HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/24/2012 - STORMWATER MASTER PLAN REVISIONS (STAFF: HAUKAAS,DATE: April 24, 2012
STAFF: Jon Haukaas,
Ken Sampley, Mark Kempton,
Shane Boyle
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current Stormwater Master Plans identify flood control and stormwater projects that reduce the
impacts of flooding. The prioritization of these projects is based on public safety by providing
protection to structures and the transportation system and mitigation from the risks associated with
100-year (1% annual chance) flood events. In accordance with the Stormwater Repurposing goals,
the Stormwater Master Plans are being updated to incorporate environmentally-focused projects
such as stream restoration and water quality best management practice (BMP) retrofits.
This work session will focus on three components of the Stormwater Master Plan update:
1. How to update the Plans by utilizing the results and information obtained from the Urban
Stream Health Assessment, Basin-Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) Selected
Plans, and the Stream Restoration and Stability Study.
2. An explanation of the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis tool for Stream Restoration project
prioritization including the evaluation ranking criteria.
3. Presentation of the “needs” identified for the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program and
a funding methodology developed to address the project goals.
The various classifications of projects to be funded from the Stormwater Enterprise achieve a wide
range of goals and benefits for the community. Guidance from the City Council is needed on how
to best prioritize and fund these projects addressing different community values.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the City Council have questions regarding the prioritization models?
2. Does the City Council have a preference on the funding scenario to be used for staff’s
recommendations of projects?
3. Do the processes presented meet the expectations of the City Council for improving the
environmental focus of the Stormwater Program as directed from the Repurposing effort?
April 24, 2012 Page 2
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins Stormwater and Floodplain Management Program is recognized nationally
as robust and proactive. The Council and community have expressed a desire to increase the focus
of these programs on water quality best management practice improvements and stream restoration
while continuing our life safety flood protection and mitigation work.
Stormwater master planning refers to the development of a comprehensive plan to identify and
characterize key structural and non-structural components that must be implemented in a stormwater
basin to protect that basin against stormwater related challenges such as flooding, damage to
infrastructure, poor water quality, or stream degradation. Master planning enables the Utilities to
identify stormwater management issues and risks. Master plans also provide a road map to ensure
the safety and health of the public that live and work in the basin while providing guidance for the
responsible development of new areas and the redevelopment of existing urbanized areas.
Strategies for reducing flood damage typically include stormwater detention facilities, storm sewers,
culverts, open channels and natural stream improvements. The enhancement of habitat and
environmental corridors are an important consideration in planning for these projects. Development
guidelines that promote less stormwater runoff, and improved water quality from developed sites
are also considered. In some basins, excessive erosion and unstable, steep banks compromise water
quality and habitat. When appropriate, proposed solutions include improvements that incorporate
water quality, enhancements to or expansion of wetland areas, as well as stream habitat and riparian
vegetation.
The Stormwater Master Plan is a layered compilation of various studies, modeling results, and
engineering assessments. Each stormwater basin across Fort Collins has its own individual Basin
Plan which in turn is comprised of Flood Protection and Mitigation Plans and the soon-to-be
incorporated Water Quality BMP Retrofit Plans and Stream Restoration Project Plans. It is this
compiled overall plan that will be brought back to the City Council later this summer for final
approval once direction on the current issues is received and the work can then be completed.
PART I – RESEARCH MATERIALS USED TO UPDATE THE MASTER PLANS
Urban Stream Health Assessment
In 2010, the Stormwater Division, in cooperation with Colorado State University (CSU), initiated
an Urban Stream Health Assessment study of local streams. The final report is included as
Attachment 1. The goal of the study was to determine specific stream characteristics that have the
greatest impact on improving stream health. The study evaluated the relationships between a
stream’s physical, hydrologic, and biological characteristics to the level and intensity of
development in the watershed. The overall health of these streams was assessed using EPA-
accepted methods including the determination of biological indices.
April 24, 2012 Page 3
Key results and recommendations from the study include:
• In-stream rehabilitation efforts should be focused on only those areas with significant
upstream BMP coverage.
• A minimum of 40% of a watershed should be either undeveloped or have BMP facility
coverage.
• Stream health can not be assessed solely by one metric, a group of characteristics (i.e., a
matrix) must be considered.
• Irrigation flows pose significant challenges to stream health due to high shear stress,
sediment loads and variable flow regimes.
• A preliminary prioritization of selected watershed / stream improvements was provided for
the ten evaluated streams.
It was determined that additional studies were needed to further investigate the specific stream
characteristics that will have the greatest impact on improving overall stream health. In turn, this
will help prioritize stormwater management efforts toward maximizing stream health and focusing
stream rehabilitation efforts to locations that will see the most benefit. Attachment 2 provides a
summary of the Stream Restoration Projects and Basin Specific BMPs studies.
Basin-Specific BMP Selected Plans
In 2010, the Stormwater Division contracted with three local engineering consultants to prepare
basin-specific BMP selected plans (water quality updates) for ten of the City’s master drainage
basins:
Spring Creek Dry Creek Fox Meadows
Old Town Mail Creek Canal Importation
Fossil Creek West Vine Foothills
McClelland’s Creek
Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough were preliminarily evaluated, then removed from further
analysis since they currently exceed the goal of at least 40% of undeveloped/BMP coverage land.
All future development within the basins will be required to install BMP facilities to address water
quality.
The study is currently in the Selected Plan Phase. Potential BMP locations within each basin have
been identified and investigated to determine their suitability and performance and a draft Selected
Plan has been completed that incorporates the Water Quality BMPs and CSU stream rehabilitation
recommendations. Examples of the selected plans are included as Attachment 2.1 and Attachment
2.2.
Stream Restoration and Stability Study
In 2011, a study conducted by Colorado State University, on behalf of the Fort Collins Stormwater
Division, was authorized to identify and prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation
work within the City. Assessments (including field work) were completed between June and
October 2011. The Executive Summary for the Stream Assessment Report is included as
Attachment 2.3.
April 24, 2012 Page 4
The study built upon work completed previously in the Urban Stream Health Assessment and
specifically investigated the following ten stream sections within the city limits of Fort Collins:
Burns Tributary Clearview Channel Foothills Creek
Fossil Creek Lang Gulch Mail Creek
McClellands Creek Spring Creek Stanton Creek
Boxelder Creek (downstream of Vine Drive)
The study provides detailed habitat, susceptibility, and baseline geomorphic data for roughly 17
miles of channels across ten streams. Key results and recommendations from the study were
separated into 4 categories: Channel Susceptibility, Stream Habitat, Geomorphology, and
Prioritization.
PART II - MULTI-CRITERION DECISION ANALYSIS (MCDA) TOOL
Background
The Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool provides a flexible, rational, and transparent
means to establish decision- making criteria and prioritize alternatives. The MCDA approach is
more structured and defensible than professional judgment and also easier to develop and interpret
than more sophisticated optimization schemes. An alternative is chosen by assigning a score and
weight for each criterion based on relative importance. The weighted scores of all criteria are
summed to yield a score for each alternative, and the highest score corresponds to the preferred
alternative.
The following paragraphs present the MCDA process proposed to support decision making on
potential stream-restoration projects throughout Fort Collins. The criteria and relative weights are
being developed in collaboration with staff from key City departments such as Utilities, Natural
Resources, Sustainability, and Parks. Individuals from local environmental groups such as Wildland
Restoration Volunteers and Save the Poudre have also been invited to assist in the completion of the
tool, along with faculty members from Colorado State University. The MCDA is structured in such
a way that if the priorities and/or the resources of decision makers change over time, the relative
weights of criteria can be adjusted to reevaluate projects.
MCDA Criteria
Four major criteria have been identified that serve as a framework for the Fort Collins stream-
restoration project MCDA. A sample rating sheet is included as Attachment 2.4. The criteria reflect
the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach to project evaluation, although the MCDA Tool is a more
objective tool than the TBL analysis process. The criteria used in the MCDA Tool include: (1)
environment, (2) economics, (3) social, and (4) physical stream characteristics - erosion. Within
each criterion, there are sub-criteria that dictate the score of the major criteria. This section is meant
to serve as a companion to the decision matrix by providing detailed definitions for all sub-criteria
to minimize ambiguities in scoring.
April 24, 2012 Page 5
Environment
The environment score aims to quantify the benefit of restoring a reach (section of stream) by
assessing the potential for improvement within the reach along with whether restoration provides
larger-scale, synergistic benefits to adjacent reaches. Four sub-criteria include: (1) habitat
improvement potential, (2) fish passage benefit, (3) habitat connectivity benefit, and (4) watershed-
scale benefit:
1. Habitat Improvement Potential: This criterion takes into account the current habitat score
and habitat scores of nearby benchmark reaches. The difference between the two is the
habitat improvement potential. It is not reasonable to have a pristine stream as a benchmark
because inputs that drive ecological processes are much different in an urban environment.
However, most urban streams can be rehabilitated to some degree. By looking within Fort
Collins, a reasonable benchmark can be sought that, when compared with the current habitat
score of a reach, can yield a reliable metric that reflects a realistic improvement potential.
2. Fish Passage Benefit: A high score shall be assigned to projects associated with removing
impediments to sediment continuity and/or migration of aquatic fauna between adjacent
reaches. Connectivity is vital because if suitable habitat is not available within a reach it is
important that species can migrate in search of better habitat. It is not practical to improve
habitat within a reach if it is not accessible to abutting reaches.
3. Habitat Connectivity Benefit: A high score shall be assigned to impaired sub-reaches that
are bordered by sub-reaches with good habitat. Improvements to the impaired sub-reach
would reconnect longer reaches of good habitat than work conducted on isolated reaches.
4. Watershed-Scale Benefit: A high score shall be assigned to a project that provides
synergistic benefits across large segments of the system by reconnecting relatively high-
quality sections. Consideration should be given to where the project is located in the system;
that is, does it follow the restoration strategy of beginning upstream and executing
subsequent projects in the downstream direction, or is it an island in a larger piecemeal
restoration plan? Projects that alter fluxes of runoff, sediment, and nutrients to the channel
have the potential to benefit not only the project site, but also downstream reaches. For
example, full spectrum flow control at the Palmer Drive/Fairway Estates Dam would benefit
all of Mail Creek and Reaches 1 through 4 of Fossil Creek, and should receive a high score
for this criterion.
Economics
In this analysis, cost is not quantified as a dollar amount since itemized estimations of projects
would require design-level plans. Rather, cost of restoration work among reaches is expressed in
relative terms according to four sub-criteria: (1) engineering analysis, (2) land acquisition, (3)
construction, (4) maintenance costs and access, and (5) practicality/constructability. During the
scoring process, a lower score for cost is assigned to higher-cost projects and vice versa.
1. Engineering Analysis/Design: Restoration projects require varying levels of analysis
depending on project goals. For instance, projects to restore sediment continuity through a
reach may require complex hydrologic, hydraulic, and sediment transport analyses. On the
April 24, 2012 Page 6
other end of the spectrum, projects to prevent minor toe erosion may only require some
professional knowledge and willow stakes. Projects that involve extensive engineering
analysis shall be assigned low scores, and those that involve little planning shall be assigned
high scores.
2. Land Acquisition: Projects that involve purchasing land in order to provide a riparian buffer
or to allow for a new watercourse shall be assigned a low score. Projects on existing City-
owned land shall be assigned a high score.
3. Construction Costs: A low score for construction shall be assigned if labor costs and the
level of land disturbance are expected to be high. Labor costs are assumed to be high if
professional contractors are essential for project completion. The scale of the project should
be taken into account to estimate time for completion and scope of construction activities.
The need for heavy machinery and construction materials should also be considered.
Projects that have the potential to employ volunteer labor, are minimally invasive, and use
materials native to the site shall receive a high score.
4. Maintenance costs/access: This criterion assesses the relative ease and cost of long-term
maintenance for the stream reach. A high score shall be assigned to reaches where access
is easy and long-term maintenance will be minimal in terms of labor time and relative cost.
5. Practicality/Constructability: The practicality score aims to quantify the suitability of a
potential project given the context of the surrounding landscape. This criterion was included
to account for instances where the benefits of rehabilitating a reach are far outweighed by
easily foreseeable economic, spatial, or social constraints. Projects that are impractical shall
receive low scores.
Social
Though there is no scientific basis for scoring social value, it is arguably the most important criteria
for non-scientists and local residents. The public can either support or impede restoration efforts,
so projects that improve the aesthetics of a reach (but also improve key processes of the system) are
essential to the perception and volition of future projects. The social value score is defined by four
sub-criteria: (1) aesthetic improvement potential, (2) public safety improvements, (3) neighborhood
character and acceptance, and (4) education/community outreach opportunities:
1. Aesthetic Improvement Potential: This criterion aims to quantify the relative potential to
improve the overall appearance of a reach. Some restoration activities restore processes to
the channel, but their effects are not apparent to the untrained eye. Such projects shall
receive a low score. Projects that involve increasing heterogeneity in the channel (removing
glide habitat and promoting pool-riffle sequences), riparian planting, improving water
quality, or stabilizing mass wasting reaches shall receive a high score.
2. Public Safety Improvements: A high score shall be given to reaches where stream
improvements improve public safety along the creek. Projects that mitigate dangerous flow
situations, or discourage dangerous behavior in and around the channel shall receive a high
score. Projects that create dangerous flow situations or attractions for anti-social behavior
shall receive a lower score.
April 24, 2012 Page 7
3. Neighborhood Character and Acceptance: A high score shall be given to reaches where a
large portion of the public is able to appreciate improvements made to the channel and
accepts the change as an asset the neighborhood. Projects located in natural areas or parks
in close proximity to trails (for example, along Spring Creek Trail) shall be scored highest.
Projects that few people will come into contact with (for example, certain portions of
Boxelder Creek) shall receive a low score. Projects that pass through backyards of
residential neighborhoods shall receive a moderate score since their aesthetic value is limited
to only some of the public.
4. Education/Community Outreach Opportunities: A high score shall be given to projects
where there are opportunities to use the restored reach as an education tool, or where there
are opportunities for interpretive signage to increase public awareness.
Physical Stream Characteristics - Erosion
The erosion score incorporates the lateral and vertical susceptibility scores presented in the CSU
report along with an assessment of whether erosion problems threaten public safety and
infrastructure:
1. Vertical and Lateral Erosion Susceptibility: The two scores are weighted based on what the
dominant mode of erosion is expected to be in the future, which should be based on findings
presented in the susceptibility section. In most cases, it is anticipated that lateral
susceptibility will be weighted higher than vertical because most streams in Fort Collins
have incised to a resistive layer and are beginning to widen.
