HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/24/2010 - POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS DATE: August 24, 2010
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley WORK SESSION ITEM
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Brian Varrella
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council requested a review of the policies and practices guiding the current stormwater
program. At the August 2009 Water Board meeting,stormwater staff presented background on how
floodplain regulations are currently administered through Chapter 10 of City Code. Staff returned
to Water Board during the November 2009 meeting and received direction to solicit feedback on
specific options that would revise the Cache la Poudre(Poudre)River Floodplain Regulations. The
three Poudre River Floodplain revision options are as follows:
Option#l: The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0.1 foot rise floodway;
or
Option 42: The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the
100-year floodplain; or
Option #3: No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative).
This item provides further discussion and analysis of the options and an update on the public
outreach program. In addition, related developments with the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CW.CB) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are addressed.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Given the importance of the Poudre River to the City of Fort Collins and its citizens:
1. Does Council have comments regarding the public outreach program identified in this memo
to solicit feedback on the identified options?
2. Staff recommends that Option #2 — a total restriction of structures within the 100-year
floodplain be selected. If Option#1 is selected as the preferred option,there are 3 alternative
implementation approaches:
a. Pursue approximately $250,000 of FEMA RiskMap funding (Federal funds will
require a local cost share) in order to accurately model the new 0.1 foot floodway
and both the 100-year and 500-year floodplains in the Growth Management Area.
This would essentially delay the delineation and subsequent enforcement of the 0.1
August 24, 2010 Page 2
foot floodway by an estimated 3-5 years (staff s recommendation if this Option is
selected);
b. Use City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility funding (approximately $250,000) to
accurately model the new 0.1 foot floodway and both the 100-year and 500-year
floodplains in the Growth Management Area. The new floodway regulations could
be implemented in the next 2-3 years; or
C. Update the 0.1 foot floodway mapping without a full evaluation of the Poudre River
for an estimated cost range of$50,000 - $70,000 to the City. The floodway could
be re-mapped and new regulations enforced in the next 6 months to 1 year, but this
approach perpetuates existing inaccuracies resulting from known hydraulic and
topographic discrepancies.
Does Council have comments and/or direction with regard to the specific options identified
for potential Poudre River Floodplain revisions?
3. Does Council have comments or direction regarding the Triple Bottom Line(TBL)analysis
and considerations used to evaluate and select the preferred option?
BACKGROUND
The stormwater repurposing effort was initiated at a City Council work session in October 2008.
The intent of this effort was to review the City's stormwater program in its entirety,and explore new
or reformed methods of water quality and quantity management in each of the City's stormwater
basins. The program review was broken down into 14 categories, as documented in a September
22, 2009 memorandum to Mayor Hutchinson and City Council from the City Manager and the
Utilities Executive Director.
Staff presented an overview of the stormwater repurposing efforts to the City Council at the
December 8, 2009 Work Session. At that time Council directed staff to present items for Council
consideration as they were ready for formal consideration. The Water Board requested investigation
of two considerations to the floodplain management section of City Code; Chapter 10,as disclosed
in the Executive Summary. A third alternative(null alternative)is presented that would recommend
no changes to the current code language in Chapter 10.
STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The Floodplain Administration division within the Stormwater Utility is overseen by one state
agency and one federal agency. The Colorado Water Conservation Board(CWCB)acts as the state
floodplain coordinating agency. CWCB partners with cities and counties across Colorado to ensure
all communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)are meeting state and
federal standards. The NFIP program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency(FEMA). The City is charged with executing the standards of both agencies by state statute,
federal code, and by Chapter 10 of City Code.
August 24, 2010 Page 3
• Proposed CWCB Rules
The CWCB has historically required all NFIP participating communities to follow FEMA minimum
standards in the execution of their floodplain management programs. In 2009, the CWCB directed
its staff to consider higher regulatory standards for the entire. state to improve public safety, to
protect private property,and to reduce the potential economic losses associated with flood damage.
