Collins
Page 1 of 10
Purpose of Master Plans
• Identify where and how severe the problems are
(floodplains , stability , habitat)
• Recommend projects to reduce flood damage ; minor
projects as well as major projects
• Guide new development to avoid new damages and
ensure compliance with the Master Plans
• Recommend habitat restoration and enhancement
• Guide for stream stabilization
Fort Collins
Master Plans
• Original MPs adopted during 1980s and early 1990s
• Updates began in 1999 , completed in 2003
• The change in rainfall rate expedited the process
• Incorporated the master plan portion of the
WaterShed Approach to Water Quality adopted by
Council in 1995
• Current master plans adopted by Council in 2004
City of
For
tomCollins
`
Page 2 of 10
Technical Components
1 . Hydrology — runoff estimate
2 . Hydraulics — floodplain map
3 . Habitat assessment and stream stability analysis
4 . Problem Identification — flood damages , stream
stability problems , habitat ratings
5 . Conceptual Alternatives
6 . Alternative Feasibility Analysis
7 . Selected Plan - final recommendations
8 . Implementation — bi -annual budget process
For
im
Level of Protection
• Level of Protection ( LOP ) is the storm event (2 -
year , 10-year , 100-year, etc . ) a community uses to
design/size drainage facilities
• Regardless of the chosen LOP , floodplains are
mapped using the 100 -year storm ( FEMA standard )
• A community is not required to design or build
projects to reduce the floodplain
• It is up to the community to decide which storm
event to use for capital projects and new
developments
City of
For
tomCollins
`
Page 3 of 10
What Is Our Current LOP ?
• Fort Collins uses the 100-year level of protection when benefits
outweigh cost
• New development must use the 100-year level of protection
• In 2001 Council asked us to look at providing a lower level of
protection in our Master Plans
• Each MP update included an evaluation of a 50-year level of
protection
• In January 2004 , Council confirmed the use of the 100-year
level of protection when benefits outweigh the cost
Fort Collins
im
Approaches to Alternatives to Reduce
Flood Damage
• Do Nothing — continue to administer Floodplain
Regulations
• Buyout properties in the floodplain
• Buy flood insurance
• Evacuate the runoff faster ( channelize )
• Slow runoff down ( detention ) so existing
steams/channels can contain flow
• Any combination of the above
City of
Fort Collins
Page 4 of 10
Alternatives
• All Master Plans looked at the feasibility of these
alternatives
• Recommended plans are typically a combination of
several alternatives
• Flexibility is important :
— More developed basins usually require more
structural solutions (e . g . Old Town )
— Less developed basins with natural streams can
rely on softer approaches ( e . g . Fossil Creek)
For
� s DRAFT ���,
Citywide Solutions \lap - North 'f
www,,,..m eonue�
�.., • .w,,,�w ,�.+.�..
"""'
w evsemm yy
AN 0
City Of
Fort Collins
kit
Page 5 of 10
- "s DRAFT
Citywide Solutions Map - South
.71
• � 8 Y A
Q a
• F
• • 5 s � re.� .w...ww�• } Eo..r..o.o
K 8
� Q
• E Ero«r .m...
City of
6 Wins
Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Used as a tool to screen flood control
alternatives
• Each master plan B/C is calculated on a
system wide basis , not project by project
• Some MPs do not have a B/C > 1
Projects are required for public safety , e . g .
detention pond spillways , road overtopping
Stream restoration and stream stability
City oort Wins
Page 6 of 10
Benefit-Cost Analysis
• How were " benefits" and " costs " determined ?
• Since these are public projects , paid for by all
citizens , there is disagreement about the definition
of benefits and costs
One person ' s " benefit" is another person ' s " cost" ,
• e . g . reducing basement flooding is a benefit to the
property owners , but a cost to local reclamation
companies
Fort Collins
Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Benefits Used :
Reduced damages to property and public
facilities and reduced emergency response costs
• Costs Used :
— Project costs : construction , ROW , project
management , etc .
• Did not include the value of : lost/saved lives ,
environmental impacts , development potential of
land
city of
Fort Collins
Page 7 of 10
Capital Project Prioritization System
Flood Control Projects
• Project must be part of an approved MP
• Stand alone stream stability and habitat
restoration/enhancement projects do not have a priority
system for ranking
• All flood control projects are ranked using three criteria :
Benefit to Cost Ratio ( BC )
Number of Structures Removed from the floodplain (SR)
Number of Street Overtoppings eliminated (SO)
`rt CWins
Project Prioritization System
• BC + 2SR + SO = Ranking Score
• This formula gives more weight to the number of structures
removed by a project
• Results are a guide ; final results are checked for:
Logic — "Can Project A be built before Project B?"
Ties — decided by other factors
• Water quality and habitat benefits of the project
• Construction scheduling
• Budget timing
• Contractual obligations
Fort Collins
Page 8 of 10
What Do Other Communities Do ?
ELity Master B/C Level of Protection — Capital
Plans Analysis? Projects
Fort Yes Yes 100-year
Collins
— Yes i 10-year
Greeley Yes No 100-year
100-year for channels , 2-year
` for pipes
SEMSWA* Yes Sometimes 100-year future flows
UDFCD** Yes lip Yes 1_00-year future flows
*- Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority
* * - Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
�F�t_jins
Where Does Fort Collins
Go From Here ?
• A Balanced Vision
— Protect community investments in public safety
— Promote sustainable development practices
— Preserve natural and beneficial floodplain
functions
• Accommodate peak flows without
compromising public safety
City of
Fort Collins
Page 9 of 10
Homework
1 . Read 2004 Council packet handout
2 . Review Master Plan Executive Summary
3 . Determine additional resources needed from
staff
4 . Provide additional resources
F�t_ C`ins
Question for Next Meeting
• Given the new purpose statement of the
Stormwater Utility , do you feel the current
master plan process and recommendations
adequately achieve those outcomes ?
City of
For
tomCollins
`
Page 10 of 10
PTAC MENT
Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for
Stormwater and Detention Facilities
ATTACHMENT 15
Forta Collins
Co '
City of Fort Collins
Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines
for
Stormwater and Detention Facilities
November 5, 2009
PREPARED BY BHA DESIGN INC .
WITH CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITY SERVICES
Page 1 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS :
STEERING COMMITTEE AND CONTRIBUTORS
Rodney Albers - City of Fort Collins Utilities
Justin Morrison - Mountain - n - Plains Real Estate Services
Michael Bello - Larkspur Homes, LLC
Les Kaplan
Stu MacMillan - Everitt- MacMillan
Jim Sell - Jim Sell Design, Inc .
Jason Claeys - Jim Sell Design, Inc .
Matt Blakely - Jim Sell Design, Inc .
Jennifer Williams Almstead - VFR
Nick Haws - Northern Engineering
Herman Feissner - Feissner Consulting, LLC
Brad Anderson - Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc .
Steve Long - Cedar Creek Associates, Inc .
Basil Hamdan - City of Fort Collins Utilities
Dana Leavitt - City of Fort Collins Planning
Steve Olt - City of Fort Collins Current Planning
Mark Sears - City of Fort Collins Nat Resources
Angela Milewski - BHA Design Inc.
Jason Messaros - BHA Design Inc .
Glen Schlueter - City of Fort Collins Utilities
Lisa Kokes - City of Fort Collins Utilities
Louise Herbert - Landscape Architect
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Page 2 of 21
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
MEN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
VISION AND GOALS 1
STRUCTURE 1
VARIANCE PROCEDURES 1
BACKGROUND 2
CONCEPTS 2
INFILTRATION VS . RUNOFF 2
HABITAT VALUE 2
STORMWATER IS AN AMENITY 3
OBJECTIVES 4
DESIGN GUIDELINES 5
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 5
PLANNING/SITE CONTEXT 5
LANDFORM AND SLOPES 6
PLANTING DESIGN 8
PLANT SPECIES SELECTION 8
TABLE 1 : RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST 9
PLANTING TECHNIQUES 10
IRRIGATION 12
MAINTENANCE 13
APPENDICES 14
GLOSSARY OF TERMS & CONCEPTS 14
STAKEHOLDER & OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS —
Page 3 of 21
„>
tq1FP to
r y , ' «► % r + w 't'
Or , � '. • � _ -, �•�"'� ..fit � � {
it
Ito,
It
lir
T .� . + `�•� to Lji
��• 7
y� Noit
a A n
k, .
toot
to
1 T ?►
_ Not, ` y11}} .4
r . — r
olt
w it ,
W
t
s + � .