2. Threats to Public Safety and Infrastructure: A high score for this criterion shall be assigned
under one of two conditions: (1) existing infrastructure is endangered, and restoration
activities in a reach would avert damages, or (2) the restoration work would have no adverse
impacts on public safety or infrastructure. The latter condition aims to balance risk involved
with the restoration design with proximity to safety concerns. For example, do restoration
activities along Spring Creek change channel hydraulics, and in turn alter flood stage
elevations or culvert performance? It is expected that most reaches will receive a low score
in this category. However, it was included to acknowledge inherent uncertainties in
restoration design that arise from the complex nature of fluvial systems.
3. Irrigation Management: Management of the irrigation canals in a way which would reduce
the negative impact they have on the streams of Fort Collins is not an easy or cheap task.
If in the future, opportunities arise that would allow for irrigation to be disconnected from
sub-reaches, these reaches would then be given a high score, as both the habitat and
susceptibility of the stream would benefit.
PART III - FUNDING METHODOLOGY
Background
The last issue for discussion in this work session is to provide the background information on the
different prioritization models and to discuss options for funding the various project classifications.
A preliminary estimate totaling $234 million of Stormwater project needs has been identified.
April 24, 2012 Page 8
Current revenues available for capital project construction are limited to approximately $4 million
per year. Guidance from the City Council is needed on how staff prioritizes the funding for these
projects addressing different community values.
There are five significant factors to consider in this prioritization:
1. Several types of projects are funded outside of the prioritization model – Intergovernmental
Agreements ( IGAs), Adequate Public Facilities, redevelopment or cooperative projects with
other City departments.
2. Good prioritization models have been created to independently rank Flood Protection and
Mitigation projects and Stream Restoration projects.
3. Water Quality BMP projects are closely associated with both flood protection projects and
stream restoration projects.
4. There is no acceptable method to rank life-safety focused flood protection projects against
environmentally focused stream restoration projects.
5. The development of a methodology to adequately and justifiably fund all of these various
classifications of projects is needed.
The basics of the proposed funding methodology are:
• To set aside a portion of the annual Stormwater revenues available for capital projects to
position the City to be able to respond to the needs outside of the flood protection/mitigation
or stream restoration prioritizations. Our model shows that a 20% set aside can meet the
funding requirements of currently anticipated projects.
• The remaining funds available for capital projects can then be divided between flood
protection/mitigation and stream restoration project prioritization lists. Our model presents
three different scenarios for this as well as the pros and cons of each. The percent allocation
began based on the total cost of the anticipated projects and then were adjusted to see the
affect on our ability to deliver projects.
Projects Funded from Stormwater Revenues
There are several different classifications of projects that all must be funded from the Stormwater
fees. These projects include:
A. Opportunity Projects, Right-of-Way Acquisition, and Special City Initiatives
Examples of these needs would be the purchase of properties previously identified as being
of value to the City stormwater program for future projects such as was recently done with
a house on East Vine Drive or the Forney property off Taft Hill Road. Another such need
would be major improvements built in conjunction with a road reconstruction project being
done by the Streets department. Staff anticipates a significant expense to install new storm
sewer serving the River District area when Jefferson Street is reconstructed.
B. Cooperative Projects Constructed Under Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)
When neighboring agencies construct stormwater related projects that affect the City of Fort
Collins, staff looks for opportunities to cooperate and create longer term efficiencies by
April 24, 2012 Page 9
doing projects together. A current example is the Larimer County plan to replace the Shields
Street bridge over the Poudre River. The bridge replacement and road improvements have
created an opportunity to cooperatively advance the West Vine Basin Master Plan to
construct a flood mitigation crossing of Shields Street and an outfall to the Poudre River.
There will be extensive design work, hydrology analysis, and construction that can be done
together to reduce overall costs and impacts to our community.
C. Adequate Public Facilities and Regional Development/Redevelopment Needs
All infrastructure necessary for new development is generally required to be paid for by
those developments as they come into the City. However, significant infrastructure needs
that serve a larger regional purpose pose significant hurdles to individual development or the
first development coming in to an area. An example is the stormwater facilities needed to
serve the North College area - the NECCO project estimated at $10 million, storm sewers
needed to serve parts of Old Town developed prior to current stormwater regulations, or the
Harmony Road/I-25 area - the Harmony Road overtopping project estimated at $6-$20
million.
Projects in the above three classifications plus any ‘unattached’ Water Quality projects from the
following classification are shown in Attachment 3.1.
D. Water Quality Best Management Practice (BMP) Improvement Projects
Water quality BMP retrofit projects typically have only been constructed as enhancements
to larger flood mitigation projects. Staff has performed studies on ten developed stormwater
basins within the City to determine the level of water quality treatment provided and
identified possible BMP retrofit locations. The goal is to provide water quality protection
to a minimum of 40% of each basin area - measured by either undeveloped area or
developed areas built with water quality treatment. This value was determined from a 2010
CSU study entitled “Urban Stream Health Assessment” which shows this as the breakpoint
for effective water quality and stream health protection.
Water quality projects are primarily associated with either stream restoration projects or
flood protection projects. Generally, a stream erosion problem cannot be properly solved
without first managing the water quality component that led to the erosion problem in the
first place. Similarly, it is most efficient to add a water quality capture volume and outlet
controls when building flood protection projects than to build them separately. The majority
of identified BMP retrofit projects have therefore been attached to its associated project from
either of these two classifications to be constructed as part of those projects and not ranked
as stand alone work.
E. Stream Restoration and Bank Erosion Maintenance Projects
Stream restoration projects historically have been only budgeted as demonstration projects
with partners such as the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department or Colorado State
University (CSU). Staff and CSU have collaborated to complete a Stream Restoration and
Stability Study that identifies candidate projects and provides synergistic benefits to stream
health. Prioritization is accomplished by evaluating ecology, cost, erosion, and aesthetic
April 24, 2012 Page 10
value. The Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool will be used to prioritize the
stream restoration projects identified in the CSU study. The unprioritized list of Stream
Restoration projects is shown in Attachment 3.2.
F. Flood Protection and Mitigation (i.e., Flood Control) Projects
In 2002, staff created a ranking system for stormwater and floodplain needs funded through
the Stormwater Enterprise revenues. The updated current flood control project list is shown
in Attachment 3.3 with descriptions of the top ranked projects included as Attachment 3.3.1.
This methodology was used as the basis for staff recommendations to Council for
prioritizing the design and construction of Stormwater Capital Projects. The goal was to
create a method that was objective, easy to understand and based on the values of
minimizing property damage, maximizing public safety, and being cost effective. This
methodology has been used for the last ten years to determine project needs.
This methodology is still a very valuable tool for the prioritization of flood protection and mitigation
projects. A significant amount of research was conducted in developing this and staff recommends
maintaining and continuing to use it as the methodology for creating our flood protection Capital
Improvement project list.
Proposed Funding Scenarios
Staff has developed several funding scenarios to show what can be funded over the next 10-12 years
under various percentage splits of our Stormwater revenues. Staff recommends using a
methodology that takes 20% of available revenue each year to create a fund that can address our
known unranked stormwater needs. The remaining funds are then split between flood protection
and mitigation project needs and stream restoration needs. Water quality BMP projects are
“attached” to a related flood protection or stream restoration project to be built concurrently with
its respective project.
These various scenarios can be seen in Attachment 3. Each section allocated an initial 20% of
available revenue to the unranked projects. Then the remaining funds show what projects could be
built in the next 10 years for a split between Flood Protection and Mitigation Projects and Stream
Restoration Projects at levels of 75% - 25%, 80% - 20%, or 85% - 15%.
Projects in the immediate future are the West Vine Basin – Shields Street crossing and Poudre River
Outfall projects in 2013, the River District/Jefferson St reconstruction project anticipated for 2014-
15, and addressing the Harmony Road overtopping as soon as funds are available (which staff
anticipates being in 2017).
The projects listed under the Stream Restoration column are marked as “Draft” since the completed
prioritization through the MCDA tool has not been completed.
Staff’s recommendation is to use the 80%-20% split of Capital Improvement funding as it creates
a reasonable balance of implementing stream restoration projects while still meeting the needs for
flood protection and mitigation. It is anticipated that this will be revisited each time the Master
Plans are reviewed/updated on an approximate 5 year cycle.
April 24, 2012 Page 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Urban Stream Health Assessment Report
2. Stream Restoration Projects and Basin Specific BMPs Studies Summary
2.1 Fossil Creek Conceptual Alternatives Analysis Proposed BMPs
2.2 Fossil Creek Alternatives Analysis Proposed BMPs
2.3 Executive Summary for CSU Stream Assessment Report
2.4 Sample MCDA Tool
3. Project Funding Split Scenarios Spreadsheet
3.1 Unranked Project List
3.2 Stream Restoration Project List -- Draft
3.3 Flood Protection and Mitigation Project Prioritization List
3.3.1 Description of top ranked Flood Protection and Mitigation Projects
4. Powerpoint presentation
Attachment 1
Assessment of Urban Stream Rehabilitation Potential
and Effectiveness of Stormwater Mitigation
Techniques in Fort Collins
Prepared by: Colorado State University
in cooperation with the City of Fort Collins Utilities
Attachment 1
1
Acknowledgments
Fort Collins Stormwater Quality Team and Contributors
City of Fort Collins
Basil Hamdan
Susan Hayes
Glen Schlueter
Shane Boyle
Susan Strong
Michelle Finchum
Marcee Camenson
Bob Smith
Colorado State University
Larry Roesner, Ph.D.
Boris Kondratieff, Ph.D.
Steve Roznowski
Chris Olson
Jason Messamer
Brian Heinold
Attachment 1
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Colorado State University (CSU) in conjunction with the City of Fort Collins has conducted a
study of urban streams within Fort Collins. This study uses recent developments in stream
quality research to recommend locations where stream and watershed improvements are likely to
have the greatest positive effects on the quality of urban streams. These recommendations are
based on a holistic watershed approach that takes into account a wide array of stream and
watershed characteristics impacting stream quality.
2. STUDY OUTLINE
Streams can be negatively affected by a variety of different factors, many of which can be at
least partially attributed to urban development. At the simplest level, urban areas increase the
amount of impervious surface in a watershed thereby decreasing infiltration. Without best
management practices (BMPs) to mitigate these effects, this decrease in infiltration will result in
higher quantities and rates of stormwater runoff. Irrigation inflows can add to this urban
stormwater runoff in places where irrigation canals intersect urban streams. Such an increase in
flow to urban streams can cause erosion of the channel and degradation of aquatic habitats. In-
stream rehabilitation may provide short-term improvement in degraded streams however any
long-term solution must address the root causes of such degradation. Therefore, streams must be
considered as a part of a larger system with many interrelated components. This system starts in
the watershed and incorporates various measures of stream health and quality as shown by the
diagram in Figure 1.
Hydrology
Stream Health
Urbanization BMP Cover
Sediment Transport
Irrigation Inflows
Figure 1: Relationship between watershed characteristics and factors affecting stream health.
Twelve sites on six different creeks in Fort Collins are assessed in this study for the criteria
described in Figure 1 above. A map and general description of each site is given in Figure 2 and
Table 1 respectively. Sites are selected which have the maximum amount of data available
describing the relationship between watershed and stream characteristics. Specific data sources
and methods are explained in the following sections.
Attachment 1
3
Figure 2: Map of stream study sites in Fort Collins.
Table 1: Description of location of Fort Collins stream study sites.
1 Spring Taft Hill Road
2 Spring Centre Avenue
3 Spring Burlington Northern RR
4 Spring Timberline Road
5 Fossil College Avenue
6 Fossil Trilby Road
7 Boxelder County Road 56
8 Clearview Castlerock Drive
9 McClellands Ziegler Road
10 McClellands Fossil Cr. Res. Inlet
11 Foothills Union Pacific RR
12 Foothills Ziegler Road
Location
Creek
Name
Site
ID
2.1. Stream Health
There are various different ways that the health of a stream may be quantified. Historically, this
has been done using chemical water quality parameters however these only show a limited
picture of overall stream quality (Booth et al., 2004). Chemical constituents may be quickly
carried through a stream system and therefore point samples may not be indicative of baseline
conditions. However, benthic macroinvertebrates respond to stream habitat changes over a
longer period of time. Therefore, new research uses benthic macroinvertebrates to indicate the
health of streams because they are responsive to many different environmental factors (Roy et
Attachment 1
4
al., 2003; Booth et al., 2004; Voelz et al., 2005; Sprague et al., 2006; Pomeroy, 2007; DeGasperi
et al., 2009).
Two studies were previously conducted by CSU which assessed the health of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities in Fort Collins (Hoffman, 1998; Zuellig, 2001). The study
conducted by Hoffman (1998) collected benthic macroinvertebrates in 1994 and 1996 while that
performed by Zuellig (2001) collected invertebrates in 1999 and 2000. An update of these
studies was performed by CSU in April 2010 to reflect changes in benthic macroinvertebrate
communities that have occurred in the past decade. The new study followed the same rapid
bioassessment protocol used by Zuellig (2001). Table 2 shows the locations with historic and
current benthic study data.
Table 2: Benthic macroinvertebrate data available for each of 12 sites assessed in Fort Collins, Colorado stream
assessment.
Hoffman
1
Zuellig
2
2010
1 Spring Taft Hill Road X X
2 Spring Centre Avenue X X
3 Spring Burlington Northern RR X X X
4 Spring Timberline Road X X X
5 Fossil College Avenue X X
6 Fossil Trilby Road X X
7 Boxelder County Road 56 X
8 Clearview Castlerock Drive X X
9 McClellands Ziegler Road X X
10 McClellands Fossil Cr. Res. Inlet X
11 Foothills Union Pacific RR X X
12 Foothills Ziegler Road X X X
Macroinvertebrate Data
Location
Creek
Name
Site
ID
1
Hoffman (1998),
2
Zuellig (2001)
All of these studies used similar methods and assessed the same indicators of benthic
macroinvertebrate health. The benthic indicators used here are relatively pollution intolerant
taxa and therefore, higher benthic scores represent less disturbed stream ecosystems.
Specifically, this study uses both the richness and percentage of taxa in the Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) orders to quantify stream health. Commonly, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera are known as mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies respectively.
Since Plecoptera (caddisflies) have become locally extinct in the urban streams of Fort Collins
(Hoffman, 1998; Zuellig, 2001; Sprague et al., 2006), this study uses only Ephemeroptera and
Trichoptera (ET) taxa as indicator organisms.
In Table 3 below, the ET richness and %ET values computed from each of the stream studies are
shown. ET richness is a measure of the diversity among ET taxa and %ET is a measure of the
quantity of ET organisms. These two metrics, ET richness and %ET, are used in this study to
represent stream health. In those locations where benthic macroinvertebrate data are available
from both Hoffman (1998) and Zuellig (2001), values are simply averaged to obtain a composite
Attachment 1
5
historic benthic macroinvertebrate value. As can be seen from the table, the highest value of ET
richness and %ET at any location is 7 and 83% respectively at Site #5 on Fossil Creek near
College Avenue (from Zuellig, 2001). Due to the long history of development in the Colorado
Front Range, it is difficult to know the composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities
that would have existed prior to development. Therefore, the conditions found by Zuellig (2001)
at Site #5 likely represent the highest quality stream habitat that can reasonably be expected in
Fort Collins.