New state regulations are scheduled for final adoption in November 2010 and implementation in
January 2011. The likelihood of adoption of new standards at the State level is high, and City staff
anticipates a corresponding need to adopt revisions to Chapter 10 of the City Code. However, the
proposed regulations by CWCB will not have an impact on the Poudre River Floodplain
Regulations as proposed.
• FEMA Mapping
FEMA is currently entering the early stages of a new program called Risk Mapping, Assessment,
and Planning (RiskMAP). This program continues the work initiated in 2004 by the Flood Map
Modernization Program (Map Mod). The mission of RiskMAP is to create safer communities by
reducing loss of life and property; enable individuals to recover more rapidly from floods and other
disasters; and lessen the financial impact of disasters on the United States. This is accomplished
through three primary objectives,the first of which is to determine the impact of natural hazards that
and develop effective strategies that reduce risk.
The CWCB approached City floodplain administration staff in 2009 to inquire if there were any
areas of Fort Collins that might benefit from updated flood hazard mapping under RiskMAP funding
and support. Based on preliminary investigations by the City for other projects, the City has
requested restudy of the Poudre River and has submitted a RiskMAP funding request to the CWCB
and FEMA.
The report, delivered to state and federal partners in June 2010, presents compelling evidence that
the entire Poudre River Floodplain is in need of remapping. Staff is hopeful the evidence will
convince FEMA to provide economic assistance to remap the entire River within the City's Growth
Management Area; an effort with a preliminary estimated cost of$250,000. Initial reactions from
CWCB and FEMA staff have been favorable, but the City currently has no surety of receiving
RiskMAP funding for the Poudre River at this time. It is estimated that funding may be available
in the next 3 —5 years. Federal funds will require a local match.
• National Best Practices
Nationwide, the move is to implement a "No Adverse Impact" approach when considering
floodplain development. This premise is based on the Bill of Rights and essentially allows
properties to develop as long as an analysis and quantification of impacts is studied and addressed
and that the development does not affect or infringe on the rights of other property owners.
August 24, 2010 Page 4
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
OPTION#1: Revise the Poudre River F000dplain Regulations to adopt a 0.1 foot rise floodway
Returning the Poudre River floodway to a 0.1 foot rise floodway presents both benefits and
challenges if adopted by City Council. Attachment 1 is a map of the Poudre River showing the
floodplain and an approximation of the 0.1 foot floodway based on data from 2000. This boundary
was initially adopted by City ordinance in 2000. In 2007, it was revised to a 0.5 foot rise standard
for continuity with Larimer County standards. This was particularly advantageous for county
parcels within the Growth Management Area boundary slated for future annexation to the City. An
example would include the properties south of Mulberry Street between Lemay Avenue and
Timberline Road.
Benefits of returning the regulations to a 0.1 foot rise floodway include reserving additional land
for the passage of flood flows, reducing flooding of public and private property, and enhancing
public safety. However, new structures would still be allowed in the remaining flood fringe.
Expanding the floodway allows more space for the natural and beneficial functions of flooding.
This approach is also consistent with the stormwater repurposing goal of improving stream and
riparian habitat.
Alternative Implementation Approaches .
With Option #1, there are 3 alternative implementation approaches:
1. The City's 2010 FEMA RiskMAP funding request report concludes that significant revisions
to flood boundaries are needed along the Poudre River. It is estimated that approximately
$250,000 of funding is needed to correct existing deficiencies and accurately model the new
0.1 foot floodway and both the 100-year and 500-year floodplains in the Growth
Management Area by obtaining new topographic data and utilizing best practices in
technical analysis. RiskMap program funding, however, is dependent on Congressional
appropriations to FEMA and subsequent distribution to the state and local governments. It
is anticipated that the funding will not be available for at least 3-5 years; or
2. Use City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility funding(approximately$250,000)to accurately
model the new 0.1 foot floodway and both the 100-year and 500-year floodplains in the
Growth Management Area by obtaining new topographic data and utilizing best practices
in technical analysis. The new floodway regulations could be implemented in the next 2-3
years; or
3. Update the 0.1 foot floodway mapping without a full evaluation of the Poudre River for an
estimated cost range of$50,000 - $70,000 to the City. The floodway could be re-mapped
and new regulations enforced in the next 6 to 12 months, but this approach perpetuates
existing inaccuracies resulting from known hydraulic and topographic discrepancies
August 24, 2010 Page 5
OPTION #2: Revise the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations to not allow structures in the
100-year floodplain.
