Loading...
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