Table 3: Fort Collins ET richness and %ET values for all studies.
Hoffman1 Zuellig2 Historic 2010 Hoffman1 Zuellig2 Historic 2010
1 3 3 2 3% 3% 25%
2 2 2 2 1% 1% 15%
3 3 2 2.5 2 7% 17% 12% 6%
4 4 5 4.5 1 52% 44% 48% 22%
5 7 7 2 83% 83% 9%
6 4 4 3 47% 47% 48%
7 0 0%
8 2 2 2 9% 9% 11%
9 3 3 5 52% 52% 43%
10 2 22%
11 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
12 4 1 2.5 2 5% 3% 4% 26%
Site ET Richness %ET
ID
1
Hoffman (1998),
2
Zuellig (2001)
2.2. Sediment Transport
Increased runoff from urban development can cause degraded stream conditions and increase the
rate of sediment transport (Roesner & Bledsoe, 2003). This increased sediment movement can
eliminate habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and cause degraded stream health.
Alternatively, if sediment is added to portions of a stream, aggradation can occur and cause
riffles and pools containing benthic macroinvertebrates to be buried and eliminated. Both of
these instances can be brought about not only by added stormwater runoff but also by the
addition of irrigation waters. This problem is particularly prevalent in Fort Collins which is
traversed by numerous canals which add water to urban creeks.
To obtain basic measures of sediment transport, stream flow must be compared to physical cross-
sections. Flow data is obtained for Spring, Fossil, and Boxelder Creeks from the City of Fort
Collins’ system of Flood Warning Gages. These gages are located at Sites #1-7 from Figure 2
above and provide hourly flow data from 2001 to present. However, to prevent ice damage,
gages must be removed for the winter months and therefore data are only consistently available
for May through September each year. These flow data are compared to stream cross-sections
collected by CSU in April 2010 to determine measures of shear stress.
2.3. Hydrology
Attachment 1
6
Recent developments in the field of urban stream assessment have shown that hydrology can
have significant impacts on indicators of benthic macroinvertebrate health (Booth et al., 2004).
This control of urban hydrology is not limited exclusively to peak flows but instead suggests the
need for control of small, frequent storms as well (Roesner et al., 2001; Nehrke & Roesner,
2004; Booth et al., 2004; Rohrer, 2004; Pomeroy, 2007).
One particular stream flow metric has been used to predict the quality of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities in streams. This metric, the T0.5, is defined as the percent of
time that stream flow exceeds the storm peak which can be expected to occur on average, twice
per year (Booth et al., 2004). As areas become more urbanized, stormwater flows tend to have
higher peaks. However the duration of these peaks tends to decrease because urban stormwater
systems convey flow much more quickly than do rural or undeveloped areas where overland
flow is the primary mechanism for stormwater conveyance. Therefore, urban development tends
to cause streams to become flashier and subsequently causes the T0.5 to decrease. This
phenomenon is shown graphically in Figure 3. As with shear stress, calculation of the T0.5
hydrologic metric is done using stream flow data from the Fort Collins Flood Warning Gages.
Discharge
Time
Q0.5
Ttotal
T0.5
Discharge
Time
Q0.5
T0.5
Ttotal
Rural Urban
Figure 3: Comparison of the magnitude of the T0.5 hydrologic metric for rural (left) and urban (right) areas.
2.4. Urbanization
To precisely define the level of urbanization, this study uses the Urban Intensity Index (UII)
developed by McMahon & Cuffney (2000). This index is designed to incorporate a variety of
environmental, landuse, infrastructure, population, and socioeconomic characteristics to quantify
urbanization in a given watershed (McMahon & Cuffney, 2000; Sprague et al., 2006; Pomeroy,
2007). The UII is calculated for each of the watersheds contributing to the study sites shown in
Figure 2. However, there are two main drawbacks to this approach. First, high resolution land
cover and population data are not readily available for present conditions in Fort Collins. Land
use data from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) were created in 2001 and population
data were available from the last decennial census in 2000. Second, measures of urban
development do not account for stormwater mitigation techniques meant to control runoff from
highly impervious areas. Therefore, structural BMPs likely influence how urbanization affects
stream health.
Attachment 1
7
2.5. Best Management Practices
In the summer of 2009, the City of Fort Collins inventoried its BMPs through the use of
geographic information system (GIS) mapping. This GIS map characterizes the way in which
stormwater is controlled for sites throughout the City as having flood control, water quality
control, water quality and flood control, or no stormwater controls. Regions without stormwater
controls have been further subdivided as either developed or undeveloped based on site
inspections and analysis of aerial photography. A final map in Figure 4 shows the distribution of
BMPs throughout Fort Collins. The map shows that much of the southern and western portions
of the city contributing to the upstream ends of Fossil and Spring Creeks remain undeveloped.
In contrast, the northeast portion of town near the downstream end of Spring Creek is densely
developed with relatively few stormwater controls.
Figure 4: Map of best management practices used to treat runoff contributing to urban creeks in Fort Collins, Colorado.
(Source: Fort Collins Utilities GIS)
A complete listing of the data available for each of the twelve stream sites in Fort Collins is
given in Table 4. Each of the aforementioned watershed and stream characteristics can be
compared to determine the effects that urban development is having on stream health indicated
by benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Through these comparisons, several important
findings can be observed which will be discussed in the following section.
Attachment 1
8
Table 4: Macroinvertebrate, gage, and best management practices data available for each of 12 sites assessed in Fort
Collins, Colorado stream assessment.
Hoffman
1
Zuellig
2
2010
1 Spring Taft Hill Road X X X X
2 Spring Centre Avenue X X X X
3 Spring Burlington Northern RR X X X X X
4 Spring Timberline Road X X X X X
5 Fossil College Avenue X X X X
6 Fossil Trilby Road X X X X
7 Boxelder County Road 56 X X
8 Clearview Castlerock Drive X X X
9 McClellands Ziegler Road X X X
10 McClellands Fossil Cr. Res. Inlet X X
11 Foothills Union Pacific RR X X X
12 Foothills Ziegler Road X X X X
Gage
Data
BMP
Data
Macroinvertebrate Data
Location
Creek
Name
Site
ID
1
Hoffman (1998),
2
Zuellig (2001)
3. KEY FINDINGS
Stormwater BMPs have been introduced to large portions of the City of Fort Collins in recent
years. Stormwater BMPs that have been designed with water quality controls have been shown
to create hydrologic conditions that closely match those present prior to development (Rohrer,
2004). Therefore, the coverage of BMPs was defined in this study as the percentage of upland
area protected by water quality features or left undeveloped. Water quality BMP coverage was
used rather than simply quantifying urbanization with an index such as the UII because measures
of urbanization alone cannot represent the hydrologic impacts of development on receiving
streams. BMPs are intended to mitigate the effects of urbanization and therefore, all urban
development is not equal from a stormwater perspective. It can be reasonably concluded that
land treated by a water quality BMP does not release runoff as quickly as the same land left
uncontrolled.
The potential for positive impacts of water quality BMPs was demonstrated on Foothills Creek.
Along this creek, irrigation has less of an impact on flow than in Spring Creek and Fossil Creek.
At Site #11, the watershed was nearly completely regulated by flood control however; water
quality control was not present. This lack of water quality control likely contributed to the
degraded conditions at this site (ET richness and %ET of zero). Farther downstream, at Site #12,
ET richness had improved to two and %ET had reached 26%. The area between Sites #11 and
12 was developed with nearly 45% water quality BMP coverage bringing the total level of water
quality control for the watershed contributing to Site #12 up to 13%. This modest increase in
BMP coverage may have aided in protecting downstream benthic communities at Site #12
whereas flood control alone was unable to preserve ET richness and %ET at Site #11.
3.1. Impacts of Development on Hydrology and Benthos
This study found that for the six sites having both BMP coverage and stream gage data available,
there is a slight positive relationship between hydrologic quality indicated by the T0.5 metric and
Attachment 1
9
the percent of the watershed classified as either undeveloped or developed with water quality
BMPs. This relationship shows that water quality BMPs can have a positive impact on stream
hydrology. However, there is not a specific limit of BMP coverage that can be ascertained from
these data alone. The relatively low biodiversity in the Colorado Front Range means that
definitive trends are difficult to establish. Additionally, the network of irrigation canals in Fort
Collins adds flow and sediment to the creeks. Since the irrigation canals are fed primarily by
diverted flow from the Cache La Poudre River rather than by runoff, watershed alteration can
have little effect on irrigation flow contributions. This is especially true of Boxelder Creek,
Fossil Creek, and the downstream reaches of Spring Creek where irrigation canals comingle with
stream flow. Therefore, even if urban areas are completely controlled by stormwater BMPs,
these streams would be unlikely to return to natural conditions. Though BMPs can have a
positive impact on stream habitat quality, the effects of irrigation flows can limit the maximum
level of their effectiveness. Despite these factors, practical limits for BMP coverage can be
established based not only on hydrology but also on changes that have been observed in benthic
communities over the past ten years.
3.2. In-Stream Modifications
In-stream modifications would likely only be useful in conjunction with upstream controls and
would only affect the specific location where improvements are made. Without some level of
watershed control, channel modifications may be damaged or rendered ineffective by high storm
flows generated by urban runoff. For instance, Site #9 has 40% of its upland watershed that is
either undeveloped or controlled by water quality BMPs. Additionally, in-stream improvements
have been done at this site in 2000 and 2001 which include the addition of a low-flow channel,
installation of drop structures, regrading of banks, and creation of pools and riffles. By
comparing historic and current benthic data, the site is shown to be a location where channel
improvements yield positive benthic results. Since high values of the T0.5 metric contribute to
healthy benthic communities (Booth et al., 2004; Pomeroy, 2007) and BMP coverage is observed
to create favorable values of T0.5, regions with better hydrology will generally require fewer in-
stream improvements. However, areas with high levels of pollutants could degrade benthic
communities regardless of whether or not the T0.5 indicates appropriate hydrologic conditions.
Also, shear stress must be considered in cases where large portions of the flow are not generated
solely by runoff, such as stream segments that carry substantial irrigation flows. The following
section uses these observations to outline recommendations for each of the creeks analyzed.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
The watersheds analyzed in this study are not independent of one another which fundamentally
differs from other such studies (Booth et al., 2004; Pomeroy, 2007). This presents a unique
opportunity for the application of stormwater controls and watershed improvements. Stormwater
controls placed at an upstream location have the potential to positively affect those regions
downstream. Therefore, an upstream-to-downstream approach will likely be the most cost-
effective method. Furthermore, in-stream rehabilitation should be focused only on those areas
with significant water quality BMP coverage. Some improvement was observed from channel
modifications at Site #9 with 40% of its watershed being undeveloped or protected by water
quality controls. Based on this observation, to reasonably expect improvement in benthic
macroinvertebrates from in-stream modifications, a minimum of 40% of a watershed should be
Attachment 1
10
undeveloped or have water quality controls. However, preference should be given to those
regions with higher levels of control.
Due to the impact of irrigation canals, it is unlikely that a level of water quality control can be
reached that will maintain strong benthic communities without channel improvements.
Therefore, streams with significant contributions from irrigation waters should be carefully
observed before making improvements. Large irrigation contributions such as those in Fossil
Creek, Boxelder Creek, and the downstream end of Spring Creek cause high shear stresses and
sediment loads which will likely counteract any improvements made in-stream or on the
watershed. Specific recommendations for each creek are listed below.
4.1. Spring Creek
Sites #1 and #2 have relatively high levels of BMP coverage (66 and 51% respectively).
Therefore, these sites may benefit from in-stream habitat improvement. Specifically, there are
several horse pens located adjacent to the creek upstream of Taft Hill Road. Buffer strips and
grading at these locations may prevent loads of organic materials from entering the creek. The
two downstream sites however, Sites #3 and #4, have lower levels of water quality BMP
coverage (40 and 31% respectively). At these sites, an increase in the level of water quality
control upstream should be considered before making physical improvements to the stream. It
should be noted that the impact of irrigation waters (from Arthur Canal, Pitkin Lateral, and
Emigh Lateral) cannot be readily determined as flow monitoring is not available for these
irrigation ditches. It is possible that large irrigation flows may cause degraded habitat in the
downstream reaches of Spring Creek, particularly at Site #4 where benthic communities have
diminished since the studies by Hoffman (1998) and Zuellig (2001). Also, when adding BMP
protection, it should be noted that there is a disconnect in Spring Creek at its confluence with the
New Mercer Canal (between Sites #1 and #2). At this location flow from Spring Creek
comingles with flow from the New Mercer Canal and therefore, improvements in BMP coverage
made upstream of the disconnect may not have as strong of an effect on downstream hydrology
as water quality features added downstream of the New Mercer Canal.
4.2. Fossil Creek
High levels of water quality BMP coverage and undeveloped area on Fossil Creek promote good
quality stream habitat however, sediment and high flows from irrigation canals have still
degraded the creek. This is especially true of Site #5 where benthic communities have degraded
substantially since the study by Zuellig (2001) despite the fact that this watershed has the highest
level of water quality BMPs and undeveloped area of any site in Fort Collins. Siltation appears
to have occurred in the channel causing degraded habitat. Therefore, improvements to this
watershed cannot be recommended until irrigation flows are appropriately mitigated. If
irrigation flow and sediment inflows were controlled, the high level of BMP coverage and
undeveloped area in the watershed would make Fossil Creek a prime candidate for rehabilitation.
4.3. Boxelder Creek
Though there is little development in the Boxelder Creek watershed, irrigation flows have
created a condition with exceptionally high shear stress and the potential for bed degradation.
Without eliminating incoming irrigation flows, it would be difficult to improve the creek in
reaches near Fort Collins. Water quality BMP coverage would be ineffectual as irrigation flows
Attachment 1
11
would not be lessened. In-stream modifications would also be negated by the high shear stress
and bed movement caused by irrigations flows.
4.4. Clearview Creek
Benthic conditions in Clearview Creek have remained largely unchanged since the study by
Zuellig (2001). The creek’s 51% water quality BMP and undeveloped coverage makes it a
candidate for in-stream rehabilitation. However, the creek is small and relatively independent of
the rest of the creeks in Fort Collins. Therefore, improvements made to Clearview Creek would
not have wide-reaching impacts.
4.5. McClellands Creek
The high values of ET richness and %ET at Site #9 on McClellands Creek were attributed to
channel improvements made at that location. Since coverage of water quality BMPs and
undeveloped area increases moving downstream, improvement of benthic macroinvertebrate
indicators could possibly be observed if similar channel modifications were made at the
downstream end of the creek.