Prohibiting structures from the entire 100-year floodplain would greatly minimize the life-safety and
property damage risks associated with flooding on the Poudre. Restriction of structures means less
people living.and working in areas of the highest potential danger.
This would allow for the natural and beneficial functions of flooding. It protects the River, the
natural River functions, and the habitat in and alongside the River. Preserving space for the River
to spread out and slow down lets the River function in its normal state and periodically `flush' the
system. Channelization has.the opposite effect and significantly increases the detrimental effects
when overtopping occurs.
The definition of structures would follow Chapter 10 of the City Code, whicli defines a structure as
having two or more outside rigid walls and an attached roof. This would not prohibit the
construction of bridges, trails, utilities, parking lots, detention and water quality ponds, parks and
park amenities such as gazebos, trail signs, etc.
Implementation of these restrictions would impact, but not prohibit, development. Rather it places
controls on development to minimize the potential for loss of life and damage to the environment
and to property. It allows properties to be used in a sustainable manner compatible with the needs
of the floodplain and the River.
The City GIS Department is creating a map and list of all properties that would be affected both
within the current city limits and in the Growth Management Area. Specific impacts can then be
discussed with property owners. It is estimated that approximately 50-70 properties would be
impacted by this option.
OPTION #3: No change to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations (Null Alternative)
This option would result in structures continuing to be built in the 100-year floodplain in areas
outside the 0.5 foot floodway. Unfortunately, additional people and property will be placed at risk,
and detrimental impacts to the River are anticipated. This option provides the least restrictions on
potential development. However, the long term economic costs associated with flooding damage
and impact on properties combined with reduced life-safety make this option less desirable from the
perspective of sustainable development.
Difference between the Option #1 (0.1 foot Floodway Rise Limitation) and Option #2 (No
Structure in the Floodplain Regulation)
The difference between Option #1 and #2 is incremental. Option #1 will provide increased
protection of people, property and the River's functions than exists under the current Poudre River
Floodplain Regulations. Option #2 provides even greater protection. The increased protection
afforded by either option does come with an associated increased restriction on the use of the
property. Staff estimates that the 0.1 foot floodway rise limitation affects approximately 75%of the
parcels impacted by the total structure restriction.
August 24, 2010 Page 6
Sustainability— Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts
As discussed above, there are social, environmental and economic considerations of changing the
floodplain regulations. In keeping with the City's focus on sustainability, a preliminary Triple
Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis associated with these proposed regulation changes has been prepared
(see Attachment 2).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends proceeding with Option#2—a total restriction of structures within the 100-year
floodplain. With this option, fewer people will be at risk, property damage from flooding will be
reduced, and the natural and beneficial functions of the Poudre are better preserved. This option is
consistent with the City's focus on sustainability.
Alternate Recommendation on Adoption of a 0.1 Foot Floodway Regulation
If Option#I is selected as the preferred option,staff recommends that the City pursue approximately
$250,000 of FEMA RiskMap funding (federal funds will require a local cost share) in order to
accurately model the new 0.1 foot floodway and floodplain. This would essentially delay the
delineation and subsequent enforcement of the 0.1 foot floodway by an estimated 3-5 years. This
approach would correct the existing floodplain deficiencies.
Public Outreach and Feedback
Given the substantial community interest in the Poudre River and the potential impacts on property
owners and citizens, an extensive public outreach program is appropriate. Feedback from boards
and commissions will help staff gauge the level of support for changing the Poudre River floodplain
regulations and develop an effective public outreach plan.