*!
♦ 1 1 y
ttt
k tot
M41
IPOto ulti se Ba Detention, Water Quality, Passive Recreation, Habitat Restoration
I Ile .yam
Y �
1411 0 toot. is
,
a f
. 1 x/ JJ . ,
'., —. . .ram
> ' 4
•
� • ' k - .I •' r /1 - 1
y - 1
. { ' �� I' "'�. � _� d°d-� irr;,%*-! �, fit.•. - ��1�w:,. \' "?,ft�1 1
7,
c
r-
ddddd
too
to Jo
✓ .y _ r a. it
tot
CIPO: Integrated Outfall Structure CIPO - Habitat Bio-Mimic
9 ,
0
. . - 9
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
INTRODUCTION
The following standards and guidelines have been • Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
developed to inform the design and maintenance of • Army Corps of Engineers
landscaping within storm drainage and detention facilities • Neighborhood Home Owner's Association
in Fort Collins . Currently the City of Fort Collins follows Requirements
written standards for the technical design of drainage and • Neighborhood Design Review Committee
detention facilities . These facilities represent a significant Requirements
portion of open space within both public and private
developments in the city. As a result, these standards VARIANCE PROCEDURES
and guidelines will improve the overall character of our These standards and guidelines illustrate and regulate
community, storm drainage function , reduce irrigation the implementation of the concepts and objectives of
demand, improve wildlife habitat, and promote the 21st Century Utilities Initiative . Their purpose is to
maintenance of these open areas . convey these fundamental concepts, but also to foster
design innovation and collaboration between city staff,
VISION AND GOALS developers, and design professionals . Proposed designs
These standards and guidelines are part of a that illustrate the spirit and accomplish the goals, but
larger vision of both the City of Fort Collins City-Wide do not conform to these standards must be approved
Sustainability Initiative and the 21st Century Utilities by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Executive Director
Initiative . This vision is : or the Director's designee . A variance request shall be
submitted in writing prior to or as part of an application
"To inspire community leadership by reducing for development review. The variance request ( s ) shall
environmental impacts while benefiting customers, the include :
economy and society" • Identifying Issue : Identification of the standard to be
waived or varied and why the standard is unfeasible .
In order to help achieve this vision, these standards and • Alternate Design : Identification of the proposed
guidelines for landscaping have been developed with the alternative design or construction criteria .
following goals : • Comparison to Standards : A thorough description
• Promote water infiltration and water quality of the variance request and how the new design
• Habitat value and plant conservation compares to the standard .
• Improve aesthetic quality • Justification : Indication of how the proposed plan
( as varied ) advances the purpose of the standard
STRUCTURE sought to be varied equally well or better than would
This document includes background information compliance with such standard .
and describes concepts and objectives for design of
stormwater facilities to meet the goals of the 21st Based upon review of the plans and additional
Century Utilities Initiative . It includes both guidelines information submitted, the Director may approve or deny
( suggested recommendations for design improvements) the variance request . If the Director of Utilities approves
and standards ( mandatory requirements for design or the variance request, the plans will continue to be
documentation ) . The standards or requirements are reviewed and approved within the typical review process .
outlined a the end of each section . If the Director denies the variance request, the applicant
This document is intended to supplement, not shall subsequently submit revised plans in compliance
supercede, current regulatory documents which may with these Standards . The Director shall provide a written
include : response outlining the basis for all approvals or denials of
• Fort Collins Land Use Code variance requests .
• Fort Collins Stormwater Design Criteria Manual
' 11 •
Page 5 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
BACKGROUND
CONCEPTS through the soil and bedrock, recharging the groundwater
The basic concepts of stormwater management are system .
not complicated . The goal is to restore the hydrological
cycle to the extent possible and to utilize the available Runoff occurs when the soil is saturated, has become
precipitation to promote a naturalized environment impermeable or when structures and impermeable
in developed areas . This requires understanding the materials are placed on the site . Runoff tends to contain
pre-development conditions so they can be an integrated silt and pollutants that require mitigation . Excessive
system in the development . runoff also contributes to adverse hydraulic downstream
conditions causing unnatural stream bank erosion and
Site stormwater design should not simply focus on basin limited groundwater recharge .
sizing and outfall rates, but should address site drainage
as an integrated multi- use hydrologic system . This system Appropriate site design promotes natural infiltration
may include detention , water quality treatments, stream resulting in fewer downstream impacts including excessive
bank erosion control, habitat creation, infiltration, energy steam flow, exaggerated geomorphology, and reduced
dissipation, and/or recreational use . The concepts stormwater capacity of natural systems .
here illustrate specific measures which affect landscape
treatments within this overall, integrated stormwater HABITAT VALUE
design approach . Historically the area that is now Fort Collins was a
short grass prairie with a large variety of plant and animal
INFILTRATION VS . RUNOFF species . Many of these species have been displaced by the
Infiltration is a natural process by which precipitation is onset of development. Natural waterways and drainage
absorbed into the soil . Depending on the local soil type, patterns are altered by development . This decreases
some of the water remains in the top layers of soil and the functionality of existing hydrologic systems . It is
is used by vegetation . The rest of the water percolates necessary to reasonably accommodate and/or reestablish
PRE-DEVELOPMENT POST- DEVELOPMENT the hydrologic systems that existed prior to development
(TYPICAL) through the site and landscape design process .
RUNOFF INCREASED 1
RUNOFF �J
F � a71Y1'
DECREASED
INFILTRATION INFILTRATION
DECREASE
RUNOFF
INCREASE INFILTRATION Naturalized Planting Improved Habitat Value
GOAL: POST - DEVELOPMENT
DESIGNED FOR INFILTRATION
Page 6 of 21
Clity of Fort Collins
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
STORMWATER IS AN AMENITY
Stormwater facilities have a reputation for being
functional site features without natural qualities . The basic
design parameters for a detention pond design is capacity
or volume and rate of discharge . These parameters
combined with economic factors typically result in designs
that maximize the amount of stormwater detention within
the smallest possible area .
These parameters are typically accomplished by the
creation of geometric basins with calculated volume and
outflow rates, connected to site and local utilities through
standard gray concrete and steel structures . The typical
detention basin is functional as a facility, yet, provides
little or no aesthetic or habitat benefits . In many cases
detention basins of this kind detract from the overall
project image or appeal and adversely affect surrounding
properties .
Detention ponds and waterways can instead be
designed to both meet the engineering requirements and
provide an attractive diverse space . A detention pond can
serve as a multi - use area , wildlife habitat, picturesque
scene, entry experience or educational opportunity
while maintaining the necessary functions of stormwater
detention and water quality improvement . Stormwater
facilities should be considered an opportunity for aesthetic
interest and natural integration rather than solely
necessary features of a development .
Ilk
Ci r .W
" Front1 • • • A • • • l - Improved Aesthetics
BACKGROUND
ErrPage 7 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
OBJECTIVES
In order to achieve the overall goals, the following and showy flowers, fall leaf color, winter texture, and
objectives must be met : grasses that persist through the winter while they
provide good wildlife habitat .
1 . INFILTRATION AND WATER QUALITY • Use vegetation to frame viewsheds and enhance the
Reduce excess runoff and downstream pollution by natural aesthetic qualities of the site .
increasing on -site infiltration and water quality. Maintain
the primary functions of detention ponds and stream
drainages to attenuate flows and improve water quality
while creating and improving wildlife habitat .
• Increase pervious surface area and surface
conveyance .
• Decrease flow concentration .
• Take advantage of natural processes through
bio-filtration and bio- retention .
• Manage vegetation to insure proper drainage
functions are maintained while allowing habitat values
to be expressed to the extent possible .
2 . HABITAT VALUE AND PLANT
CONSERVATION
Create and protect habitat for a diverse array of plants
and animals; birds, mammals, insects, amphibians, and
wetland plants .