4.6. Foothills Creek
Though Foothills Creek has high levels of flood control, extremely low levels of water quality
BMP coverage have allowed ET richness and %ET scores to decrease. This is especially true of
Site #11 at the upstream end of the creek which has no water quality BMP control. Farther
downstream at Site #12, some water quality controls have been implemented which have helped
aquatic health. However, significant additions of water quality controls in the upstream reaches
of the creek should be implemented before any in-stream improvements are attempted.
5. PRIORITIZED REHABILITATION
Based on the recommendations made above, a minimum of 40% water quality BMP or
undeveloped land should be present prior to attempting in-stream improvements. In Table 5, the
added area of water quality BMP coverage necessary to achieve the suggested limit of 40% is
given for each watershed. Note that for sites on the same creek, improvements made upstream
would also benefit reaches downstream (e.g. – Since the watershed of Site #11 is contained
within that of Site #12, improvements to Site #11’s watershed would also benefit Site #12).
Therefore, if the watershed coverage of BMPs at Site #11 were increased to meet the 40%
threshold, Site #12 would also meet the level of water quality control necessary for in-stream
improvements.
Attachment 1
12
Table 5: Area of watershed improvement necessary to reach 40% threshold for in-stream modification at 12 sites in Fort
Collins, Colorado. “WQ/Und. Cover” represents the current portion of each watershed that is protected by water quality
BMPs or left undeveloped.
1 Spring 7.5 66% 0.0
2 Spring 15.3 51% 0.0
3 Spring 20.1 40% 0.0
4 Spring 26.9 31% 2.5
5 Fossil 28.4 77% 0.0
6 Fossil 41.8 62% 0.0
7 Boxelder 696.3 N/A N/A
8 Clearview 2.9 51% 0.0
9 McClellands 6.1 40% 0.0
10 McClellands 8.7 44% 0.0
11 Foothills 3.3 0% 1.3
12 Foothills 4.7 13% 1.3
Area
(sq. km.)
Site
ID
Creek
Name
WQ/Und.
Cover
Area to 40%
(sq. km.)
Given a limited amount of funding available for improvement, sites only requiring in-stream
improvement are prioritized ahead of those needing both in-stream and watershed improvement.
Furthermore, sites with the highest levels of water quality control are preferred to those only
meeting the minimum of 40%. If a site has less than 40% water quality control or undeveloped
area, it is not recommended for in-stream improvement until the necessary level of watershed
improvement is completed. Additionally, sites near the 40% threshold could likely benefit from
a combination of in-stream and watershed improvement. Table 6 suggests relative priorities for
each of the sites discussed in this report based on the findings explained above. Note that
watershed and in-stream improvements are not recommended for Sites #4-7 due to the impact of
irrigation flows. If however, the impacts of these irrigation flows could be controlled, Sites #4-7
could become candidates for improvements. Figure 5 shows a map with watersheds shaded
based on this relative priority.
Attachment 1
13
Table 6: Priority and recommendations for watershed and stream improvements at each of the 12 study sites in Fort
Collins, Colorado (highest priority = 1).
Watershed Stream
1 1 Spring 7.5 66% 0.0 No Yes
2 2 Spring 15.3 51% 0.0 No Yes
3 10 McClellands 8.7 44% 0.0 Yes Yes
4 3 Spring 20.1 40% 0.0 Yes Yes
5 9 McClellands 6.1 40% 0.0 Yes No
6 8 Clearview 2.9 51% 0.0 No Yes
7 11 Foothills 3.3 0% 1.3 Yes No
8 12 Foothills 4.7 13% 1.3 Yes No
9 4 Spring 26.9 31% 2.5
10 5 Fossil 28.4 77% 0.0
11 6 Fossil 41.8 62% 0.0
12 7 Boxelder 696.3 N/A N/A
Priority
SiteImprovements
ID
Creek
Name
Area
(sq. km.)
WQ/Und.
Cover
Area to 40%
(sq. km.)
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Figure 5: Priority of stream improvement. Darker areas indicate watersheds/streams recommended for immediate
improvement.
Attachment 1
14
REFERENCES
Booth, D. B., Karr, J. R., Schauman, S., Konrad, C. P., Morley, S. A., Larson, M. G., & Burges,
S. J. (2004). Reviving Urban Streams: Land Use, Hydrology, Biology, and Human
Behavior. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40, 1351-1364.
DeGasperi, C. L., Berge, H. B., Whiting, K. R., Burkey, J. J., Cassin, J. L., & Fuerstenberg, R.R.
(2009). Linking Hydrologic Alteration to Biological Impairment in Urbanizing Streams
of the Puget Lowland, Washington, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 45, 512-533.
Hoffman, S. (1998). “A Comparison of Two Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Protocols in Fort
Collins, Colorado Urban Drainages.” Thesis, Graduate Degree Program in Ecology,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
McMahon, G., & Cuffney, T. F. (2000). Quantifying Urban Intensity in Drainage Basins for
Assessing Stream Ecological Conditions. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 36, 1247-1261.
Nehrke, S. M., & Roesner, L. A. (2004). Effects of Design Practice for Flood Control and Best
Management Practices on the Flow-Frequency Curve. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 130, 131-139.
Pomeroy, C. A. (2007). “Evaluating the Impacts of Urbanization and Stormwater Management
Practices on Stream Response.” Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Roesner, L. A., Bledsoe, B. P., & Brashear, R. W. (2001). Are Best-Management-Practice
Criteria Really Environmentally Friendly?. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 127, 150-154.
Roesner, L. A., & Bledsoe, B. P. Water Environment Research Foundation. (2003). Physical
Effects of Wet Weather Flows on Aquatic Habitats: Present Knowledge and Research
Needs. (00-WSM-04).
Rohrer, C. A. (2004). “Modeling the Effect of Stormwater Controls on Sediment Transport in an
Urban Stream.” Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO.
Roy, A. H., Rosemond, A. D., Paul, M. J., Leigh, D. S., & Wallace, J. B. (2003). Stream
Macroinvertebrate Response to Catchment Urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshwater
Biology, 48, 329-346.
Attachment 1
15
Sprague, L. A., Zuellig, R. E., & Dupree, J. A. United States Geological Survey. (2006). Effects
of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems in the South Platte River Basin, Colorado and
Wyoming (Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5101-A).
Voelz, N. J., Zuellig, R. E., Shieh, S., & Ward, J. V. (2005). The Effects of Urban Areas on
Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Two Colorado Plains Rivers. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 101, 175-202.
Zuellig, R. E. (2001). “Macroinvertebrate and Fish Communities Along the Front Range of
Colorado and Their Relationship to Habitat in the Urban Environment.” Thesis,
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO.
ATTACHMENT 2
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS AND BASIN-SPECIFIC BMP’S
SUMMARY
Page 1 of 4
As part of the Stormwater Repurposing Program, the City of Fort Collins Utilities is currently
conducting two separate studies that will provide information to update the City’s Stormwater
Master Plan. The studies include:
• Stream Restoration and Stability Study and Prioritization, and
• Basin-Specific Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP’s).
STREAM RESTORATION AND STABILITY STUDY AND PRIORITIZATION
In 2011, a study conducted by Colorado State University, on behalf of the Fort Collins
Utilities, was authorized to help prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation work
within the City. Assessments (including field work) were completed between June and
October of 2011. The study built upon work completed previously in a separate 2010 CSU
study titled “Urban Stream Health Assessment.” The following ten stream sections within the
city limits of Fort Collins were evaluated:
Burns Tributary Clearview Channel Foothills Creek
Fossil Creek Lang Gulch Mail Creek
McClellands Creek Spring Creek Stanton Creek
Boxelder Creek (downstream of Vine Drive)
The study identifies detailed habitat, susceptibility to erosion, and baseline geomorphic data
for approximately 18 miles of channels across ten City streams. The data will be utilized to
identify and prioritize candidate management and restoration activities that provide
synergistic benefits to each of the watersheds.
A Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool for prioritizing stream rehabilitation projects
was developed and presented as a mechanism to identify areas where the greatest
opportunities exist for simultaneously improving habitat and stream connectivity while
stabilizing high-risk, erosion-susceptible reaches. The four major criteria for MCDA scoring
are: Environment, Economics, Social Benefit, and Erosion.
The MCDA tool will be populated and completed by a multi-disciplinary team consisting of
staff from several City departments, including Utilities, Natural Resources, Sustainability, and
Parks. Additional invitees include representatives from the Water Board, the Natural
Resources Advisory Board, CSU, and local environmental groups. The completed MCDA
Tool will produce a list of prioritized stream reaches for future construction.
BASIN-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP’S)
The goal of the Basin-Specific BMP update to the Stormwater Master Plan is to retrofit
existing stormwater facilities in developed areas within the City that currently do not have
adequate water quality treatment facilities. These areas typically developed prior to the
adoption of the City’s current water quality treatment standards and therefore require some
form of retrofit to bring them up to current water quality standards. Undeveloped areas will be
required to comply with the City’s current water quality treatment standards at the time the
site develops. As a result, these areas are not included in the water quality based revision to
the Master Plan.
Page 2 of 4
Typical water quality BMP’s such as extended detention basins, bioswales, irrigation flow
separation, constructed wetlands, retrofitting existing detention ponds, and property buyouts
were considered as part of the process. Basin-specific studies were performed on the
following drainage basins:
Old Town West Vine Canal Importation
Spring Creek Foothills Mail Creek
Fox Meadows McClellands Creek Fossil Creek
Dry Creek
Due to its low level of existing development, along with the assumption that future
development will address water quality, the Boxelder Creek/Cooper Slough Basin was not
included in the BMP study. The BMP Plan update is currently in the Draft Selected Plan
Phase. Phases that have been completed to date include:
1. Hydrology update and sensitivity analysis;
2. Conceptual Alternatives Analysis of potential BMP locations;
3. Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis and ranking of BMP’s; and
4. Alternatives analysis.
Hydrology Update and Sensitivity Analysis
At the initial stages of the BMP study, hydrology (rainfall and storm water runoff) updates
were performed on select basins within the City that had seen considerable land use
changes since the adoption of the 2003 Master Plans (i.e. significant development in the
basin or basins where large flood control improvements had been constructed).
At the same time, a sensitivity analysis was completed on basins throughout the City. The
purpose of the sensitivity analysis was to determine which hydrologic parameters were most
sensitive for small storm runoff discharges. Parameters such as basin percent impervious,
infiltration rate, initial storage, and basin slope were evaluated. This analysis helped City staff
and consultants determine which types of BMP’s would be most appropriate in the respective
drainage basins.
Conceptual Alternatives Analysis
The Conceptual Alternatives Analysis phase consisted of identifying all possible BMP
locations within the basin. The main goals of this phase were to attain a minimum of 40%
BMP coverage by area in each basin, identify all potentially affected interests, and determine
all possible BMP locations for analysis in following phases. The 40% minimum BMP area
coverage recommendation was obtained previously in the referenced 2010 CSU study.
Upon completion of the Conceptual Alternatives phase, Focus Group meetings were held to
obtain input and comments from potentially affected public and private entities regarding the
conceptual alternatives identified. Invitees to these meetings included:
• Other City departments;
• Public and municipal entities such as Poudre School District;
• Local golf courses;
• Colorado State University;
• Homeowner’s Associations (HOA’s); and
• Large businesses such as Hewlett-Packard, and Avago, etc.
Page 3 of 4
Comments received in these meetings were taken into consideration and incorporated into
the subsequent phases of the BMP update.
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis of Water Quality BMP’s
In keeping with the City of Fort Collins’ principles of sustainability, a Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
analysis was performed on the stormwater quality BMP’s in each respective basin. The TBL
analysis considered social, environmental, and economic benefits and detriments of the
BMP’s over the short and long term. The TBL analysis is a sustainability assessment
framework that identifies key concepts, constraints, and applicability factors used to
determine the sustainability of a project or practice. It also allows for the objective evaluation
of a project outside the normal confines of a purely economic analysis by giving social and
economic considerations an equal footing in an initial brainstorming process.
At the completion of the TBL analysis, an assessment was made regarding the quantity,
magnitude, and basin-specific applicability of the benefits and the detriments associated with
each BMP. Key indicators in the assessment included issues such as:
• Effectiveness of water treatment;
• Cost limitations;
• Spatial limitations
• Habitat improvement benefits;
• Multiple uses;
• Public acceptance; and
• Historic or published operations and maintenance data.
Following the assessment, the BMP’s were ranked in order of preference for each basin. In
cases where the highest ranked BMP was not physically compatible with the existing
stormwater infrastructure, the next highest ranked BMP was investigated for suitability in the
basin. This process was repeated until a BMP was found to be physically possible for
implementation.
Alternatives Analysis Phase
The Alternative Analysis phase further refines the list of possible BMP’s through additional
engineering analyses. The Alternative Analysis reports detail the TBL process, and include
preliminary-level engineering analyses and construction cost estimates for each identified
BMP.
Draft Selected Plan Phase
The Draft Selected Plan phase is a further refinement of the Alternatives Analysis phase and
recommends the most beneficial BMP’s for each of the eleven basins studied. The selected
plans also include stream restoration recommendations included in the 2011 CSU Stream
Restoration and Stability study, which is explained in greater detail in the following sections.
The Draft Selected Plan phase will include an extensive public outreach process that
includes the presentation of the selected plans to the public and to directly impacted groups
including Homeowners Associations (HOA’s) throughout each of the drainage basins in the
City. The Focus Group process utilized in the Conceptual Alternatives phase will also be
repeated to present the results to affected public and private entities throughout the City.
Upon the receipt of comments from the public outreach process the draft selected plan will
be revised to become the selected plan of improvements.
Page 4 of 4
LINKING STREAM RESTORATION AND BMP PROJECTS
It was determined that it would not be prudent to design and construct the stream restoration
projects without first ensuring the upstream contributory drainage area was treated for
stormwater quality. Therefore, it was agreed that upon completion of the MCDA Stream
Restoration project prioritization process, BMP projects that are tributary to the respective
stream reaches will be grouped with the associated ranked stream reach. Similarly, BMP
projects that are associated with the prioritized Flood Control projects will be grouped with
the corresponding Flood Control project.
PROJECT SCHEDULES
A status update on the Stormwater Master Plan update was provided to both the Water
Board and its Engineering Committee in January and February 2012, respectively. The
Master Plan update will then be vetted through a second round of Focus Groups and also
Public Meetings. Based upon the feedback received during these meetings, a final water
quality BMP and Stream Restoration Selected Plan will be prepared for each basin and
incorporated into the City’s Stormwater Master Plan. The anticipated schedule for completion
of the update is as follows:
DATE MILESTONE / TASK
Jan. 2012 Complete BMP Alternatives Analyses and Stream Restoration Study
Mar. 2012 Complete Basin-Specific Draft BMP Selected Plans
Apr. - May 2012 Conduct Public Outreach on Draft BMP Selected Plans and
Stream Restoration and Stability Study
Apr. 24, 2012 City Council Work Session
Apr.- Jun. 2012 Complete stream rehabilitation prioritization using MCDA tool
Jul. 2012 Combine results of BMP and Stream Restoration Selected Plans
into a revision to the Stormwater Master Plan
Aug. - Sep 2012 Water Board and City Council Approval Process
DRAFT
ASSESSMENTS AND REHABILITATION
DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR THE
STREAMS OF FORT COLLINS
Prepared for the
City of Fort Collins Stormwater Division
Prepared by
Johannes Beeby, Peter Kulchawik, and Brian Bledsoe, PhD, P.E.