To date, feedback has been obtained from a few City departments, boards and commissions, and
citizen interest groups. The public outreach program will be expanded in the coming weeks and
months. The initial feedback indicates the need for continued evaluation of competing and
complimentary values. As an example, implementation of Options 1 or 2 along the Poudre River
may require revisions to previously-identified redevelopment opportunities along Mulberry Street
from Lemay Avenue eastward. Similar considerations will exist,for the area near College Avenue
and Vine Drive. Planning, development, flood protection and stream restoration approaches must
be combined and evaluated based on the City's sustainability goals. As expected, property owners
along the Poudre River are directly impacted by potential floodplain regulations and bring a wide
spectrum of concerns regarding public safety, flood protection, environmental restoration and
development.
The public outreach plan will be in compliance with the City Council's overall stormwater
repurposing effort and will include multiple strategies and approaches to include public open houses,
website information, brochures and presentation materials, direct mailings, media releases,
homeowner's association meetings, Channel 14, and emerging tools such as social networking(i.e.
Twitter). These strategies will be used to gather input from other City departments, boards and
commissions, professional groups and organizations, business associations, non-government
organizations, property owners and interested citizen groups. This effort is expected to continue
August 24, 2010 Page 7
through the remainder of 2010. Feedback from the Public Outreach Plan will shape the ultimate
decision on which Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Option is selected.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Poudre River Floodplain Map and Floodway Comparison
2. Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis Map
3. Power Point Presentation
• • • • too • • •
1�'l • Ili■I�v �{r r.rr•r�
-, 9■1�■dam � -
s =i■ . E■ x ,I iy
EPA
1■ 1 �.�.. , LLL
■- 1
• • II •-'{\ L�,..� ._ r f•+IwirEl YI 1 \ `\■ 111 � ��+•�7� �� _ • �'I ��. 1'#■li.` -
� , ra I�rt ---1( �! _� III 1 .• rIl �.. L'"I� rr `\`y�
�.7.�r. �1 .T■IIII IA_I • , •11v , \� - ` �]....Y` 1
IIII I I i • IEWA♦ l3■l.
_� '- II 11 III 711 Il � 1 RiE h^'0�•`. \! ; ■ ,�,�.}•
• li r , J � is = n• �IIU .�\�� ��4 _�_ � _ � L
I 'C _If�l _ I ■ u I Iru, C��=•:��`��I�'r .. l• \`•7 ":,�1� � � % • `I
11�I11�I - � - 11 -1 � __ _ . ♦ Il �il•6lr.. �`-�� w. .+l ��a�iiiill. ■ _ _ .��.,,.. . •I ¢ ".
- � ,. I 1 ' , , � Y ■IIII\i■■�■ q 1 ��� ■ ■ •� ► l■_
_'� �' . ' � .• - 1 _ _ AU ■It' ll ` ,��' `�: :+1�`� . f,0�
- wm
I �I� ■ (IIII t' --1�l�J 4'R:—. / ' _ I II■1` ■ ` a � , ... +� I �--
1 • awl■ �■ r � 11111 c m . — __ .� �u�■■�
■� 1 � a Inw ,. , .., Tt� '
r �I�I �77fL Ell �rl: •I� IIII�P
1 IIII Raul■ Eti - �I■ :■•.I ��IIL��II, II r a ..: L �,i �ita�'I �w _ ::.�:
. rn
■ ti � E■ • • 1• i • • •III ■I■ �
. _ �■ 1 �� •. , �,.. `� I :Itl�ri ' �lacr�i �
� r ',lii _ � iY� 1 v ■ r .r� .♦ ��I� � .��� � � IIII
MINIMUM
son
I � ' 7��� _ `�� � �3�F � :r� ��■ . in r � ■ 'a s�l,�� k��/ '�i Le � � �, , i
• • • a .f � 1 • 1 . , � • • • . � :7
J1r • +
■� I . � :. , i � ur fib � i� ■ r'r ;: � � ■ I♦ '.