• Increase plant species diversity including the number
and variety of butterfly host plant grasses, forbs, and
shrubs as well as the number of nectar plants and
shelter plants .
• Increase the number and variety of native shrubs and
trees that provide valuable cover, berries, insects, nest
sites and other resources for migratory, nesting, and
wintering birds .
• Increase the number and variety of wetland species
that provide optimal conditions for amphibian and
reptile breeding to occur.
3 . AESTHETIC APPEAL
Create a beautiful landscape that people will enjoy
and appreciate without sacrificing function and value for
wildlife and plant habitat .
• Increase the amount of shade and resting areas along
trails and open spaces while providing habitat for
wildlife and viewing opportunities for visitors .
• Use plant species that maintain their beauty in a
variety of seasons, such as a species with colorful
Page 8 of 21
Clity of Fort Collins
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
DESIGN GUIDELINES
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS • Residential Development — neighborhood greenbelts,
A significant portion of a developed site often must multi - purpose recreational fields * , pedestrian trails,
be used for drainage conveyance and site detention . entry features, water features, wildlife habitat,
In planning your site, consider how the storm drainage wetland/riparian amenities, community gardens * ,
facilities can contribute to the overall character of the orchards, natural playgrounds, off- leash dog play
project . areas * .
Developers and designers should consider :
• How will the stormwater facilities be designed to
achieve the goals of this document and the needs of
the project? _
• How will the stormwater facilities be designed as an
amenity rather than a necessary nuisance for this
project? '
L' . _ . . .. _ .._ ,..
PLANNING/SITE CONTEXT • Business / Retail Development — Water features, entry
Obtain and understand information about site
conditions and site context before designing the features, loop trails, picnic shelters * , visual buffer to
detention facilities, including : screen service areas from public spaces, bioswale/
landscape islands, etc .
• Adjacent and regional drainage, recreational, and
open space patterns
• On -site topography and drainage conditions
• Soil conditions
• Unique natural features, amenities or views
• Aesthetic expectations
Consider how the design of drainage facilities and
detention areas can contribute to the overall plan and
adjacent developments . Collaborate with adjacent • Industrial Development — Visual buffer to screen
property developers to formulate a more effective service and loading areas, trail connections, recreation
neighborhood or regional storm drainage plan . Look for areas, etc .
opportunities to integrate storm drainage conveyance
and water quality systems into the planned development. � +
Using bioswales, linear conveyance with check dams, and
inverted landscape islands throughout the project will
increase distributed infiltration and can result in reduced
land dedication requirements for larger detention ponds .
Different development types will have differing needs
that can be enhanced by thoughtful design of stormwater
systems that can serve multiple functions. Some concepts
to consider for detention areas based on development * Structures and fences should be designed for
types include : flooding conditions .
DESIGN GUIDEL1NEJ9mL_.
Page 9 of 21
Forf
city/100 Co llin
' s
LANDFORM AND SLOPES
Detention ponds engineered solely to meet the
minimum holding capacity of the required storm flows
generally result in ponds with uniform side slopes with
little natural character, or with vertical side walls that may
create unsafe conditions . Design pond slopes in a way that
they may also contribute to other goals .
If a detention pond is designed to also serve as a Fill
neighborhood recreation or athletic field, use gentle side MultimUse Basina Detention & Passive Recreation
slopes to allow for easy access to the play fields . Steeper
side slopes can be designed with terraced flat areas to
serve as spectator seating . Other greenbelt amenities such
as picnic areas and pedestrian trails can be developed
adjacent to these spaces to create a neighborhood park
amenity that also serves as stormwater detention . While
gentler slopes for detention may require more land for the
pond, by combining the required pond area with required
community uses, less land may be used for these open 7 J — -
areas overall . -Sports -
MultimUse Basin* Detention &
WOO
MultimUse Basin* Detention & Passive Recreation, Trails iMultimUse Basin * Detention Passive Recreation, Trails ,
THIS � NOT THIS
------------
DESIGN GUIDELINES 6
Page 10 of 21
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
Im
Detention ponds designed to be naturalized open and/or brush hogs . Consider that trash and debris must
space should include varied side slopes and an be regularly removed by maintenance personnel . Periodic
undulating bottom . Varied slope conditions will promote cleanup operations may also require the use of heavy
opportunities for plant diversity and wildlife habitat by equipment . If walls are used , they shall be limited to the
creating subtle changes in elevation above the average minimum required height and length needed . Ideally no
water level . Combine these techniques to create a wide more than 50% of a basin perimeter should be bound by
array of diverse soil conditions and exposures for plants walls . All walls shall be built of suitable materials matching
and animals to inhabit and " naturalize". adjacent architecture or designed into the landscape
scheme with natural stone or integral color concrete with
Design detention ponds with positive slopes ( 2% form liner.
minimum ) near the outlet to avoid standing water
and limit mosquito habitat . Manicured turf areas
that require regular mowing should also be sloped to Required Design Standards :
drain appropriately (4 : 1 Max) . However, flatter areas In all cases the following standards apply :
are encouraged to increase infiltration, but must be • No concrete trickle channels shall be used where
landscaped appropriately with wetland plants, forbs free draining soils are present ( Soil Group A, B ) .
and shrubs that do not require regular mowing and will Limit their use to areas with clayey soils ( Soil Group
tolerate wet and dry conditions . C, D) if necessary.
• Side slopes should vary and range from 4 : 1 to 20 : 1
Avoid the use of concrete trickle pans in areas with • No vegetated slope should exceed 3 : 1
well -draining soils as they reduce infiltration and promote • Landscaped areas should slope to drain ( 2%
evaporation and increased runoff. Where necessary, minimum ) or be planted appropriately so regular
trickle pans shall be designed as an integrated part of mowing is not required ( see PLANTING DESIGN
the landscape . Horizontal alignment shall complement section ) .
topographic character and be non linear. Embedded • Basin area cannot be 100% bound by walls . All
cobbles and/or boulders are encouraged . Color shall be a walls proposed for the pond perimeter are required
subtle earth tone . to have a high quality visual character (such as
natural stone or integral color concrete with form
General access is a primary safety consideration . liner) . Walls should not exceed 30" in height . Fences
Ramped access and gentle side slopes allow people and may be required for safety.
animals to evacuate the basin in the event of high water. • Provide a minimum of one entry point for regular
access by maintenance vehicles and mowers,
Access for maintenance equipment and personnel is and for occasional access by heavy equipment if
necessary for proper care and management of stormwater necessary. Provide adequate egress to allow users
facilities . Design slopes to provide appropriate access for to safely evacuate the area in the event of high
wheeled service vehicles, utility vehicles, lawn mowers water.
THIS Naturalized drainage channel slows drainage, NOT THIS Concrete trickle channel eliminates
promotes infiltration, allows for habitat infiltration and promotes
l „�r�� establishment evaporation and excessive runoff
a
��
lV 1 1�� � , U,���,�, '�^°"l.•yr �) ,.y�, jl�+arl. , rrN v-
DESIGN GUIDELINES 7
Page 11 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
PLANTING DESIGN PLANT SPECIES SELECTION
There is no universal approach to landscape design for Delineate planting zones with similar characteristics
detention areas . Planting design must respond to site- and proposed function . Characteristics should include
specific stormwater functions, soil types and hydrology, slope, aspect, soil type, and moisture levels . Functions may
slopes, solar aspect, availability and type of irrigation, include wildlife habitat, recreational use, or visual amenity
habitat creation , planned uses and planned maintenance . or visual screening .
A Landscape Architect can assist with a comprehensive
plan for the landscape design for your project's open space Develop a plant list for each zone type . See TABLE 1 for a
and detention areas . The following guidelines outline sample listing of appropriate plant types .
important criteria for the development of landscape plans
for these areas .
Before finalizing planting plans and seed mixes, obtain
horticultural testing of the on -site soils where planting
will occur. Testing can be completed by the Colorado
State University Soil and Crop Sciences Department for
a nominal fee . Contact the Soil -Water- Plant Testing Lab
at http ://www. extsoilcrop . colostate . edu/SoiILab/soiIlab .
html for more information . Often planting plans must
be completed before construction activities take place,
so final soil conditions for areas to be planted are not
available at the time of design . If overlot grading is planned
to occur after the planting plans are complete, require
the contractor to incorporate 6" of topsoil from on -site or
imported source into final grading operations, and indicate
that the final seed mixes will be modified after final
grading is complete and subsequent horticultural tests are
evaluated .