December 2011
Colorado State University
Daryl B. Simons Building at the
Engineering Research Center
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
DRAFT
ASSESSMENTS AND REHABILITATION
DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR THE
STREAMS OF FORT COLLINS
Prepared for the
City of Fort Collins Stormwater Division
Prepared by
Johannes Beeby, Peter Kulchawik, and Brian Bledsoe, PhD, P.E.
December 2011
Colorado State University
Daryl B. Simons Building at the
Engineering Research Center
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
DRAFT
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes a study conducted by Colorado State University, on behalf of the
City of Fort Collins Stormwater Division, to help prioritize future stream management and
rehabilitation work within the City. The following ten streams within the city limits of Fort
Collins were included in the study: (1) Boxelder Creek (downstream of Vine Drive), (2) Burns
Tributary, (3) Clearview Channel, (4) Foothills Creek, (5) Fossil Creek, (6) Langs Gulch, (7)
Mail Creek, (8) McClellands Creek, (9) Spring Creek, and (10) Stanton Creek. The objectives of
the work were to:
Perform a geomorphic assessment on a segment-by-segment basis of the ten streams
listed above to determine channel evolution stage, channel susceptibility to vertical
and lateral erosion, and stream habitat condition.
Use the resulting data to identify geomorphic thresholds that sustain meandering
channels and other heterogeneous physical habitats and use this information to assess
candidate restoration sites by determining if the local geomorphic controls are
compatible with sustaining sinuosity and habitat diversity.
Identify and prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation work through the
development of a Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) matrix that can be used
to select projects that simultaneously improve habitat, reduce susceptibility, and
provide the geomorphic conditions that sustain diverse and stable channels.
Assessments were carried out between June and October of this year. Results,
conclusions and recommendations are provided in the sections below.
ES.1 Channel Susceptibility
By far, the most pervasive source of channel instability in the surveyed streams is
bank failure induced by amplified durations of moderate flows. Urbanization,
irrigation flows, and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) that do not
control the full spectrum of erosive flows contribute to this response. The cumulative
effects of increased durations of erosive flows on the toes of banks result in
widespread undercutting and cantilever failures.
Stream reaches were assessed for both lateral and vertical susceptibility to erosion
and assigned to low, medium, and high risk categories. Results show that the majority
of the streams in Fort Collins have incised down to erosion resistant materials
including bedrock, hard pan, clay pan, or a coarse armor layer. Due to the more
erodible bank material and presence of upland grasses, which provide less root-
reinforcement for bank stabilization than riparian plant species, the majority of
streams are at a higher risk of lateral erosion and future widening. This is evidenced
DRAFT
ii
by the undercutting and resulting cantilever failures that are occurring throughout the
City.
ES.2 Stream Habitat
In several locations, physical habitat has improved since the Zuellig (2001) surveys;
however, there remain widespread opportunities for habitat improvement. In most
instances, habitat has improved due to land-use change and the reestablishment of
riparian vegetation. In other cases, the timing of when the habitat assessments were
conducted have shown that seasonality can greatly affect habitat parameters such as
embeddedness, frequency of riffles, and epifaunal substrate/available cover. In
addition to performing a comparison of past and present physical habitat conditions
using the Zuellig (2001) methods, this study developed and applied a novel protocol
for assessing physical habitat in the study streams. The novel protocol places greater
emphasis on aquatic habitat diversity, the riparian area, and larger scale parameters
such as connectivity and the effects of grade control and flow regime on aquatic
habitat, thereby reducing the sensitivity of the habitat assessment to seasonal
variability.
Resulting reach grades from the habitat assessments are as follows: 21% were rated
B, 42% were rated C, 26% were rated D, and 11% were rated E. The most limiting
factors were aquatic habitat diversity, riparian vegetation and width, and connectivity.
Grade control structures are widespread throughout Fort Collins and have for the
most part successfully stopped erosion and further stream degradation. However,
grade control in most instances has also negatively influenced aquatic ecosystems by
decreasing habitat diversity through the creation of glide habitat. Furthermore, some
grade control structures are impassable by fish and have disrupted longitudinal
connectivity within the streams. Opportunities for modifying existing grade controls
to simultaneously correct connectivity issues while supporting the geomorphic
characteristics associated with sinuosity and habitat diversity exist in some locations,
especially where structures are vulnerable to flanking and instability.
The greatest benefits to stream habitat in Fort Collins would come from modifying
selected grade control structures to transform straight glides to more sinuous and
diverse habitats while also allowing fish passage. Smaller scale habitat improvements
such as restricting mowing and planting riparian/wetland species such as willows,
rushes, and sedges, can be both cost effective through the use of volunteers, and
greatly benefit stream habitat by improving water quality and bank stability. There
are areas in Fort Collins that currently have functional and diverse habitat and the
importance of protecting these areas from future land-use changes should be a critical
element of future stream management. If surrounding land cannot be protected
through purchase or easement, ensuring that the streams have sufficient riparian
DRAFT
iii
buffers and that stormwater infrastucture for new developments addresses the full-
spectrum of flows would help maintain existing habitats of higher quality.
E.S.3 Geomorphology
Stream survey data collected for this study were analyzed for patterns in physical
parameters that sustain channel stability and habitat diversity. Meandering planforms
were most common in streams with main channel width-to-depth ratios of 3.2 to 5.3,
main channel unit stream powers of 25 to 62 W·m-2, and bed slopes of 0.0022 to
0.0036 m·m-1. The majority of small streams dominated by glide habitat had channel
unit stream powers of less than 35 W·m-2, and the same threshold for large channels
was 75 W·m-2. Lastly, there was a preferred range of slope and sinuosity pairings for
functional channels; slopes in this range were between 0.0022 and 0.0045 m·m-1 and
sinuosity was between 1.2 and 1.7. Sinuous channels beyond this range tended to be
unstable. To corroborate these findings, several paired reaches—two subsequent
channel reaches with significantly different geomorphic and habitat qualities whose
disparities can be attributed to a control imposed on the channel—were identified and
discussed.
The incised channel evolution model (CEM) by Schumm et al. (1984) was applied to
the streams of Fort Collins. However, given the ubiquitous nature of bank failure
through bank toe erosion, undercutting and cantilever failure, the standard incised
CEM is of limited applicability in these streams. This study identifies a modified
CEM focused on toe erosion and mass wasting triggered by cantilever failure as the
dominant mode of channel response. The response of many streams in the City has
been halted by grade control in the early stages of the CEM; therefore, there are
numerous segments that are entrenched with near vertical banks and diminished
instream and riparian habitat quality.
E.S.4 Prioritization
A MCDA framework for prioritizing stream rehabilitation projects is presented to
target areas where the greatest opportunities exist for simultaneously improving
habitat and connectivity while stabilizing high-risk, erosion-susceptible reaches. The
MCDA approach is more structured and defensible than best professional judgment,
yet it is much easier to develop and interpret than more sophisticated optimization
schemes. The four major criteria for MCDA scoring are: ecology, cost, erosion, and
aesthetic value.
Although the MCDA matrix is yet to be populated by City staff with weights and
values for the various decision criteria, there are certain key activities that clearly
DRAFT
iv
deserve top prioritization should funding become available for large-scale projects.
The benefits of these projects would affect multiple reaches, and their synergistic
benefits in terms of improving ecological integrity and restoring stream processes
somewhat transcends matrix analysis. Several examples of such projects are
presented, and their system-scale benefits are discussed.
This study identifies and prioritizes stream reaches for restoration where habitat
degradation and erosional susceptibility may be simultaneously addressed. In this
preliminary analysis, the prioritization is based solely on baseline data (current state
of channel stability and habitat improvement potential) independent of criteria
focused on cost, practicality, and social benefits. Ultimately, these criteria need to be
considered by using the proposed MCDA matrix with input from stakeholders on
cost, practicality, and social benefits before arriving at a final decision.
E.S.5 Conclusions
The current states of streams within Fort Collins reflect a wide variety of historical land-
use changes that continue to affect responses to a new urban landscape. As a result, many of the
streams are unstable and have become arrested in a state of limited habitat potential. Attempts to
control the instabilities have worked for the most part in terms of preventing further incision, but
they have also contributed to the current disconnected and degraded habitat. As the City of Fort
Collins continues to grow, urbanization will continue to challenge efforts to improve habitat.
However, opportunities for habitat protection and improvement are abundant throughout the City
and taking advantage of these opportunities will help build a more connected and healthy stream
system in Fort Collins. The recommendations and baseline information on geomorphic, habitat,
and susceptibility resulting from this study provide a framework for the City to systematically
target stream management and rehabilitation activities that will address both channel stability
and habitat from a synergistic perspective based on sound geomorphic and physical principles.
As future stream rehabilitation work begins, it is important to develop a dynamic guiding image
of these streams such that they are managed not as ―things in space,‖ but as ―processes through
time.‖
E
E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
R6, XS1
R5, XS2
R5, XS1
R3, XS3
R3, XS2
R3, XS1
R2, XS1
R1, XS3
R1, XS2
R1, XS1
R6, XS4
R6, XS3
R6, XS2
INTERSTATE 25
E VINE DR
E PROSPECT RD
E MULBERRY ST
S COUNTY ROAD 5
E COUNTY ROAD 48
N TIMBERLINE RD
E DRAKE RD
INTERSTATE 25
0 Ü 0.25 0.5 Miles
Figure Cross Section X.X: Boxelder Location Creek Map Reach and
Data Source: City of Fort Collins GIS
Legend
Boxelder Creek
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
E Cross Section Location
City Limits
Lakes
Streams/Canals
E E E
E
E
R4, XS1 E E E E
R3, XS2
R3, XS1 R2, XS5
R2, XS4
R2, XS3
R2, XS2
R2, XS1
R1, XS1
W ELIZABETH ST
W PROSPECT RD
W LAKE ST
CLEARVIEW AVE
S BRYAN AVE
SPRINGFIELD DR
S TAFT HILL RD
CASTLEROCK DR
FUQUA DR
PONDEROSA DR
HILLCREST DR
CONSTITUTION AVE
ASH DR
BRIARWOOD RD
SKYLINE DR
VILLAGE LN
SOUTHRIDGE DR
MONTVIEW RD
BRENTWOOD DR
POPLAR DR
GLENMOOR DR
CRAGMORE DR
TAMARAC DR
MEADOWBROOK DR
CRABTREE DR
LARKSPUR DR
SHAMROCK ST
EVERGREEN DR
LAKERIDGE CT
LEESDALE CT
CLEARVIEW CT
APPLEWOOD RD
LARKSPUR CT
SKYLINE DR
W LAKE ST
W LAKE ST
SPRINGFIELD DR
EVERGREEN DR
0 0.05 Ü 0.1 0.2 Miles
Figure X.X: Clearview Channel Reach and Cross Section Location Map
Data Source: City of Fort Collins GIS
Legend
Clearview Channel
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
E Cross Section Location
City Limits
E
E E
R2, XS3 E
R2, XS2
R2, XS1
R1, XS1
E DRAKE RD
CUSTER DR
CHASE DR
ZIEGLER RD
LIMON DR
S TIMBERLINE RD
S COUNTY ROAD 9
DENVER DR
DES MOINES DR
IOWA DR
CANBY WAY
WILLIAM NEAL PKWY
RIGDEN PKWY
ANNELISE WAY
EXMOOR LN
ILLINOIS DR
BRYCE DR
PINECONE CIR
KANSAS DR
SOMBRERO LN
SAN LUIS ST
PARKFRONT DR
SAGEBRUSH DR
COAL BANK DR
VERMONT DR
ANIKA DR
ROCKFORD DR
EASTBROOK DR
ENVIRONMENTAL DR
TOPEKA LN
SONORA ST
HACKNEY LN
ABILENE CT
JOSEPH DR
MINNESOTA DR
TARPAN LN
HAFLINGER DR
RED CLOUD CT
WILLOW TREE LN
RED MOUNTAIN CT
MILNER CT
KANSAS DR
SAGEBRUSH DR
E DRAKE RD
0 0.05 Ü 0.1 0.2 Miles
Figure X.X: Foothills Creek Reach and Cross Section Location Map
Data Source: City of Fort Collins GIS
Legend
Foothills Creek
Reach 1
Reach 2
E Cross Section Location
City Limits
Lakes
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S LEMAY AVE
R1, XS1
R3, XS1
R2, XS1
R1, XS4
R1, XS3
R1, XS2
R1, XS1
R1, XS1
R9, XS3
R9, XS2
R9, XS1
R8, XS2
R8, XS1
R7, XS2
R7, XS1
R6, XS4
R6, XS3