�I"II�I �� �II � I ���� _ � �� � *;Y�11 ' •�' r � _ . ill♦ - I
.�� � r -1M.'�'r' .� f I �•a� �■ - ' ' � � . � :�� r 1■ . � u: . .t. .r . L, 1■1r ..■ 11■.� • _ , � ..>
■ :�.. .� � '�� I ►lei
ii; •,•�II � 11,1'I.W =� IL Zr, ���' � � M,•`' ��� -. � ■[_ 1 l ,�
•j i an— 0.G. i 1 C 1! I ■■■E\� t K :ark # ,'r -sue .,i■ 1 1\■■
1r �::•��� "i•21 � •1 �y�.��� IN �,' r�ll• ¢� h< 'i x '. :, 1�■ I : . 1
halt � '' °•S'1\.�\��' � � ICc^ (( , -- >���� �T� , ■ , . � I> .
kill
I � •. �t I!r
■ Parcels1114
GMA
I "it A
Ptu
II �1llr�'. h Rai _•
• .,d �� •I _ i!•■ . s ".�.• i• � rl■ram +I �eLiver ;1xrr1;ac12ix HE
■■ , - �, a ••`
�1 �� � � - T��/�i�-■_
Foot Floodway Ir lug 11 Eli 0
500-Year Rol
r -
I 1 •
Attachment 2
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM )
CCity of
Current Options for Consideration : Fort Collins
Project, Policy, Higher Poudre River Utilities - Stormwater Division /" L Utltes
or Decision : Flood lain Standards 9 . Widen structures
from es0. in rise to o. 1 -ft rise Floodplain Administration
p 2. No new structures in the floodplain .
Social Environmental Economic
CITY WorkForce Community
STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS : STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS:
• Allows staff from multiple departments to • Prevents build, damage, and rebuild cycle (more • Minimizes the loss of riparian habitat. • Less structure and property damage potential.
pool resources to protect and conserve sustainable construction). • Less landfill waste after damages are incurred. • Reduces lost productivity potential associated with
natural and beneficial functions. • Reduced threat to life safety of the public and • Opens land for natural functions like fine sediment entrapment clean-up efforts after flood events.
• Reduced threats to life safety of business owners. (water quality), sediment transport, floodwater conveyance, • Adjacent businesses can incorporate the natural
maintenance and emergency response • Health Benefits — recreation, aesthetics, and overbank nutrient recharge. corridor into their business plan.
personnel. reconnection with natural corridor. • Less impact from hazardous material contamination. • Recreation opportunities will expand existing
• Promotes cross training and cooperation • Access to corridor increases awareness of water • Allows a safe corridor for lateral migration + channel business models.
between departments. quality needs and natural/beneficial functions. reconstruction. • Trail network can be expanded.
• Reduces the allowable floodway rise on existing • Vegetation and wildlife habitat maintained. • Fewer public and private resources will be
homes and businesses from 0.5-ft to 0. 1-ft (Opt. 1) • Promotes tree growth; shade keeps water temps down; dedicated to rebuilding facilities after damage.
maintains health of benthic/fish species and prevents algae • Reduced structural damages during flood events.
growth. • Reduces the allowable floodway rise on existing
homes and businesses from 0.5-ft to 0. 1 -ft (Opt. 1)
LIMITATIONS: LIMITATIONS : LIMITATIONS : LIMITATIONS:
• Lack of support due to potential economic • Not consistent with current zoning practice. • May not be enough to protect all environmental concerns on • Building expansion will be more difficult within the
impacts. • Removes some development opportunities from the Poudre. floodplain.
• Cannot be accomplished without code some lands. • Consistent with City's vision for the community?? • New structures will not be constructed in some
changes. portions of the floodplain (or entire floodplain).
• May require new staff training. • Removes some development opportunities from
some lands in the floodplain.
OPPORTUNITIES: OPPORTUNITIES : OPPORTUNITIES: OPPORTUNITIES:
• Less employee time off work for personal • Sustainable long-term as a natural corridor vs. • Provides opportunity to demonstrate environmental innovation • Could provide new habitat restoration
property clean-up and recovery efforts. building at-risk struct. 's. and placing people in and leadership. opportunities, leading to new business prospects in
harm's way • Would open the corridor to further environmental recreation + environment.