Use native and adapted plants . Proper landscape design
with native plants based on a site's unique conditions can :
• Reduce or eliminate need for supplemental irrigation
• Reduce fertilizer and chemical pest control needs
• Enhance wildlife habitat
• Reduce maintenance needs
Plants should be screened for invasiveness by using
the Nature Conservancy's Nature Serve Explorer website
at http ://www. natureserve . org/explorer/servlet/
NatureServe ? init=Species
Page 12 of 21
Clity of Fort Collins
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
MEN
TABLE 1 : RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST
TREES AND SHRUBS GRASSES
Upland Species — North and East Facing Species for Upland Slopes
Fourwing Saltbush (Atriplex canescens) Little Bluestem ( Schizachyrium scoparium )
Rubber Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus) Side Oats Grama ( Bouteloua curtipendula )
Three- leaf Sumac (Rhus trilobata) Blue Grama ( Bouteloua gracilis )
Native Smooth Sumac (Rhus glabra) Western Wheatgrass ( Pascopyrum smithii )
Wood's Rose (Rosa woodsii) Green Needlegrass ( Nassella viridula )
White Snowberry (Symphoricarpos alba) Slender Wheatgrass ( Elymus trachycaulus )
Western Snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) Buffalograss ( Buchloe dactyloides )
Netleaf Hackberry (Celtis reticulate) Bottlebrush Squirreltail ( Elymus elymoides )
Sand Dropseed ( Sporobolus cryptandrus )
Upland Species — South and West Facing Alkali Bluegrass ( Poa juncifolia )
Fourwing Saltbush (Atriplex canescens) Sun Sedge ( Carex inops ssp . heliophila )
Rubber Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus)
Three- leaf Sumac (Rhus trilobata) Species for Subirrigated Areas
Desert False Indigo (Amorpha canescens) Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)
Yucca (Yucca glauca) Yellow Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans)
Alkali Sacaton (Sporobolus airoides)
Species for Moist, Well-drained Areas Green Needlegrass (Nassella viridula)
(2. 5-6 feet above high water line or one-year storm ) Western Wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii)
Saskatoon Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) Nuttall Alkaligrass (Puccinellia airoides)
Shiny- leaved Hawthorn (Crataegus erythropoda) Canada Wildrye (Elymus canadensis)
Wild Plum (Prunus Americana)
Western Chokecherry (Padus virginiana var. Species for Wetland Areas
melanocarpa) Prairie Cordgrass (Spartina pectinate)
Western Sand Cherry (Prunus bessyi) Canada Wildrye (Elymus canadensis)
Cottonwood Tree (Populus spp. ) Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)
Netleaf Hackberry (Celtis reticulate) Inland Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata)
Fowl Bluegrass (Poo palustris)
Species for Subirrigated Areas Nebraska Sedge (Carex nebrascensis)
( 1-3 feet above high water line) Woolly Sedge (Carex lanuginose)
Leadplant (Amorpha fruticosa) Creeping Spikerush (Eleocharis palustris)
Redosier Dogwood (Cornus sericea) Torrey's Rush (Juncus torreyi)
Golden Currant (Ribes aureum) Baltic Rush (Juncus balticus)
American Black Currant (Ribes americanum)
Peachleaf Willow (Salix amygdaloides)
JAL_ Aim
DESIGN GUIDELINES 9
Page 13 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
PLANTING TECHNIQUES Drill seed specified mix in two passes, each at right
angles to each other. Drill half of the seed in each pass . If
Soil Preparation areas are too wet or steep to drill seed, broadcast seed in
Good soil is the foundation of a successful landscape . two opposite directions . Restore fine grade after seeding,
Planting areas require topsoil with appropriate levels of and cover seed to depth of 1/4 inch by raking or dragging.
organic matter. Spread imported or stockpiled topsoil to Firm seeded areas with a roller weighing maximum of 100
a minimum depth of four inches over areas to be planted . lbs . per foot of width .
For native seed areas, additional soil amendments are
not necessary. Native plants are adapted to the native Use of erosion control blankets may be needed on
soils, and the additional organic matter found in soil steeper slopes (greater than 6 : 1 ), or non - irrigated south -
amendments may instead promote weed growth . facing and west-facing slopes to reduce erosion, improve
soil moisture and seed germination . Natural fiber blankets
Sub-grade in planting areas should be loosened to a are preferred to synthetic blankets which can entangle
minimum depth of twelve ( 12 ) inches overall ( 8" of existing reptiles and amphibians in pond settings . Install erosion
sub-grade and 4" of new topsoil ) . Remove stones and control blankets as per manufacturer's recommendations .
clods that could impede planting, seeding, and mowing .
Stones protruding from the soil more than 3" should be Remaining seeded areas should be mulched to reduce
removed . Collect and legally dispose of sticks, roots, seed loss and improve soil moisture and germination .
rubbish, and other extraneous matter. Repeat cultivation Large sites without irrigation can be mulched with straw
in areas where equipment used for hauling and spreading mulch . Straw mulch should be certified weed -free hay or
topsoil has compacted the soil . Fine grade disturbed certified weed-free straw with no seed heads, crimped into
planting areas to a smooth , uniform surface plane with the seed bed after seeding has occurred . Irrigated sites can
a loose, uniformly fine texture . Grade to within the be hydromulched after seeding has occurred .
acceptable tolerances provided by the certifying civil
engineer. Roll and rake, remove ridges, and fill depressions Wetland Plantings and Subirrigated Plugs
to meet finish grades based on grading plans . Concentrate wetland plantings in areas where erosion
is anticipated or where favorable moisture zones are
Weeds thrive in soil disturbed by grading operations . likely to exist . Since planned moisture levels are difficult
Use of appropriate herbicides prior to planting can help to to predict, plant species in, above, and below their ideal
reduce the onset of noxious weeds and other aggressive zone to accommodate for both high water and low water
non-desirable plants . Apply non-selective herbicides seasons . Plants are then likely to establish in their optimal
to weeds after fine grading has occurred and prior to conditions . Since detention areas fluctuate with storm
planting. Herbicide shall be ' Round - Up' or similar product conditions, use species with wider tolerances to moisture
that will not persist in the soil and negatively affect conditions .
planting operations .
Wetland plugs may be necessary in areas that cannot
Seed Mixes and Installation Techniques be seeded due to constant inundation or saturation .
Seed mixes should be developed based on the on-site Plant plugs after drill seeding from mid - May through
soil conditions determined with the soil horticultural tests . July. Planting small plugs in the fall is less desirable due
Since detention and drainage areas have varying moisture to loss of plants to Canada Geese . Plug plantings can
conditions and slopes, develop a diverse seed mix with a be completed immediately after seeding. Subsequent
wide ecological amplitude . When multiple seed species are plug plantings are recommended after initial seed
used, they will tolerate a wide array of soil and moisture establishment when weeds are under control ( 2 -5 seasons
conditions . See TABLE 1 for a list of appropriate grass types after initial construction ) . These later plantings can be
for various planting zones . concentrated in bare areas and those areas needing
erosion control protection .