R6, XS2 R6, XS1
R5, XS5
R5, XS4
R5, XS3 R5, XS2
R5, XS1
R4, XS2
R4, XS1
R3, XS2
R2, XS2
R2, XS1
R1, XS1
R3, XS1
S SHIELDS ST
MCDA Tool for 2 Sample Stream Reaches
Weight Spring Creek Clearview Channel
5 = High Sub-Criteria 6 2
1 = Low 2 1
5 Criteria Score 48 20
4 2 1
4 Fish Passage Benefit 5 1
5 2 1
5 2 1
5 Criteria Score 80 60
2 5 5
4 5 4
3 4 4
4 Maintenance Costs/Access 5 4
4 Practicality/Constructability 4 2
5 Criteria Score 24 24
2 2 2
4 1 2
3 Neighborhood Character/Acceptance 2 2
2 4 2
5 Criteria Score 32 44
4 1 5
4 3 5
3 1 1
2 Irrigation Management 1 1
184 148
Environmental
Habitat Improvement Potential - What is the potential to restore the stream to match a local, high quality habitat stream? High = 5, Low = 1
Fish Passage Benefit - Can the stream reach be improved to allow for greater fish movement? Yes = 5, No = 1
Habitat Connectivity Benefit - Can an impediment to general passage between reaches be removed as part of the project reach? Yes = 5, No = 1
Watershed-Scale Benefit - Does the project have a high or low potential to reconnect large, high quality stream reaches? High = 5, Low = 1
Economic
Engineering Analysis/Design - Does the project involve extensive analysis and design, Yes = 1, No = 5
Land Acquisition - Does land have to be purchased, or is the project on City property? - Purchase = 1, City Owned= 5
Construction Costs - High costs = 1, Low costs = 5
Maintenance Costs/Access - High costs = 1, Low costs = 5
Practicality/Constructability - Is it practical to build the project given the surrounding environment? - Yes = 5, No = 1
Social
Aesthetic Improvement - Will the restoration project improve the visual impcat of the stream to the untrained eye? -Yes = 5, No = 1
Public Safety Improvements - Will the project provide a safe environment for the public? - Yes = 5, No = 1
Neighborhood Character/Acceptance - Will the project integrate well with the local neighborhoods/surrounding areas? - Yes = 5, No = 1
Education/Outreach Opportunities - Are there oppurtunities for education and/or signage within the restored reach? - Yes = 5, No = 1
Physical Stream Characteristics - Erosion
Lateral erosion susceptibility - Not prone to erosion = 5, Prone to erosion = 1
Vertical erosion susceptibility - Not prone to erosion = 5, Prone to erosion = 1
Irrigation Management - Can the irrigation flows in the stream be better managed, mitigated, or removed? - Yes = 5, No = 1
Threats to Safety/Infrastructure - Does the project mitigate damage to existing infrastructure or have no adverse impacts on future infrastructure? - Yes =
5, No = 1
REACH TOTAL SCORE
Lateral
Vertical
Threats to Safety/Infrastructure
Construction Costs
Physical Stream Characteristics - Erosion
Aesthetic Improvement Potential
Public Safety Improvements
Social
Education/Outreach Opportunities
Watershed-Scale Benefit
Economic
Attachment 3
Project Funding Split Scenarios
Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects
Funding Split Scenarios
Scenario # 1: 20 - 75/25 Percentages
20% off the top 75% after Unranked 25% after Unranked
Year Total Funds Annual Funding
Unranked
Project Cost
Unranked
Project Name Balance
Flood Protection &
Mitigation
FP&M Project
Cost Linked BMP Cost Total Project Cost FP&M Project Name FP&M Balance
Stream
Restoration SR Project Cost Linked BMP Cost Total Project Cost SR Project Name SR Balance
2012 $ 4,109,219.17 $ 821,843.83 $ 821,843.83 $ 2,465,531.50 $ 2,465,531.50 $ 821,843.83 $ 821,843.83
2013 $ 4,130,708.57 $ 826,141.71 $ 1,000,000.00 W. Vine Outfall $ 647,985.55 $ 2,478,425.14 $ 4,943,956.65 $ 826,141.71 $ 692,085.00 $ 375,000.00 $ 1,067,085.00 Spring, 5-1 $ 580,900.55
2014 $ 4,058,766.09 $ 811,753.22 $ 1,459,738.77 $ 2,435,259.65 $ 7,379,216.30 $ 811,753.22 $ 818,235.00 $ 818,235.00 Fossil, 2-1 $ 574,418.77
2015 $ 3,965,631.49 $ 793,126.30 $ 1,500,000.00 River District $ 752,865.06 $ 2,379,378.90 $ 9,758,595.19 $ 793,126.30 $ 1,367,545.06
2016 $ 3,884,107.77 $ 776,821.55 $ 1,529,686.62 $ 2,330,464.66 $ 12,089,059.85 $ 776,821.55 $ 956,130.00 $ 883,920.00 $ 1,840,050.00 McClellands, 7-1 $ 304,316.62
2017 $ 3,796,519.45 $ 759,303.89 $ 2,288,990.51 $ 2,277,911.67 $ 14,164,000.00 $ 40,900.00 $ 14,204,900.00 Magnolia, Phase 1 $ 162,071.52 $ 759,303.89 $ 352,350.00 $ 541,300.00 $ 893,650.00
Spring, 1-5 $ 169,970.51
2018 $ 4,612,930.51 $ 922,586.10 $ 3,211,576.61 $ 2,767,758.30 $ 2,929,829.83 $ 922,586.10 $ 489,375.00 $ 489,375.00 Fossil, 3-1 $ 603,181.61
2019 $ 4,521,788.49 $ 904,357.70 $ 4,115,934.31 $ 2,713,073.09 $ 5,642,902.92 $ 904,357.70 $ 1,137,090.00 $ 213,062.00 $ 1,350,152.00 Fossil, 7-1 $ 157,387.31
2020 $ 5,976,699.10 $ 1,195,339.82 $ 5,311,274.13 $ 3,586,019.46 $ 7,763,000.00 $ 564,200.00 $ 8,327,200.00 Magnolia, Phase 2 $ 901,722.38 $ 1,195,339.82 $ 514,605.00 $ 514,605.00 Boxelder,
3-3 $ 838,122.13
2021 $ 6,246,591.60 $ 1,249,318.32 $ 6,000,000.00 Harmony Rd $ 560,592.45 $ 3,747,954.96 $ 4,310,000.00 $ 4,310,000.00 Myrtle Storm Sewer $ 339,677.34 $ 1,249,318.32 $ 1,241,925.00 $
1,241,925.00 Boxelder, 3-1 $ 845,515.45
2022 $ 6,519,954.25 $ 1,303,990.85 $ 1,864,583.30 $ 3,911,972.55 $ 4,251,649.89 $ 1,303,990.85 $ 1,020,075.00 $ 940,800.00 $ 1,960,875.00 Mail, 2-1, 3-1 $ 188,631.30
2023 $ 6,407,662.78 $ 1,281,532.56 $ 3,146,115.85 $ 3,844,597.67 $ 8,096,247.55 $ 1,281,532.56 $ 724,275.00 $ 89,800.00 $ 814,075.00 Spring, 6-1, 6-2 $ 656,088.85
Scenario # 2: 20 - 80/20 Percentages
20% off the top 80% after Unranked 20% after Unranked
Year Total Funds Annual Funding
Unranked
Project Cost
Unranked
Project Name Balance
Flood Protection &
Mitigation
FP&M Project
Cost Linked BMP Cost Total Project Cost FP&M Project Name FP&M Balance
Stream
Restoration SR Project Cost Linked BMP Cost Total Project Cost SR Project Name SR Balance
2012 $ 4,109,219.17 $ 821,843.83 $ 821,843.83 $ 2,629,900.27 $ 2,629,900.27 $ 657,475.07 $ 657,475.07
2013 $ 4,130,708.57 $ 826,141.71 $ 1,000,000.00 W. Vine Outfall $ 647,985.55 $ 2,643,653.49 $ 5,273,553.76 $ 660,913.37 $ 692,085.00 $ 375,000.00 $ 1,067,085.00 Spring, 5-1 $ 251,303.44
2014 $ 4,058,766.09 $ 811,753.22 $ 1,459,738.77 $ 2,597,610.29 $ 7,871,164.05 $ 649,402.57 $ 818,235.00 $ 818,235.00 Fossil, 2-1 $ 82,471.01
2015 $ 3,965,631.49 $ 793,126.30 $ 1,500,000.00 River District $ 752,865.06 $ 2,538,004.16 $ 10,409,168.21 $ 634,501.04 $ 716,972.05
2016 $ 3,884,107.77 $ 776,821.55 $ 1,529,686.62 $ 2,485,828.97 $ 12,894,997.18 $ 621,457.24 $ 1,338,429.29
2017 $ 3,796,519.45 $ 759,303.89 $ 2,288,990.51 $ 2,429,772.45 $ 14,164,000.00 $ 40,900.00 $ 14,204,900.00 Magnolia, Phase 1 $ 1,119,869.62 $ 607,443.11 $ 956,130.00 $ 883,920.00 $ 1,840,050.00
McClellands, 7-1 $ 105,822.41
2018 $ 4,612,930.51 $ 922,586.10 $ 3,211,576.61 $ 2,952,275.52 $ 4,072,145.15 $ 738,068.88 $ 843,891.29
2019 $ 4,521,788.49 $ 904,357.70 $ 4,115,934.31 $ 2,893,944.63 $ 6,966,089.78 $ 723,486.16 $ 352,350.00 $ 541,300.00 $ 893,650.00 Spring, 1-5 $ 673,727.44
2020 $ 5,976,699.10 $ 1,195,339.82 $ 5,311,274.13 $ 3,825,087.43 $ 7,763,000.00 $ 564,200.00 $ 8,327,200.00 Magnolia, Phase 2 $ 2,463,977.20 $ 956,271.86 $ 489,375.00 $ 489,375.00 Fossil,
3-1 $ 1,140,624.30
2021 $ 6,246,591.60 $ 1,249,318.32 $ 6,000,000.00 Harmony Rd $ 560,592.45 $ 3,997,818.62 $ 4,310,000.00 $ 4,310,000.00 Myrtle Storm Sewer $ 2,151,795.83 $ 999,454.66 $ 1,137,090.00 $
213,062.00 $ 1,350,152.00 Fossil, 7-1 $ 789,926.96
2022 $ 6,519,954.25 $ 1,303,990.85 $ 1,864,583.30 $ 4,172,770.72 $ 6,324,566.54 $ 1,043,192.68 $ 514,605.00 $ 514,605.00 Boxelder 3-3 $ 1,318,514.64
2023 $ 6,407,662.78 $ 1,281,532.56 $ 3,146,115.85 $ 4,100,904.18 $ 11,500,000.00 $ 475,300.00 $ 11,975,300.00 Oak St Extension $ (1,549,829.28) $ 1,025,226.04 $ 1,241,925.00 $ 1,241,925.00
Attachment 3.1
Unranked Projects - Additional Needs
Flood Control
Water Quality
BMPs
APF &
Redevelopment
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PROJECTS
Harmony Road & I-25- road imps. PR $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000
Downtown River District PR $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
Boxelder Creek at Prospect Road and D/S diversion BX $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000
North College Drainage Improvement District DC $ 4,883,400 $ 4,883,400
Dry Creek Conveyance Channel DC $ 3,200,000 $ 431,000.00 $ 2,769,000
Northeast College Corridor Outfall DC $ 10,678,450 $ 4,762,960.00 $ 550,000.00 5,365,490.00
HP WQ Pond Retrofit FOX $ 87,600 $ 87,600
Woodland Park WQ Pond Retrofit FOX $ 142,400 $ 142,400
FCRID WQ Pond FOX $ 1,124,100 $ 1,124,100
Sunstone Village Regional WQ Pond Retrofit FOX $ 508,100 $ 508,100
Spaulding Lane WQ Pond Retrofit DC $ 34,000 $ 34,000
Terry Lake Road WQ Pond Retrofit DC $ 74,750 $ 74,750
Pheasant Ridge WQ Pond Retrofit DC $ 70,400 $ 70,400
Belmont Drive WQ Pond DC $ 294,400 $ 294,400
Ariel Hills WQ Pond DC $ 737,500 $ 737,500
Airpark Drive WQ Pond DC $ 883,500 $ 883,500
Link Lane WQ Pond DC $ 1,013,100 $ 1,013,100
Wallenberg Water Quality Pond CI $ 1,090,700 $ 1,090,700
Manchester Proprietary Mechanical BMP CI $ 169,500 $ 169,500
Village West WQ Pond Retrofit CI $ 68,400 $ 68,400
Category Totals $ 35,460,300 $ 4,762,960 $ 7,279,450 $ 23,417,890
Stormwater Major Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects -- Major Capital Projects Replacement Program
Cost Breakdown
Proposed Improvement Basin Total Project Cost
Attachment 3.2
Stream Restoration Project List - Unranked Draft
Stream Rehab and
Bank Stability
Water Quality
BMPs
STREAM REHAB AND BANK STABILITY PROJECTS
Spring Creek Rehabilitation Projects (17 Reaches) Spring Canyon Park WQ Pond Retrofit SC $ 11,080,800 $ 6,424,300 $ 186,600
Rossborough Park WQ Pond Retrofit $ 25,400
Taft Hill/Horsetooth Road WQ Pond $ 705,500
West Swallow Road WQ Pond $ 219,400
Kensington WQ Pond Retrofit $ 65,000
Rolland Moore Park WQ Pond $ 127,000
Centre Avenue WQ Pond $ 438,100
CSU Ropes Course WQ Pond $ 89,800
Drake Rd/Taft Hill Proprietary Mechanical BMP $ 192,400
Wagon Wheel WQ Pond Retrofit $ 392,800
CSU Vet Hospital WQ Pond Retrofit $ 233,400
Woodwest WQ Pond Retrofit $ 169,500
Prospect Road/BNRR Proprietary Mechanical BMP $ 185,600
Spring Creek Park WQ Pond $ 198,000
Edora Park WQ Pond $ 186,300
Spring Creek East Basin Proprietary Mechanical BMPs (7) $ 1,241,700
Fossil Creek Rehabilitation Projects (14 Reaches) Retrofit Brookwood/Applewood Estates Pond to Add WQ FC $ 15,689,300 $ 9,790,400 $ 213,100
Prairie Dog Meadows WQ Pond $ 531,400
Provincetowne Wetland WQ Pond Retrofit $ 379,800
Parallel Drainage System for PV&L, New Mercer, and Larimer #2 $ 4,774,600
Burns Tributary Rehabilitation Projects (1 Reach) Tafthill Road WQ Pond at Landfill FC $ 985,600 $ 775,300 $ 210,300
Stanton Creek Rehabilitation Projects (1 Reach) Regional WQ Pond at Lemay and Carpenter FC $ 3,102,400 $ 2,013,700 $ 1,088,700
Lang Gulch Rehabilitation Projects (1 Reach) FC $ 461,200 $ 461,200
McCLellands Creek Rehabilitation Projects (9 Reaches) Preston Jr. High WQ Pond Retrofit McC $ 5,919,400 $ 5,596,300 $ 143,700
Willow Springs WQ Pond Retrofit $ 39,400
Harmony Village WQ Pond Retrofit $ 72,200
Miramont WQ Pond Retrofit $ 67,800
Mail Creek Rehabilitation Projects (4 Reaches) Woodridge WQ Pond Retrofit MC $ 4,017,700 $ 3,076,900 $ 362,400
Troutman Park WQ Pond Retrofit $ 167,600
Fairway Estates WQ Pond Retrofit $ 137,800
Larkborough WQ Pond Retrofit $ 273,000
Clearview Channel Rehabilitation Projects (2 Reaches) Deerfield Ponds WQ Pond Retrofit CI $ 807,200 $ 781,800 $ 25,400
Boxelder Creek Rehabilitation Projects (14 Reaches) BE $ 4,026,000 $ 4,026,000
Foothills Channel Rehabilitation Projects (2 Reaches) Southmoor Village WQ Pond Retrofit FH $ 3,371,900 $ 1,304,900 $ 403,000
Parkwood East WQ Pond Retrofit $ 8,500
Fort Collins High School WQ Pond Retrofit $ 287,600
Collinsdale PUD WQ Pond Retrofit $ 151,200
Foothills Mall WQ Pond $ 1,216,700
Poudre River Erosion Sites (16 Sites) PR $ 3,971,200 $ 3,971,200
Category Totals $ 53,432,700 $ 38,222,000 $ 15,210,700
Stormwater Major Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects -- Major Capital Projects Replacement Program
Cost Breakdown
Proposed Improvement Linked BMP Project Basin Total Project Cost
Attachment 3.3
Flood Protection Mitigation Projects - Ranked
Flood
Control
Water
Quality
BMPs
Prioritized
Ranking
Average
Annual
Damages
Present
Worth
Benefits
Project
Cost
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
B to C
Score
Number of
Structures
Protected
Protected
Structures
Score
Collectors
1-2 Feet
Collectors
+2 Feet
Arterials
1-2 Feet
Arterials
+2 Feet
Road
Overtopping
Totals
Road
Overtopping
Score
Total
Score
Myrtle Street Storm Sewer OT $ 4,310,000 $ 4,310,000 3 $ 1,090,000 $ 11,318,674 $ 4,310,000 2.63 9.10 117 6.84 0 0 1 0 2 2.50 25.28
Oak Street Outfall Extension Howes Street WQ Pond Retrofit OT $ 11,975,300 $ 11,500,000 $ 475,300 4 $ 1,380,000 $ 17,525,688 $ 11,500,000 1.52 5.28 171 10.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 25.28
Magnolia Street Outfall - Phase 2 Locust Street Outfall Proprietary Mechanical BMP OT $ 8,327,200 $ 7,763,000 $ 564,200 5 $ 1,170,000 $ 13,692,000 $ 7,763,000 1.76 6.11 160 9.36 0 0
0 0 0 0.00 24.82
New Mercer Ditch CI $ 12,590,000 $ 12,590,000 8 $ 1,079,128 $ 18,819,992 $ 12,590,000 1.49 5.18 141 8.25 1 0 0 0 1 1.25 22.92
Magnolia Street Outfall - Phase 1 Udall Natural Area Expansion OT $ 14,204,900 $ 14,164,000 $ 40,900 9 $ 1,264,000 $ 16,778,000 $ 14,164,000 1.18 4.10 99 5.79 0 0 2 0 4 5.00 20.68