• Could open new recreational opportunities (fishing, enhancements. • Less loss of productivity due to down-time
water sports, bird watching, hiking, etc.). associated with clean-up and recovery efforts.
• Less time off work for clean-up and recovery. • Less loss of business revenue due to absenteeism
• Reserves land for conservation education. during personal clean-up and recovery efforts.
THREATS: THREATS : THREATS : THREATS:
Reduced revenue in some City departments • Special Interest groups may not agree with new none • Long-term impact to businesses and private
due to reduced business development approach property owners looking to develop.
potential. • May follow current trends, but maybe not • Shift in land management priorities due to
■ May not be consistent with plans and consistent with long-term community visions unforeseen future variables.
visions in all dept.'s City-wide. • Inconsistent with Larimer Co. regs.
Draft Date: July 2010
NOTES :
Strengths: (more tangible)
■ Advantages — improvement/ efficiency gain
• Available Resources
o staff, funding, $$, qualifications, internal/external support, technology, location, product, BMP 's
■ Measurable
Limitations:
■ Lack of resources — staffing, $$, qualifications
■ No or limited gain in efficiency
■ Lack of metrics (not measurable)
■ Trends
Opportunities : [less tangible (potential strengths)]
■ Increased possibilities (ROI, increased education, performance)
■ Help accomplish goal or objective
■ Industry or lifestyle trend
■ Long term benefit
Threats:
■ Uncontrolled variables
o (out of sphere of control/ influence) — weather, nature, economy, society, political
■ Major barriers — policies, laws, regulations, biological/ viral
■ Fatal Flaw
Draft Date: July 2010
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
Potential Revisions
City Council Work Session
August 24 , 2010
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson , CFM
Floodplain Administrator
Ken Sampley, P . E .
Water Planning and Development Manager
Brian Varellla , P . E . , CFM
Floodplain Administrator
Background Information
• This process was requested by City Council
- City Council asked Staff to work with the Water
Board to revise the Stormwater program
- Review of the floodplain regulations is just one
aspect of the overall Stormwater Repurposing
effort.
Background Information
• Important Facts :
— All considerations are for the Cache la Poudre
River floodplain and floodway ONLY.
— All floodway and floodplain boundaries can be
revised by a FEMA map change process .
— Some development will still be possible in the
Poudre River floodplain and floodway.
F�t
Poudre River Regulations Options
• Option #1 : The Poudre River floodplain
regulations be revised to adopt a 0 . 1 foot rise
floodway ; OR
• Option #2 : The Poudre River floodplain
regulations be revised to not allow any structures
in the 100 -year floodplain ; OR
• Option #3 : No change to the Poudre River
floodplain regulations ( null alternative) .
Fort
General Direction / Specific Questions
1 . Does Council have comments regarding the
public outreach program identified in the AIS to
solicit feedback on the identified options ?
F�t
General Direction / Specific Questions
2 . Staff recommends that Option #2 — a total
restriction of structures within the 100 -year
floodplain be selected . If Option #1 is instead
selected as the preferred option , there are 3
alternative implementation approaches :
a . Pursue FEMA funding ($250 , 000) to remap the
Poudre River (3-5 year implementation ) .
b. Use City funds ($250 ,000) to remap the Poudre
River (2-3 year implementation) .
c. Use City funds ($50 ,000 — $70, 000) to only remap
the 0 . 1 foot floodway (6 month to 1 year
implementation ) . Ci
General Direction / Specific Questions
3 . Does Council have comments or direction
regarding the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis
and considerations used to evaluate and select
the preferred option ?