Page 14 of 21
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
Wetland plugs may be planted 12" to 24" on center a natural habitat and reduce the cost of structured
and may need protection with turf reinforcement mats, protection measures . Seeding schedule should be per
jute or similar erosion control devices . Plugs can be seed source recommendation . Trees and shrubs should be
caged or covered with wire fabric, jute or other products planted prior to seeding .
for protection if damage by geese or small mammals is
anticipated . In areas of standing water, grids of string
slightly above the water elevation can also be installed to Required Design Standards :
reduce waterfowl access to newly planted areas . In all cases the following standards apply :
•Trees and Shrubs Enlist the services of a Landscape Architect to
prepare the required landscape construction plans
Concentrate or group shrubs and woody plants into for commercial project detention areas .
beds or groups to more quickly create habitat for wildlife • Develop plant lists and seed mixes based on
and to reduce weeding, watering and maintenance horticultural testing of site soil conditions .
requirements . Select species based on the optimal • Delineate planting zones based on soil
moisture zones . Construct planting wells around each tree characteristics and function . Develop plant lists
or group of woody plants to capture natural moisture for appropriate for each planting zone .
the plants . Use organic mulch in planting beds or in tree • Use native and adapted plants .
wells to increase moisture retention and to reduce weed • provide a minimum of one entry point for regular
and grass encroachment . Avoid using weed barrier around access by maintenance vehicles and mowers,
trees an shrubs . and for occasional access by heavy equipment
if necessary. Do not block access with designed
Use shrubs and wetland plants strategically near inlets landscape features .
to soften the visual impact of these man- made structures • Stockpile and redistribute ( or import if necessary) a
without impeding storm drainage function . Avoid the use minimum of four inches of topsoil over areas to be
of exposed rip- rap . Rip- rap if used shall be a subtle earth planted .
tone color, not pink, and should be buried and integrated • Use non - persistent herbicide prior to planting to
with erosion control matting, and planting to soften
curtail weed establishment .
the visual impact and provide opportunities for habitat • Incorporate erosion control blankets and/or
establishment . Other types of less intrusive erosion appropriate mulch to reduce erosion and improve
control materials which incorporate planting materials soil moisture conditions for new plantings .
should be considered . Bio-engineered solutions are • Use wetland species in appropriate areas and pond
preferred in lieu of structural erosion control measures . bottoms likely to be too wet for regular mowing
Brush layering and use of live branch cuttings can restore and maintenance .
and protect stream banks and outFall areas while creating
THIS NOT THIS
�1 I� `r • 1 % �✓ If
III''
.�'•� 1 Ind 1 J ff 0 6
1 Oft � IPL
,✓i�
Exposed pipe, `y
Naturalized rip-rap or cobble [ � ^�� no landscape context, • �� � '� '
stones partially buried, broken � i� �� 1 ' exposed rip-rap of uniform color and
edges, streambed appearance size, straight edges and square corners
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Page 15 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
IRRIGATION
Since storm drainage and detention areas account
for the most significant portions of open landscaped
space in most projects, their design can greatly impact
the amount of irrigation water demand for a project .
Irrigation and landscape design should correspond to
the types of uses planned for the detention areas . Areas
planned for high pedestrian use such as recreational fields
will require higher irrigation needs to provide regular,
controlled irrigation levels . More natural areas may be
able to minimize or eliminate completely the need for
supplemental irrigation . Landscape designs are encouraged
to respond to each site's unique soil conditions and
planned hydrology to minimize or eliminate the need for
supplemental irrigation .
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Page 16 of 21
MAINTENANCE
Required Design Standards :
Weed Control In all cases the following standards apply :
The primary method of weed control during the initial � Use regular mowing as a primary weed control
establishment period (two to three growing seasons ) for method during initial establishment period .
seeded areas is regular mowing . Regular mowing helps e Limit use of chemical herbicides, and only use those
prevent weed seeds from being produced . Careful spot appropriate for conditions . Use non persistent
spraying is also acceptable, but many herbicides affect herbicides in upland areas, and aquatic approved
seedling grasses and non-target plants . Always read and herbicides near wet, wetland or water areas .
follow label directions . After the initial establishment • Suppress cattails for the first three to five growing
period , if chemical weed controls are needed in the seasons to allow less aggressive native species to
pond bottoms of wet detention areas, herbicides should establish .
be selected that have an aquatic label . Even herbicides Monitor and correct areas of erosion .
approved for aquatic use should only be used during • Limit irrigation and fertilization to that needed for
periods of dry weather and dryer conditions to reduce the plant establishment and specific designed needs .
amount of herbicide that gets into the water itself. Side Naturalized areas with native plants are adapted
slopes generally above the high water line can be sprayed to Colorado soils so should only require irrigation
with non -aquatic but non - persistent herbicides as per the during the initial establishment period , and
manufacturer's recommendations . should not require fertilization . High - use or active
recreation areas will require more regular irrigation
Cattails will generally establish in created detention and standard fertilization practices .
areas through natural dispersal . Although they are a
native species, they are often so competitive that they
become a mono-culture if not managed . Cattails should be
suppressed for the first three to five growing seasons to
allow less aggressive native species to establish .
Erosion Control
Areas of erosion should be monitored and corrected
to prevent damage to the landscape and storm drainage
structures .
Irrigation and Fertilization
Supplemental irrigation will be needed during the
initial establishment period . However, once established,
naturalized drainage and detention areas using native
plants and species appropriate for the specific moisture
regimes should not require fertilizers or supplemental
irrigation after establishment . Irrigation used during
establishment can either be reduced or eliminated
altogether. Limit the use of fertilizers in native plant areas .
In detention basins that also serve as recreation fields
or active neighborhood spaces, permanent irrigation and
more standard fertilization , aeration , and weed control
practices are appropriate to keep a more manicured
appearance .
Page 17 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
APPENDICES
GLOSSARY OF TERMS & CONCEPTS
Base Flow — The portion of stream flow that is not runoff and Green Roof - A contained space over a building that is covered,
results from seepage of water from the ground into a channel partially or entirely, with living plants .
over time . The primary source of running water in a stream
during dry weather. Groundwater - Water that flows below the ground surface
through saturated soil, glacial deposits, or rock.
Best Management Practice ( BMP), nonstructural— Strategies
implemented to control stormwater runoff that focus on Hydrologic Soil Groups - Soil groups based on estimates of runoff
pollution prevention, such as alternative site design, education, potential . Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to
and good housekeeping measures . the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by
vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from
Best Management Practice ( BMP), structural — Engineered long-duration storms.
devices implemented to control, treat, or prevent stormwater Group A . Soils having a high infiltration rate ( low runoff
runoff. potential ) when thoroughly wet . These consist mainly of
deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly
Bio-filtration — The use of vegetation such as grasses and sands . These soils have a high rate of water transmission .
wetland plants to filter and treat stormwater runoff as it is Group B . Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when
conveyed through an open channel or swale, or collects in an thoroughly wet . These consist chiefly of moderately deep
infiltration basin (see Bio- retention ) . or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that
have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture .
Biological Diversity — The concept of multiple species or These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission .
organisms living together in balance with their environment and Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when
each other. thoroughly wet . These consist chiefly of soils having a layer
that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of
Bio-retention — The use of vegetation in retention areas moderately fine texture or fine texture . These soils have a
designed to allow infiltration of runoff into the ground . The slow rate of water transmission .
plants provide additional pollutant removal and filtering Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate ( high
functions . runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly
of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential , soils that
Detention - The storage and slow release of stormwater have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay
following a precipitation event by means of an excavated layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over
pond, enclosed depression, or tank. Detention is used for nearly impervious material . These soils have a very slow rate
both pollutant removal, stormwater storage, and peak flow of water transmission .
reduction . Both wet and dry detention methods can be applied . If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D,
or C/D ), the first letter is for drained areas and the second
Evapotranspiration - The loss of water to the atmosphere is for undrained areas . Only the soils that in their natural
through the combined processes of evaporation and condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes .
transpiration, the process by which plants release water they
have absorbed into the atmosphere . Hydrology - The science addressing the properties, distribution,
and circulation of water across the landscape, through the
Filter Strip - Grassed strips situated along roads or parking ground, and in the atmosphere .
areas that remove pollutants from runoff as it passes through,
allowing some infiltration, and reductions of velocity. Impervious surface - A surface that cannot be penetrated by
water such as pavement, rock, or a rooftop and thereby prevents
Floodplain - Can be either a natural feature or statistically infiltration and generates runoff.
derived area adjacent to a stream or river where water from the
stream or river overflows its banks at some frequency during Imperviousness - The percentage of impervious cover within a
extreme storm events . defined area .