Plum Corridor CI $ 7,240,000 $ 7,240,000 10 $ 471,330 $ 8,219,995 $ 7,240,000 1.14 3.93 71 4.15 1 0 0 1 5 6.25 18.49
Mulberry Street / Riverside Avenue Storm Sewer Lemay Avenue WQ Pond OT $ 1,968,700 $ 1,510,000 $ 458,700 11 $ 520,000 $ 3,468,626 $ 1,510,000 2.30 7.96 44 2.57 0 0 1 0 2 2.50 15.60
Central Flow Path West Vine Regional WQ Pond WV $ 6,642,800 $ 5,766,200 $ 402,900 12 $ 359,733 $ 6,567,263 $ 5,202,600 1.26 4.37 23 1.35 0 0 2 0 4 5.00 12.06
Granada Heights Pond $ 473,700
South PV&L Corridor CI $ 4,290,000 $ 4,290,000 13 $ 334,862 $ 5,839,993 $ 4,290,000 1.29 4.48 47 2.75 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 9.98
North PV&L/PV&L Bank Imp/Langshire Drive CI $ 3,800,000 $ 3,800,000 14 $ 272,362 $ 4,749,993 $ 3,800,000 1.11 3.83 51 2.98 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 9.80
Southern Flow Path Hollywood-Irish WQ Pond Retrofit WV $ 4,673,700 $ 4,017,200 $ 361,900 15 $ 133,763 $ 1,693,568 $ 4,017,200 0.42 1.46 7 0.41 0 0 1 1 6 7.50 9.78
Westland Park WQ Pond $ 294,600
Laporte Avenue Storm Sewer OT $ 5,320,000 $ 5,320,000 16 $ 280,000 $ 5,111,659 $ 5,320,000 0.96 3.33 33 1.93 0 0 1 0 2 2.50 9.69
Whedbee Street Storm Sewer OT $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 17 $ 110,000 $ 2,008,150 $ 1,100,000 1.83 6.32 25 1.46 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 9.25
Fossil Ridge Drive FC $ 748,900 $ 748,900 18 $ 73,543 $ 1,342,588 $ 748,900 1.79 6.21 11 0.64 1 0 0 0 1 1.25 8.75
Attachment 3.3.1
FLOOD PROTECTION AND MITIGATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Magnolia Street Outfall, Phase 1
The project’s primary goal is to ultimately reduce flooding of public and private property in the
Old Town area along and adjacent to Magnolia Street and Mulberry Street from College Avenue
upstream (west) to Shields Street. Work completed in conjunction with Phase 1 includes the
design and construction of the outfall system (large diameter storm sewer pipe and/or
underground box culverts) from the Poudre River upstream (west) to approximately the
intersection of Magnolia Street and Remington Street. The system will intercept and connect to
the existing storm sewer in Whedbee Street along with other small local storm sewers. The
system will provide flooding relief for approximately 99 structures. Construction of Phase 1
provides the outfall infrastructure needed for Phase 2 of the project. The approximate total
project cost is $14.2 Million.
Magnolia Street Outfall, Phase 2
The project’s primary goal is to reduce flooding of public and private property in the Old Town
area along and adjacent to Magnolia Street and Mulberry Street from College Avenue upstream
(west) to Shields Street. Work completed in conjunction with Phase 2 includes the design and
construction of the Magnolia storm outfall from Remington Street upstream (west) to Shields
Street as well as connecting storm drainage systems for the Sherwood Lateral, Whitcomb
Lateral, Grant Lateral, Washington Lateral and storm drainage inlets on Shields Street. The
project will provide flooding relief for approximately 160 structures. The approximate total project
cost is $8.33 Million.
Myrtle Street Storm Sewer
The project’s primary goal is to reduce flooding of public and private property in the Old Town
area along and adjacent to Myrtle Street from Remington Street upstream (west) to Sherwood
Street. The reduction in storm runoff ales reduces surface diversion flows to Mulberry Street
along Peterson Street. Work completed includes the design and construction of an enlarged
storm sewer along Myrtle, connection into the Magnolia Street Outfall, intercepting two small
storm sewer systems at Remington Street and Howes Street, and interception of a large
existing storm system at North College Avenue. The project will provide flooding relief for
approximately 117 structures. The approximate total project cost is $4.33 Million.
Oak Street Outfall Extension
The project’s primary goal is to reduce flooding of public and private property in the Old Town
area along and adjacent to Oak Street and Mountain Avenue from Whitcomb Street upstream
(west) to Shields Street. The project would also reduce flooding along LaPorte Avenue near
Shields Street and would reduce diverted storm flows south of Mountain Avenue onto
Washington Street, Grant Avenue, Loomis Avenue and Whitcomb Street. Work completed
includes the design and construction of a storm drainage system along Oak Street from Mason
Street west to Wood Street, then along Wood Street and Mountain Avenue upstream to LaPorte
Avenue (north) and Jackson Avenue (west). The system will intercept and connect to several
small existing storm sewers along the alignment. The project will provide flooding relief for
approximately 171 structures. The approximate total project cost is $11.5 Million.
Attachment 3.3.1
FLOOD PROTECTION AND MITIGATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Mulberry Street/Riverside Avenue Storm Sewer
The project’s primary goal is to reduce flooding of public and private property along and
adjacent to Riverside Avenue, Cowan Street and Endicott Street to the south of Mulberry Street
and Myrtle Street near Riverside Avenue. Work completed includes the design and construction
of a storm sewer system along Riverside Avenue from Myrtle Street to Mulberry Street,
enlargement of the existing storm sewer on Mulberry Street from Riverside Avenue to Cowan
Street, and connecting to the existing storm sewer outfall from Myrtle Street to the Poudre River.
The project will provide flooding relief for approximately 44 structures. The approximate total
project cost is $1.97 Million.
Plum Corridor
The primary goal of this project is to provide 100-year storm runoff protection along the Plum
Street Channel Corridor, eliminate storm flows to the New Mercer Ditch in this area, and reduce
storm runoff into the Larimer County Canal No. 2, thereby reducing storm flows along Elizabeth
Street and in the Constitution/Bryan Avenue neighborhood. Many associated projects outlined in
the Canal Importation Basin have previously been completed. Work completed includes the
design and construction of a radial gate and controlled spill on the PV&L canal, modifications
and construction of the Scenic Views Pond and West Orchard Detention pond, an enlarged
storm sewer along Plum Street, storm channel and culvert improvements from Taft Hill Road to
the Plum Street Regional Detention Pond, along with pond improvements. The project will
provide flooding relief for approximately 71 structures. The approximate total project cost is
$7.24 Million.
1
1
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
City Council
April 24, 2012
Jon Haukaas, P.E.
Water Engineering Field
Operations Manager
Mark Kempton, P.E., CFM
Stormwater Master
Planning Manager
Ken Sampley, P.E.
Stormwater and Floodplain
Program Manager
Shane Boyle, P.E., CFM
Civil Engineer II
h
h
2
STORMWATER REPURPOSING
City Council requested a review
of the Stormwater Program in
October 2008. Council directed
that additional emphasis be
placed on improving stormwater
quality and protecting the City’s
urban watersheds while
preserving natural and beneficial
functions of floodplains.
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
ATTACHMENT 4
2
3
1. Does the City Council have questions
regarding the prioritization models?
2. Does the City Council have a preference on the
funding scenario to be used for our
recommendations of projects?
3. Do the processes presented meet the
expectations of the City Council for improving
the environmental focus of the Stormwater
Program as directed from the Repurposing
effort?
General Direction / Specific Questions
4
WORK SESSION FOCUS
1. Results and Information from:
A. Urban Stream Health Assessment
B. Basin-Specific BMPs Selected Plans
C. Stream Restoration and Stability Study
2. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool
for Stream Restoration project prioritization
3. Funding Methodology for SW Projects
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
3
5
URBAN STREAM HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Completed by CSU (July 2010) in cooperation with the Fort
Collins Stormwater Division.
GOAL -- Determine specific stream characteristics
that have the greatest impact on stream health.
APPROACH – Evaluate the relationships between
stream physical, hydrologic and biological
characteristics. Evaluate the overall health of
selected stream segments using EPA accepted
methods (determination of biological indices).
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
6
URBAN STREAM HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Results and Recommendations:
– Focus in-stream rehabilitation on only those areas
with significant upstream BMP coverage
– A minimum of 40% of a watershed should be
undeveloped or have BMP facility coverage
– Need more than one metric (i.e. a matrix)
– Irrigation flows pose significant challenges to stream
health due to high shear stress, sediment loads and
variable flow regimes
– Preliminary prioritization of selected watershed /
stream improvements
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
4
7
Stormwater
Master Plan
Individual
Basins
8
BASIN-SPECIFIC BMP SELECTED PLANS
Work completed / to be completed as part of the
update includes:
– Hydrologic model updates (COMPLETE)
– Hydrologic sensitivity analyses (COMPLETE)
– Conceptual BMP / WQ phase (COMPLETE)
– Triple Bottom Line Analysis (COMPLETE)
– Alternatives Analysis phase (COMPLETE)
– Selected Plan (IN PROGRESS)
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
5
9
Fossil Creek -TBL Evaluation of BMPs
10
Fossil Creek -TBL Rankings of BMPs
Large number of economic and social limitations compared
to the number of strengths found in all categories.
Economic limitations may limit implementation.
Bioswales 4
Fewer strengths and more limitations in Environmental and
Economic with most of strengths in Social. Economic
imitations may limit implementation.
Preservation Areas 3
Significant limitations in Economic with few strengths.
Largest number of environmental strengths with almost no
limitations. About the same number of strengths and
limitations in Social. Economic limitations may limit
implementation.
Irrigation 2
Diversions
Largest number of strengths in all categories with few
Water Quality Pond 1 limitations.
BMP Ranking Notes
6
11
Fossil Creek –– BMP Selection
Attachment 2.2
12
STREAM RESTORATION / STABILITY STUDY
Conducted by CSU in 2011 on behalf of the Fort
Collins Stormwater Division.
GOAL - Prioritize future stream management
and rehabilitation work on streams
within the City of Fort Collins in
coordination with the Basin-Specific
BMP Selected Plans
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
7
13
STREAM RESTORATION / STABILITY STUDY
OBJECTIVES -- The objectives of the work were to:
– Perform a geomorphic assessment on a
segment-by-segment basis.
– Use the data to identify geomorphic
thresholds and assess candidate restoration
sites.
– Identify and prioritize projects through the
Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA)
matrix.
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
14
STREAM RESTORATION / STABILITY STUDY
Work completed / to be completed as part of the
update includes:
- Geomorphic Assessment (COMPLETE)
- Identify geomorphic thresholds (COMPLETE)
- Multi-Criterion Decision Tool (IN PROGRESS)
- Stream Restoration Prioritization (PENDING)
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
8
2 Irrigation Management
3 Threats to Safety/Infrastructure
4 Vertical
4 Lateral
5 Physical Stream Characteristics ‐ Erosion
2 Education/Outreach Opportunities
3 Neighborhood Character/Acceptance
4 Public Safety Improvements
2 Aesthetic Improvement Potential
5 Social
4 Practicality/Constructability
4 Maintenance Costs/Access
3 Construction Costs
4 Land Acquisition
2 Engineering Analysis/Design
5 Economic
5 Watershed‐Scale Benefit
5 Habitat Connectivity Benefit
4 Fish Passage Benefit
4 Habitat Improvement Potential
5 Environmental
1 = Low
5 = High Sub‐Criteria
Weight MCDA Tool – Criteria
MCDA
Tool
Criteria
and
Sub-Sub -
Criteria
16
Sample
MCDA Tool
-----
Spring
Creek and
Clearview
Channel
Attachment 2.4
9
17
MCDA –– Environmental Criteria
• Habitat Improvement Potential - What is the
potential to restore the stream to match a local,
high quality habitat stream? High = 5, Low = 1
• Fish Passage Benefit - Can the stream reach be
improved to allow for greater fish movement?
Yes = 5, No = 1
• Habitat Connectivity Benefit - Can an
impediment to general passage between
reaches be removed as part of the project
reach? Yes = 5, No = 1
• Watershed-Scale Benefit - Does the project have
a high or low potential to reconnect large, high
quality stream reaches? High = 5, Low = 1
18
MCDA –– Economic Criteria
• Engineering Analysis/Design - Does the project
involve extensive analysis and design
Yes = 1, No = 5
• Land Acquisition - Does land have to be
purchased or is the project on City property?
Purchase = 1, City Owned= 5
• Construction Costs High = 1 Low = 5
• Maintenance Costs/Access High = 1 Low = 5
• Practicality/Constructability Is it practical to
build the project given the surrounding
environment? Yes = 5, No = 1
10
19
MCDA –– Social Criteria
• Aesthetic Improvement - Will the restoration project
improve the visual impact of the stream to the
untrained eye? Yes = 5, No = 1
• Public Safety Improvements - Will the project
provide a safe environment for the public?