[tins
Floodplain Regulations
Definitions
and
Concepts
�t11
Floodplain Regulations
Allowable Rise Concept by Current Codes
100-year Floodplain wider
New
Structure Existing Structure
Fill Material Previously not in
Floodplain
' .. �•� , BFE Small Rise ��•
a-lo
AV
EL
z
Overbank Channel Overbank
Floodplain Regulations
Definitions — Flood plain and Floodway
Poudre River at 1 % Annual Chance Flood Stage
100-year Floodplain
Flood Flood
Fringe 0 .5-ft Rise Floodwa Fringe Fill Material
Fill Material Y
0.5-ft Rise
BFE
Riparian Riparian
Overbank Overbank
Option # 1 - 0 . 1 Foot Floodway
0 . 5-ft Floodway ( Option #3 ) vs .
0 . 1 -ft Floodway ( Option # 1 )
0 . 1 -ft Rise Floodway
.Jjv � A A...
Fill Material 0 . 5-ft RISe Floodway Fill Material
0.5-ft Rise
0 . 1 -ft Rise
Riparian - Riparian
Overbank Overbank
Option #2 - No Structures in Floodplain
Option #2 ( No structures ) vs .
Flood Option #3 Current Regulations
Fringe 100-year Floodplain
No new No new structures
structures Flood
Material 0 . 5-ft RISe Floodway Fringe Fill Material
i
Riparian
Overbank Overbank
Proposed Floodplain Regulations
Option Details
fly
Option # 1 - 0 . 1 Foot Rise Floodway
The Poudre River
floodplain
regulations be
revised to adopt a
0 . 1 foot rise
_ Z
floodway . -'
ti
June 2010
City of
Fort Collins
Poudre River Floodplain
and Floodway Comparison
R .
zz
JK
It
N
.' •� , � t s\ Sfo +�91
eefl l j
� � 11,re•.. ��i. Y I
Ll. R `' T� 11 City of
Option # 1 - 0 . 1 Foot Rise Floodway
• Widens current floodway to slightly larger area
• Does not restrict all development in the floodway
— Still permits trails , parks , infrastructure
( bridges and culverts ) , monuments , golf
courses , etc .
— Can still add parking areas , landscape
features , and other non -structural
development
• New structures and additions can still be
constructed in the flood fringe
F�tf
Option # 1 = Other Considerations
FEMA RiskMAP Funding Opportunities
— Technical assistance to revise Poudre River flood maps
— Total cost estimated at $250 , 000 (cost share amount
unknown )
— Estimated 3-5 years away
— New mapping would include revising 100 -year and 500 -
year floodplain boundaries
— Will revise Floodway boundary (0 . 5 ft or 0 . 1 ft)
• Could duplicate efforts at public cost,
— New Mapping would include :
• New topography
• Updated modeling methodologies
• Correct existing problems Fit f [ins
Option # 1 - Funding and Implementation
If Option #1 is the Preferred Option , the following
are funding and implementation approaches :
a . Pursue FEMA funding ($250 , 000) to remap the
Poudre River (3-5 year implementation ) .
b. Use City funds ($250 ,000) to remap the Poudre
River (2-3 year implementation) .
c. Use City funds ($50 ,000 — $70, 000) to only remap
the 0 . 1 foot floodway (6 month to 1 year
implementation ) .
FL [tins
Option # 1 - Benefits and Detriments
BENEFITS DETRIMENTS
• Reduces threats to life Removes some structural
safety and property development opportunity
damage , from some lands
• Reduces damage-rebuild Building expansion will be
cycle (sustainable) more difficult
• Protects a larger natural Not consistent with
corridor current zoning practices
• Promotes riparian health Requires a change to City
and biodiversity Code
FC-ttfl
Option # 1 - Benefits and Detriments ( con ' t)
BENEFITS DETRIMENTS
• Reduces local funding • May reduce revenues in
demands for post-flood some City departments
clean -up • May not be consistent
• Reduces absenteeism with City-wide visions like
and lost productivity Plan Fort Collins
after floods • Inconsistent with Larimer
• Consistent with current County regulations
best practices in • Cost to remap floodway
floodplain management
• Consistent with pre -
2007 regulations
F�t
Option #2 - No Structures in 100 -year Floodplain
The Poudre River
floodplain
regulations be
revised to not allow
any structures in
the 100 -year
floodplain .