Page 18 of 21
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
Infiltration - The process or rate at which water percolates from gravitational settling to remove soil or rock particles from the
the land surface into the ground . Infiltration is also a general water column .
category of BMP designed to collect runoff and allow it to flow
through the ground for treatment . Siltation - A solid -liquid separation process utilizing gravitational
settling to remove fine-grained soil or rock particles from the
Metered Detention and Discharge - A system where stormwater water column .
is collected in a cistern pond and then slowly released into the
landscape beds or the storm drain in the following hours at Storm sewer system - A system of pipes and channels that carry
the rate that allows for better filtration and is less taxing to the stormwater runoff from the surfaces of building, paved surfaces,
overall community storm drain . and the land to discharge areas .
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) - A Stormwater - Water derived from a storm event or conveyed
provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits discharge of through a storm sewer system .
pollutants into waters of the United States unless a special
permit is issued by the EPA, a state, or (where delegated ) a tribal Surface water - Water that flows across the land surface, in
government or and Indian reservation . channels, or is contained in depressions on the land surface (e .g.
Runoff , Ponds, Lakes, Rivers, and Streams) .
Outfall - The point of discharge from a river, pipe, drain, etc. to a
receiving body of water. Swale - A natural or human- made open depression or wide,
shallow ditch that intermittently contains or conveys runoff.
Peak discharge - The greatest volume of stream flow occurring Swales can be equipped with an underdrain or other man- made
during a storm event. drainage device . and can be used as a BMP to detain and filter
runoff .
Pervious - Admitting of passage or entrance . Material that
permits elements such as water and oxygen to enter and or pass Urban runoff - Runoff derived from urban or suburban land-
through . uses that is distinguished from agricultural or industrial runoff
sources.
Polluted runoff - Rainwater or snow melt that picks up pollutants
and sediments as it runs off roads, highways, parking lots, lawns, Water ( hydrologic) cycle - The flow and distribution of water
agricultural lands, logging areas, mining sites, septic systems, and from the sky, to the Earth's surface, through various routes on or
other land- use activities that can generate pollutants . in the Earth, and back to the atmosphere. The main components
are precipitation, infiltration, surface runoff, evapotranspiration,
Porous pavement and pavers - Alternatives to conventional channel and depression storage, and groundwater.
asphalt that utilize a variety of porous media, often supported
by a structural matrix, concrete grid, or modular pavement, Water table — The level underground below which the ground is
which allow water to percolate though to a sub- base for gradual wholly saturated with water.
infiltration .
Watershed - The land area, or catchment, that contributes water
Retrofit - The creation or modification of a stormwater to a specific water body. All the rain or snow that falls within
management practice, usually in a developed area, that this area flows to the water bodies as surface runoff, in tributary
improves or combines treatment with existing stormwater streams, or as groundwater.
infrastructure .
Runoff - Water from rainfall, snow melt, or otherwise discharged
that flows across the ground surface instead of infiltrating the
ground .
Sanitary sewer system - Underground pipes that carry only
domestic or industrial wastewater to a sewage treatment plant
or receiving water.
Sedimentation - A solid- liquid separation process utilizing
. • •
Page 19 of 21
F6rt
city Cof llin
' s
STAKEHOLDER & OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS
• A landscape plan for all stormwater facilities must natural state and not manicured .
be prepared by a professionally licensed Landscape • Encourage bioswales, etc . in and around site .
Architect with experience in stormwater facility • Incentive to allow water to be treated at source in rain
design . gardens / bioswales / etc .
• List possible techniques/solutions with examples • Provide support that will lead to decrease in required
and case studies to help appease those entering into pond volumes such as narrower streets, pervious
uncharted territory ( both applicants and reviewers ) . . . pavements, etc . Currently engineering will not allow
this will help avoid the " pioneers get the arrows, and pervious pavement or bioswales
the settlers get the land" dilemma . • No pan requirements in ponds
• Along with various options, include the design • Don 't just default to Urban Drainage; allow variation
criteria to which City Staff will review against. If suitable to project type and size . Allow credit for
every applicant and design team needs to justify the developments that try several LID practices even if it
proposed solutions on their own, and spend extra can't be modeled or formulated in U . D. Let 's see if it
time and money getting Staff on board, it will serve works provided downstream not affected .
as a deterrent to implementing some of these new • How can we quantify infiltration / to allow for smaller
techniques . Obviously, the guidelines cannot account ponds?
for every potential option , and they need to remain • What plants can work in flat- bottom swales ( no
fluid to allow future solutions and innovations not yet concrete pan )
known . However, to get the ball rolling and encourage • City inspectors requiring concrete pans !
more imminent alternatives, not asking each project • Keep in mind expansive clay soils, cannot hold / direct
to 'fight the battle' so-to-speak would be a great water across them without issues .
benefit . • Different standards ( maintenance / design /aesthetics )
• Please put these boards on the website . for different uses / districts = industrial vs . retail
• More Wet Ponds, or flat bottom, because it provides • Civil Engineers tend to "engineer" a solution in the
additional volume least amount of space
• n Desi
• How do you handle clay soils ? Integrated g
• Use appropriate landscaping materials • Go from utilitarian to "aesthetic"
• If using sub drain , provide outlet • Multi use spaces included in final design
• Ponds should have concrete weir — because it provides • Need more cooperation between city departments to
a reference elevation reduce maintenance requirements ( onerous) on HOA's
• Slow H2O down to increase infiltration . • Go for the more natural look.
• Remove concrete pans to assist / allow areas to be • Materials :
more natural . Use planting in this area to build upon A . No rock?
drainage path . B . No concrete ?
• Reevaluate stormwater requirements to over store C . No vertical edges ?
H2O. D . No irrigation ? — ( native and adaptive )
• Take into account H2O uptake of plant material . • Green (grass ) vs . Green ( money) vs . Green
• Use of injection / percolation wells to speed ( sustainable )
absorption . • Flexible aesthetics per property / project
• Combine system with pervious pavement solutions to • Distributed smaller detention
maximize usable land .
• No regional pond .
• Provide incentives for innovation .
• Savings from less storm sewer.
• How can green roofs help with the reduction / delay of • Raised landscape islands converted to depressed
stormwater discharge ? landscape islands
• Incentive to developer to allow pond areas to be in • Incentives for :
Page 20 of 21
Clity of Fort Collins
Stormwater Standards and Guidelines
A . Dispersed system • Standards vs . Guidelines
B . Water quality • Prescriptive vs . Proscriptive
• Slow down the water ! • Requirement for Landscape Architect on design team
• Regional / Neighborhood detention facilities vs . each • Combination ? If walls then upgrade
site — with fee similar to street over sizing • Engineering staff on team
A . Regional ( City) • LUCASS staff on team
B . Neighborhood • Life cycle vs . Front end cost
C . Private • Continue to promote growth and development
• Infill projects • Multiple use = multiple approaches
A . Smaller facilities • Difficult with little used areas
B . Swales with infiltration • No fertilizer unless play fields
• Linear detention keep larger ponds sizes down • No irrigation ( except during establishment)
• Inverted landscape islands in parking lots • Required ground cover
• Alternatives for wetland mitigation similar to Corp of • Context for plant types
Engineers in lieu of fee ? A . Categories for use, wetland , soil type, landscape,
• May not apply to detention ponds maintenance
• LID — encourage small ponds close to source B . Review Urban Drainage Standards
• Concentration of surface area C . New development vs . Infill / redevelopment
A . Less curb and gutter
B . More infiltration
C . * Increased surface area
D . Greenbelts conveying and slowing water
( check dams) to increase infiltration
• Native soils = little infiltration but slowing rate through
bioswales still help with down stream flows
• Tucson = standards top in nation as model
• City needs to be able to accept new ideas
A . Rocky mountain innovation
B . Infiltration ? City requires 2X capacity if case it
doesn't work
C . Include innovation process in standards
• Collaboration — encourage collaboration among project
team members and between team and city
• City to take a leadership role in new techniques
• Help developer to understand benefits . * Examples of
successful projects ?
• Example projects schematics, concepts illustrated
• Eliminate risk by having guidelines on the books
• Access for maintenance
• Mowing ( private Maintenance )
• Backhoes / Dumptrucks for sediment removal ( city)
• Partnership between private and city
• Gently sloping sod, few trees
• No walls?
• Limit walls to allow maintenance
• Underground detention ?
• How do you deal with long term maintenance ?