June 2010
Option #2 - No Structures in 100 -year Floodplain
• Floodway does not change .
• New structures and additions prohibited in the
100 -year floodplain
- A structure is defined as having two or more outside
rigid walls and attached roof.
- This would not prohibit the construction of bridges,
trails , utilities, parks and park amenities such as
gazebos, trail signs , parking lots , detention and water
quality ponds, etc.
FL [tins
Option #2 - Benefits and Detriments
BENEFITS DETRIMENTS
• Further reduces threats • Removes more structural
to life safety and development opportunity
property damage , from more lands
• Further reduces damage- • New structures and
rebuild cycle additions prohibited in
(sustainable) entire 100 -year floodplain
• Protects a larger natural • Not consistent with
corridor current zoning practices
• Promotes riparian health • Requires a change to City
and biodiversity Code
Fiof
t,fly
Option #2 - Benefits and Detriments ( con ' t)
BENEFITS DETRIMENTS
• Further reduces local May further reduce
funding demands for revenues in some City
response and clean -up departments
• Further reduces May not be consistent
absenteeism and lost with City-wide visions like
productivity after floods Plan Fort Collins
• More consistent with Inconsistent with Larimer
current best practices in County regulations
floodplain management
F�t Collins
Option #3 - No Change to Current Standards
The Poudre River
floodplain
regulations remain v^ ,
unchanged .
June 2010
Option #3 - No Change to Current Standards
• No change to floodplain or floodway boundaries .
• No change to the floodplain regulations
— New residential and mixed -use structures are
not allowed in the flood fringe
— New non -residential structures and additions
are allowed in the flood fringe .
F� [tins
Difference between Option # 1 and Option #2
• Incremental difference
- Option #1 takes a step toward greater
protection of people , property and the river' s
functions .
- Option #2 takes a more comprehensive step
toward protection of people , property and the
river's functions .
• Estimated that the 0 . 1 foot Floodway limitation
affects 75% + of the parcels impacted by the total
structure restriction .
f
Other Considerations
• Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain
Regulation Update
- Hearing in November 2010 .
- Regulations effective in Jan . 2011
- City Code will be revised to adopt new
standards
- New State regulations will not affect these
three options
F� [tins
Staff Recommendation
• Recommend total restriction of structures within
the 100 -year floodplain — Option #2 .
— Protect river now based on best available
mapping .
— Fewer people will be at risk and property
damage will be minimized
— Natural and beneficial functions of the river
will be preserved .
Fit,f
Alternative Staff Recommendation
• If the 0 . 1 foot floodway option is preferred (Option
#1 ) , staff believes that it would be prudent to wait
for funding from FEMA to correct the mapping
and analysis of the Poudre River basin rather
than remapping on our own .
— Corrects all the issues with the current
information
— Addresses the Council ' s concerns about ` bad
governance ' in changing regulations again in
such a short timeframe .
F� [tins
Next Steps
• Further outreach to public if directed by Council .
- Boards and Commissions and other City
Departments
- Property owners
- Business Associations , professional groups ,
citizen groups
- Professional organizations
• Council adoption of changes to Chapter 10 of City
Code (early 2011 ) .
f
General Direction / Specific Questions
1 . Does Council have comments regarding the
public outreach program identified in the AIS to
solicit feedback on the identified options ?
F� [tins
General Direction / Specific Questions
2 . Staff recommends that Option #2 — a total
restriction of structures within the 100 -year
floodplain be selected . If Option #1 is instead
selected as the preferred option , there are 3
alternative implementation approaches :
a . Pursue FEMA funding ($250 , 000) to remap the
Poudre River (3-5 year implementation ) .
b. Use City funds ($250 ,000) to remap the Poudre
River (2-3 year implementation) .
c. Use City funds ($50 ,000 — $70, 000) to only remap
the 0 . 1 foot floodway (6 month to 1 year
implementation ) .
F`ft\�ollins
�
General Direction / Specific Questions
3 . Does Council have comments or direction
regarding the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis
and considerations used to evaluate and select
the preferred option ?
F� [tins