JAKEHOLDER & OPEN HOUSECOMMENTS
Page 21 of 21
ATTACHMENT
City Council Work Session
December 8 , 2009
Stormwater Program Review
,mot,f
Council Questions
• Has Staff provided the information requested by the
City Council ?
• Does the City Council we with the direction of the
repurposing effort?
• What revisions and courses of action would the City
Council like to further consider or pursue regarding
rates and flood plain regulations ?
• Are there additional areas for which the City Council
seeks information ?
�rt_r
City Council Work Session
October 14 , 2008
1 . Revise the mission/purpose statement
2 . Evaluate the program now
3 . Re-examine adopted policies
4 . Evaluate the rate structure : Who pays and who benefits?
5 . Understand land use implications
6 . Enhance the environmental ethos of the City
7 . Evaluate community benefits through Budgeting for
Outcomes
8 . Review capital projects
F�t
TRIPLE
BOTTOM
` LINE
IMPACT
City of [ins
Stormwater Environmental Benefits
• Environmental enhancement opportunities related to
improving water quality , stream restoration , and
habitat protection .
• Reduced environmental damage of flood events : raw
sewage overflows , mold , disease , and solid waste
disposal .
Collins
Stormwater Social Benefits
• Social enhancement opportunities related to public
recreation , education , connection with nature , and
pedestrian corridors .
• Reduced social impacts of flood events : loss of life ,
personal injury , and emotional trauma .
C.rt_r
Stormwater Economic Benefits
• Economic opportunities related to developing
stormwater projects as urban amenities (open space ,
riparian corridors , parks ) .
• Reduced economic costs of flood events : structure
and content damage , transportation obstructions , and
emergency response .
F�tRins
Stormwater Program Review
Components
a . Stormwater Purpose Statement
b . BMP Policy Update
c. Stormwater Criteria Update
d . Detention Pond Construction/Landscape Standards & Guidelines
e . Stormwater Quality GIS Coverage
f. LID Demonstration Projects
g . LID Policy Review
h . Stormwater Quality Sampling Review
i . City Owned BMP Review
j . HOA Assistance Program
k. Level of Protection Policy
I . Rates
m . Floodplain Regulations
n . Urban Stream Health
Rins
� t_f�
Repurposing Themes
1 . Revise the mission/purpose statement
2 . Evaluate the program now
3 . Re-examine adopted policies
4 . Evaluate the rate structure : Who pays and Who benefits?
5 . Understand land use implications
6 . Enhance the environmental ethos of the City
7 . Evaluate community benefits through Budgeting for
Outcomes
8 . Review capital projects
F�tCollins
1 . Revise the Mission/Purpose
Statement
• Water Board Recommendation
The City Council hereby finds, determines and
declares the City's integrated stormwater
management program is for the mutual economic,
social and environmental benefits of public safety,
flood mitigation, water quality and public welfare
while protecting natural areas and their features,
protecting and restoring the City's watersheds, its
tributaries and the Cache la Poudre River.
City of
�rt_f�
2 . Evaluate the Program Now
• Inventory and evaluate the performance of existing
Best Management Practice 's ( BMP ' s )
— BMP ' s improve the water quality of stormwater
runoff before it enters streams and creeks
— City owned
— Privately owned
— Results will guide future improvements via the
master plan update and future criteria for new
development
F�t
City of Fort Collins Storrnwater BMP Coverage
® Will be used to
determine where to
[Legend wmet Q�,otv
should focus our
scWgKR - �
�WCLt.11i)...
City of Fort Collins BMP Structure Locations Privately Owned BMP Structure Locations
1 t
eve 1,
- 1 ' �.
y
Or
Wool
TT *IS
u�ra Nw..nbn 16. 2666 / 1rW . Nov.rnb.r 16. 2666 n
tegvnd Coy We" Q....tY &• Legend a.. ,w.M�
rn r.rn.. '_�_ ory w... adn N• * rove r.mm N..a.q ve,vern.v. ® . ... e..... @,ev.
srm.n BUMu. Qy w.rn P *e W W P V Imi; 71< nfl. ror.w ve.vexew er uv •• •••• e-+• ••
O _ o.....+n e.... ti
f
Evaluate2 .
Program
Stormwater Quality Sampling Review
— Evaluate existing data
— Modify and expand
sampling program
Urban Stream Health Assessment
Expand the / streamhealth
refined low flow . Include the results in the
stormwaterplan update
City of
Fort Collins
14 —
eveet
7
Habitat AssessmentStream Ratings
n•.
_ _ Low flow will be
assessed for use in
the Stormwater
Master Plans
F�t
3 . Re -examine the Adopted Policies
• Best Management Practices Policy Update
• Stormwater Criteria Update
• Low Impact Development ( LID ) Policy Review
Best Management Practices Policy Update
Recommendations
— Form a citizen review group for the watershed
team .
— Complete Master Plan updates that define the
BMPs ( including LID techniques ) that should be
used in order to protect and restore the chemical ,
physical and biological attributes of each stream
within each drainage basin .
City of
-, Fort
Collins
Best Management Practices Policy Review
Recommendations (con 't)
— Form a watershed planning team led by a
planning coordinator(s ) .
— Revise timelines and budgets for implementation
of each master plan .
— Formalize coordinated long term monitoring
programs to provide feedback to the watershed
team in order to track progress .
.o
Water Board Recommendation
• In order to improve the Stormwater Water Quality
Program, the Water Board supports all five
recommendations as stated, provided staff returns to
the Board with a recommendation for the multi-
disciplinary watershed planning group.
( Note : To achieve a greater range of expertise and
efficiency , the first item will be achieved by
coordinating with the City Plan update . )
F�tCollins
Re -examine the Adopted Policies ( con 't)
• Stormwater Criteria Update
— Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria
( UDFCD ) Manual recognized as the standard
— Adopt the UDFCD Criteria Manual along with a
Fort Collins Exceptions Manual
• Low Impact Development ( LID ) Policy Review
— LIDs are incorporated into new development to
reduce that development' s runoff impacts
— Incorporate new LID policies in the upcoming City
Plan Update
City of
�rt_f�
4 . Evaluate the Rate Structure
• Stormwater Rates
— Provides the funding to carry out the City' s
stormwater management program .
— Monthly fess collected from developed properties .
— Plant investment fees collected from new
development at the time of building permit.
Collins
Monthly Fee
— Uniform citywide
— Amount varies based on lot size and impervious
area
( higher the impervious area = higher the fee )
— Frozen at $ 14 . 26/month for a typical Single Family
Residence ( SFR ) .
C.rt_r
Plant Investment Fee
— Buy- in to the value of existing stormwater system
• 2009 = $4 , 420 , Proposed 2010 = $ 6 , 313
• Will increase over time as capital projects are
completed
— Uniform citywide
— Amount varies based on lot size , impervious area , open
space and r-o-w
• Higher the impervious area = higher the fee
F t\ Co
Current Financing Plan
• Adopted by City Council in 2001
• Initial debt and then pay-as-you -go
• Monthly rates frozen at 2004 level
• 35-year capital improvements build out period
• Does not currently include costs for stream
restoration projects .
City of
�rt_f�
Monthly Fee Breakdown
Operations and Maintenance $ 1 . 85
Capital Projects $5 . 71
Water Quality $ 1 . 13
Transfer to other funds $ 1 . 86
Debt Payment $3 . 71
Total $ 14 . 26 (SFR)
Collins
Monthly Fee Comparison
• Communities surveyed :
— Front Range and western part of US
— Monthly fee range is $4 . 09 - $ 19 . 13
— Ten have a single source of revenue
— Three are within the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District (equivalent to an extra $2/month )
— One receives revenue from its General Fund
($2 . 3 M ) city of
F�rt�r
Monthly • • . •
Other CitiesCollins
Ops & Maintenance . 13
Capital • - . . 40
SW Quality 1
Transfers to Others 1
D - • 1
ity of
7 OW
Stormwater Monthly Fee % Breakdown - Front Range Cities
100%
mom
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% oloratlo
Windsor Greeley SEMWA Boulder Longnnnl Denver Loveland Fort Colfns
$4.09 $4.90 S$6pring.00s $6.83 $7.10 $7 7.13 $ 40 $1039 $1426
■ Debt $0 25 SON $0 00 $O.48 $0 85 $3 71 $O.44 $0 00 $3_71
■ Transfers $0 00 $O68 $0 00 $O60 $0 36 $0 00 $1 18 $0 62 $1 86
❑ Wp $000 $039 $0 Bg $O65 $099 $021 $015 $021 $113
■ Capital projects $2.70 $2.01 $2.34 $3.14 $2 56 $1 07 $4.51 $5 20 $5]1
■ 08M $1.15 $162 $300 $2.66 $234 $2.14 $111 $436 $185
14
Rate Structure Concern
• Concern that individual properties and developers
receive a direct benefit for being removed from the
floodplain by a City capital project at the expense of
the general ratepayers
• Current rates are the same whether in floodplain or
not
• Survey showed no communities have nor knew of
any such rate structure that differed based on being
in or out of the floodplain
FC t t\ Collins
Water Board Recommendations Regarding
Rates
. Develop a new cost share method for properties
removed from the floodplain by a capital project be
created to reflect a portion of the benefit that property
and help partially fund these projects.
. Revisit the stormwater rates after the completion of the
stormwater master plan update.
. Partial or entire stream corridor enhancements can be
funded by the Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program based on prioritization through Triple
Bottom Line analysis.
City of
�rt_f�
5 . Understand Land Use Implications
• Poudre River Floodplain
Regulations
• Level of Protection } ..
1904 Poudre River Flood
City 0
For t ollins
\��
Purpose of Floodplain Regulations
City Code Chapter 10 — Flood Preservation and Protection
1 . Protect human health and safety
2 . Protect new development by building "flood safe"
I Minimize increased flooding on existing properties
4 . Reduce impact on community when a flood
happens
5 . Promote preservation of natural and beneficial
floodplain functions
Primary focus of floodplain regulations must be on
health and safety.
�rt_r
Historical Perspective
• 1975 - First Floodplain Ordinance Adopted ( Poudre)
• 1977 - Substantial improvement changed to 50%
( Poudre )
• 1979 - Expanded Ordinance - more detail , more basins ,
a few revisions
• 1995 - Many new higher regulatory standards
• 1999 - rainfall updated after the 1997 storm
• 2000 - New Poudre River regulations adopted
• 2004 - All Basins other than Poudre River revised
33
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FLOOD RISK MAP
jr
17
• 2007 - Poudre River revised to be consistent with County
F�t
i
r
FCity of
:-k
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
• Updated in 2000 to be more restrictive
• I n 2007
— East Mulberry Corridor Plan recommended City
and County floodplain regulations should be as
close as possible
— Some changes made the regulations less
restrictive
F�t
Current Floodplain Regulations
Chapter 10 of City Code
• The Poudre River Regulations
are summarized in a Quick Guide
Attachment 12
�rt_r
Water Board Recommendations
Three changes to Poudre
River floodplain regulations .
➢ All considered higher
regulatory standards than =
FEMA minimum 4 • " ;: -� � a+ r �
standards . � '' '' -
➢ Would result in ..- -
difference between �""'
4
Larimer County and the "
City of Fort Collins .
F�t
1 - -
Definitions - Floodplain and Floodway
100-year Floodplain
Flood Flood
Fring iii Mate(�b_year Floodway Fringe Fill Material
0.5-ft Rise
Overbank Channel Overbank
Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
• A Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-Fill) is a FEMA process whereby a property in the flood fringe can be filled and is no
longer considered in the floodplain for insurance requirements.
• A community must signoff on the application to FEMA and certify that all existing and future structures will be "reasonably safe
from Beading."
• To meet this "reasonably safe from Flooding" standard, all floodplain requirements (p. 8-9) must be met even if fill is placed and the
Property is "removed" from the floodplain by FEMA.
100 fear Roodplain
if
Floodway
0 0
loo-year Fill
deed level elevated 240I
1;
. I `
Roodplaln Fringe
Example of fill placed in the flood fringe
Plan View:
Fltl
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , Floodplaln Fringe
19
PR- 1 Residential or Mixed - Use Structures to Not Be
Allowed on Property Removed from the Floodplain
Based on FEMA Issuing a Letter of Map Revision
Based on Fill ( LOMR- Fill )
Water Board Recommendation
the Pouldre River floodplain regulations be revised
to not allow residential or mixed-use structures on
City of
MELFortColhns
40 -
20
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
0 . 5-ft Floodway vs . 0 . 1 -ft Floodway
- y eF�48b�8 '
Fill Materi I 0 .5-ft Rise Floodway Fill Material
0.5-ft Rise
g�� -ft Rise
Riparian - Riparian
Overbank Overbank
Floodplain Map
Comparisonand Floodway
42
21
i
':yy
s"
R
t
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations ( con 't )
• PR-2 Revise the Poudre River Floodway to be
Mapped Based on a 0 . 1 Foot Rise Floodway
• Water Board Recommendation
— the Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised
to adopt a 0. 1 ft foodway limitation
F8r Collins
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations ( con 't )
• PR-3 Not Allow Any Structures in the Poudre River
100-year Floodplain
• Water Board Recommendation
— the Poudre River floodplain regulations be studied
to not allow structures in the 100-year floodplain
Level of Protection
• Current criteria for new development is to provide a
100-year level of protection .
• In order to mitigate flooding in existing developed
areas of town , the criteria is to provide a 100-year
level of protection if the benefits out weigh the costs .
Collins
Reduced Level of Protection Analysis - 2003
100-Year Level 50-YearJLevelof Protection of Prote
Cost of Flood Control $ 164 million $ 141 million I
Projects
Property Damage $ 290 million $ 146 million
Reduced
Number of Structures - 27200 1 , 500
Damages Eliminated
C.rt_r
city Master Plans? Benefit/Cost Level of Protection
Capital Projects
Fort Collins11
Loveland Yes No 1
Greeley Yes • I 11
Longmont Yes No 11for channels
for pipes
• * Yes Sometimes 100-year •
UDFCD* * Yes Yes 11flows
* Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (Denver area)
* *Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
47
LOP Water Board Recommendations
• staff should change to using the triple bottom line
(TBL) philosophy of social, economic and
environmental components to determine flood contro48
and stream enhancement projects. In this scenario,
24
the numeric Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio plays a smaller
role in determining capital projects, and projects can
be recommended based on factors without a
numerical value.
�rt_r
LOP Water Board Recommendations ( con 't )
• Staff should research appropriate and applicable
methodologies for evaluating the social and
environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of
capital projects.
• Staff should evaluate the Benefit/Cost ratio criteria as
part of the Triple Bottom Line approach.
F�t
6 . Enhance the Environmental Ethos of the City
• Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for
Stormwater and Detention Facilities
• Low Impact Development ( LID ) Demonstration
Projects
• City owned Best Management Practice evaluation
• HOA Best Management Practice assistance program
City of
Landscape Design Standards and
Guidelines for Stormwater and
Detention Facilities
• Change the design and construction of
detention ponds to improve aesthetics ,
promote infiltration and natural values .
• Water Board Recommendation
— Adopt the Fort Collins Landscape Design
Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and
Detention Facilities
F�tCollins
Low Impact Development Demonstration Projects
• Public/ Private partnership
— O ' Dell ' s , Mitchell Block and CTL Thompson
• Porous concrete , pavers , rain gardens , depressed
islands
• Monitoring and data collection
• Provides information for the Low Impact
Development Policy Review City Of
Fort
Best Management Practices Review
• City Owned BMP Review
— Three sites treating runoff from Old Town
— Monitor and modify to increase effectiveness
• Home Owner Association BMP Assistance
Program
— HOA lack understanding or resources for
maintenance
— City assist' s and educates City of
Fort
7 . Evaluate Community Benefits through
Budgeting for Outcomes
and
8 . Review Capital Projects
• New look at capital projects in the stormwater master
plans
• Use the Triple Bottom Line Approach to update the
master plans
rt_r
Council Questions
• Has Staff provided the information requested by the
City Council ?
• Does the City Council agree with the direction of the
repurposing effort?
• What revisions and courses of action would the City
Council like to further consider or pursue regarding
rates and floodplain regulations ?
• Are there additional areas for which the City Council
seeks information ?
F�tCollins
�rtf