Yes = 5, No = 1
• Neighborhood Character/Acceptance - Will the
project integrate well with the local neighborhoods
/surrounding areas? Yes = 5, No = 1
• Education/Outreach Opportunities - Are there
opportunities for education and/or signage within
the restored reach? Yes = 5, No = 1
20
MCDA –– Erosion
• Lateral erosion susceptibility - Not prone to
erosion = 5, Prone to erosion = 1
• Vertical erosion susceptibility - Not prone to
erosion = 5, Prone to erosion = 1
• Threats to Safety/Infrastructure - Does the project
mitigate damage to existing infrastructure or have
no adverse impacts on future infrastructure? -
Yes = 5, No = 1
• Irrigation Management - Can the irrigation flows
in the stream be better managed, mitigated, or
removed? - Yes = 5, No = 1
11
21
Sample MCDA Tool -- Spring Creek and
Clearview Channel
Scores
completed
in CSU
Study
Remaining
scores
completed
by MCDA
Group
22
MCDA Tool -- Collaborative Effort
The sub-criteria, weights, and scores within the
tool will be developed in collaboration with staff
from:
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
• Stormwater (Public Outreach,
Regulatory Affairs,
Engineering)
• Natural Resources
• Parks/Parks Planning
• Sustainability
• Planning
• CSU Faculty Members
• Water Board
Members
• Natural Resources
Advisory Board
• Wildland Volunteers
• Save the Poudre
12
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
Step 1 – Enter data into MCDA tool for each
stream reach
Step 2 – Determine scores for each reach
Step 3 – Prioritize reaches based on score
Step 4 – Match tributary BMP’s to prioritized
reaches
Selected BMP
Prioritized Stream Reach
24
Stormwater Capital Project
Funding Methodology
Provide Utility Staff with a process on which
to base recommendations to City Council for
funding the design and construction of
Stormwater Capital Projects.
13
25
Goals
• Objective and easy to understand
• Recognition of competing values
Life Safety, Property protection
Beneficial functions of streams, Nature corridors
Cost effectiveness and accountability
• Improve Environmental Ethos of the City
• Continue to address Flood Protection Needs
26
Projects Funding Needs
• City Redevelopment projects
• Cooperative IGAs such as with Larimer Co or
CDOT
• Meet Regulatory Requirements
• Flood Protection and Mitigation Projects
• Stream Health and Restoration Projects
• Water Quality BMP Installations and Retrofits
14
27
Scope of the Problem
Current Revenues Available for Capital Projects are approximately
$4M annually
• $145.1M in Flood Protection & Mitigation Projects
including associated Water Quality BMPs
• $53.4M in Stream Restoration Projects
including associated Water Quality BMPs
• $35.5M in Unranked Projects
City Redevelopment Projects, Adequate Public Facilities,
Cooperative IGA Projects, other Community priorities
$234M+ in “needs” makes this a 50-60 year plan
28
Where should the money go?
How do we prioritize needs?
Difficult to Impossible to “Rate” or “ Rank”
Life-Safety and Property Protection
vs.
Water Quality and Stream Health
Imposes too many personal values
No good source for economic value measurement
15
29
Separate Prioritization
Dedicated Funding
Create a scheme of three “sub-funds”
1. Unranked Project Needs
2. Flood Protection & Mitigation
+ Water Quality BMPs
3. Stream Restoration
+ Water Quality BMPs
30
Flood Protection and Mitigation
Projects Prioritization
Flood Protection and Mitigation Projects have a long
standing approved prioritization criteria based on
three primary factors:
• Number of Structures Removed from the floodplain (SR)
• Benefit to Cost Ratio (BC)
• Number of Street Overtoppings eliminated (SO)
The resulting Ranking Formula was:
BC + 2*(SR) + SO = Ranking Score
16
31
32
17
33
Overtopping
Points:
Arterial > 2ft = 4 1-2ft = 2
Collector >2ft = 3 1-2ft = 1
34
Flood Protection and Mitigation Projects
Prioritization
• This model has clear basis and remains valuable
for the ranking of Flood Protection & Mitigation
projects.
• Full list shown in Attachment 3.3.
• Recommend this model is retained but used for
this classification of projects only.
18
35
Stream Restoration Project
Prioritization
Stream Restoration Projects to be prioritized
using:
- CSU Stream Health Assessment
- Water Quality Coverage Mapping
=> Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Tool
36
Funding Scenarios
Unranked Projects including City Redevelopment Projects,
Adequate Public Facilities, Cooperative IGA Projects, etc.
19
37
Funding Scenarios
Stream Restoration Projects
with Water Quality BMPs Added
38
Funding Scenarios
Flood Protection and Mitigation Projects
withAdded with Water Quality BMPs Added
20
39
Other Considerations
Costs are conceptual estimates and will change
(probably significantly) at time of
design/construction
• Which projects have a reliance on other projects
– Must project “D” be built before project “B”?
• Must be Dynamic and constantly changing.
– New projects will change funding available and
timing of when things can be built
– Not effective for long range planning
(10-20 years out)
40
Other Options
Options to accelerate the process include:
• Change “pay-as-you-go” philosophy and Bond for
additional projects determined to be critical to the
immediate future of the City.
• Increase Stormwater Fees to fund more projects.
21
41
Final Thoughts
• All the percentages described can be
changed.
• Staff has presented a system that provides
a balanced approach to funding the
various needs.
• Simply trying to create some structure and
transparency for the public to the process.
42
1. Does the City Council have questions
regarding the prioritization models?
2. Does the City Council have a preference on the
funding scenario to be used for our
recommendations of projects?
3. Do the processes presented meet the
expectations of the City Council for improving
the environmental focus of the Stormwater
Program as directed from the Repurposing
effort?
General Direction / Specific Questions
22
43
Stormwater Master Plan Revisions
QUESTIONS / FEEDBACK
44
23
45
Stream Improvement Responsibilities
• Natural Areas will focus on the Poudre River
– Recognizes John Stokes new role
– Watershed too large to construct flood control projects
• Stormwater will focus on the local watershed streams
– Improve water quality before it reaches the receiving waters of
the Cache la Poudre
– Within our “sphere of control”
– Most effective use of our talents and funds
• Many cross functional projects – Udall, Arapahoe Bends
Lemay Avenue at Stanton Creek FC $ 531,700 $ 531,700 20 $ - $ - $ 531,700 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 1 4 5.00 5.00
English Ranch Ponds #2 through #5 & Fox Meadows Pond Fox Meadows WQ Pond Retrofit FOX $ 526,500 $ 501,100 $ 25,400 21 $ 4,289 $ 65,752 $ 501,100 0.13 0.45 0 0.00 1 0 1 0 3 3.75 4.20
Hilldale Drive at Burns Tributary FC $ 131,300 $ 131,300 23 $ 3,806 $ 69,487 $ 131,300 0.53 1.83 1 0.06 1 0 0 0 1 1.25 3.20
Cherry Street Storm Sewer OT $ 4,720,000 $ 4,720,000 24 $ 100,000 $ 1,825,593 $ 4,720,000 0.39 1.34 13 0.76 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2.86
No. College Ave. Property- buyout PR $ 2,316,700 $ 2,316,700 25 $ 30,869 $ 459,250 $ 2,316,700 0.20 0.69 17 0.99 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2.67
Dixon Creek Pond SC $ 712,000 $ 712,000 26 $ - $ - $ 712,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 0 2 2.50 2.50
Taft Hill Road at Lang Gulch FC $ 464,300 $ 464,300 27 $ - $ - $ 464,300 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 0 2 2.50 2.50
Shield Street at Lang Gulch FC $ 2,262,700 $ 2,262,700 28 $ - $ - $ 2,262,700 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 0 2 2.50 2.50
Trilby Road at Lang Gulch FC $ 253,300 $ 253,300 29 $ - $ - $ 253,300 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 0 2 2.50 2.50
Total Foothills Basin FH $ 2,195,900 $ 2,195,900 33 $ 49,936 $ 911,624 $ 2,195,900 0.42 1.44 6 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2.14
Ziegler Pond FOX $ 673,200 $ 673,200 34 $ 11,772 $ 214,903 $ 673,200 0.32 1.11 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.11
Larimer/Weld Diversion Structure- levee PR $ 52,000 $ 52,000 35 $ 700 $ 10,414 $ 52,000 0.20 0.69 1 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.81
NW of Taft Hill and Laporte intersection WV $ 96,000.00 $ 96,000.00 36 $ - $ - $ 96,000 0.00 0.00 2 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.23
Lemay Ave. DC $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Dry Creek Mobile Home Park pond DC $ 10,900 $ 10,900 $ - $ - $ 10,900 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Golden Meadows Pond Golden Meadows WQ Pond Retrofit FOX $ 499,500 $ 14,100 $ 485,400 $ - $ - $ 14,100 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
C&S Railroad No. 1 at Lang Gulch FC $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ 15,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Sunstone Village Pond #4 FOX $ 49,200 $ 49,200 $ - $ - $ 49,200 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Sunstone Village Pond #5 FOX $ 63,700 $ 63,700 $ - $ - $ 63,700 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Timber / Stetson Creek Detention Pond McC $ 96,600 $ 96,600 $ - $ - $ 96,600 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Increased Conveyance East of Shields FC $ 255,400 $ 255,400 $ - $ - $ 255,400 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Taft Hill Road at Burns Tributary FC $ 329,300 $ 329,300 $ - $ - $ 329,300 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Trilby Road on South Bank Tributary of Smith Creek FC $ 356,500 $ 356,500 $ - $ - $ 356,500 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
CR 32 at Stanton Creek FC $ 375,700 $ 375,700 $ - $ - $ 375,700 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
C&S Railroad No. 4 at Lang Gulch FC $ 402,200 $ 402,200 $ - $ - $ 402,200 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Riverside / Pitkin Storm Sewer SC $ 407,000 $ 407,000 $ - $ - $ 407,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Remington / Lake Storm Sewer SC $ 515,000 $ 515,000 $ - $ - $ 515,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
C&S Railroad No. 3 at Lang Gulch FC $ 664,100 $ 664,100 $ - $ - $ 664,100 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Lake / Center Storm Sewer SC $ 678,000 $ 678,000 $ - $ - $ 678,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
C&S Railroad No. 2 at Lang Gulch FC $ 811,400 $ 811,400 $ - $ - $ 811,400 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Prospect / College Storm Sewer SC $ 1,294,000 $ 1,294,000 $ - $ - $ 1,294,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Strachan / Edinburgh Storm Sewer SC $ 1,376,000 $ 1,376,000 $ - $ - $ 1,376,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Oakridge Regional Detention Pond Spillway Oakridge WQ Pond Retrofit McC $ 2,602,600 $ 1,758,100 $ 844,500 $ - $ - $ 1,758,100 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Swift Pond Embankment McC $ 2,366,700 $ 2,366,700 $ - $ - $ 2,366,700 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Poudre School District Facilities Site - RCBC to LaPorte Ave WV $ 2,900,000 $ 2,900,000 $ - $ - $ 2,900,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Wheaton Drive South of Oakridge Drive McC $ 18,500.00 $ 18,500.00 $ - $ - $ 18,500 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Channel From LCC#2 to Regional Pond WV $ 20,700.00 $ 20,700.00 $ - $ - $ 20,700 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Taft Hill Road on South Bank Tributary of Smith Creek FC $ 37,800.00 $ 37,800.00 $ - $ - $ 37,800 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Lance Drive and Vine Drive intersection WV $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ - $ - $ 40,000 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
SW Puebla Vista Outfall Conveyance DC $ - $ -
Langshire Willow Lane Channel Crossing CI $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Hillcrest at Clearview Channel CI $ - $ -
Willow St. Outfall OT $ 760,000 $ 760,000
Lincoln Ave and Airpark Rd DC $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
Constitution Ave/Bryan Ave. Storm Sewers CI $ 480,000 $ 480,000
Windsor Ct.-Scarborough Ct. Storm Sewers CI $ 720,000 $ 720,000
PV&L E. Bank Improvements CI $ 330,000 $ 330,000
Blue Mesa Pond FH $ 658,000 $ 658,000
Warren Farm Pond FH $ 741,000 $ 741,000
Mulberry-Louise to Tafthill Rd. Crossing CI $ - $ -
Old Town Basin-Shields to Riverside to Laurel Storm Water Replacement OT $ 1,510,000 $ 1,510,000
Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility- floodproofing PR $ 8,400 $ 8,400
Ft. Collins Airpark- Lemay Ave. -levee4 PR $ 402,000 $ 402,000
Lincoln Channel (reaches 2,3) DC $ 3,212,900 $ 3,212,900
Cooper Slough at SH 14 CS $ 15,254,000 $ 15,254,000
Western Mobile- levees PR $ 255,000 $ 255,000
E. Mulberry Street- floodproofing PR $ 792,000 $ 792,000
Imperial Estates MC $ - $ -
Category Totals $ 145,146,200 $ 140,718,700 $ 4,427,500
Road Overtopping
Stormwater Major Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects -- Major Capital Projects Replacement Program
Cost Breakdown
Basin
Total Project
Cost
Proposed Improvement Linked BMP Project
Boxelder 3-1 $ 1,101,815.68
Scenario # 3: 20 - 85/15 Percentages
20% off the top 85% after Unranked 15% after Unranked
Year Total Funds Annual Funding
Unranked
Project Cost
Unranked
Project Name Balance
Flood Protection &
Mitigation
FP&M Project
Cost Linked BMP Cost Total Project Cost FP&M Project Name FP&M Balance
Stream
Restoration SR Project Cost Linked BMP Cost Total Project Cost SR Project Name SR Balance
2012 $ 4,109,219.17 $ 821,843.83 $ 821,843.83 $ 2,794,269.04 $ 2,794,269.04 $ 493,106.30 $ 493,106.30
2013 $ 4,130,708.57 $ 826,141.71 $ 1,000,000.00 W. Vine Outfall $ 647,985.55 $ 2,808,881.83 $ 5,603,150.87 $ 495,685.03 $ 988,791.33
2014 $ 4,058,766.09 $ 811,753.22 $ 1,459,738.77 $ 2,759,960.94 $ 8,363,111.80 $ 487,051.93 $ 692,085.00 $ 375,000.00 $ 1,067,085.00 Spring, 5-1 $ 408,758.26
2015 $ 3,965,631.49 $ 793,126.30 $ 1,500,000.00 River District $ 752,865.06 $ 2,696,629.41 $ 11,059,741.22 $ 475,875.78 $ 818,235.00 $ 818,235.00 Fossil, 2-1 $ 66,399.04
2016 $ 3,884,107.77 $ 776,821.55 $ 1,529,686.62 $ 2,641,193.28 $ 13,700,934.50 $ 466,092.93 $ 532,491.97
2017 $ 3,796,519.45 $ 759,303.89 $ 2,288,990.51 $ 2,581,633.22 $ 14,164,000.00 $ 40,900.00 $ 14,204,900.00 Magnolia, Phase 1 $ 2,077,667.72 $ 455,582.33 $ 988,074.30
2018 $ 4,612,930.51 $ 922,586.10 $ 3,211,576.61 $ 3,136,792.74 $ 5,214,460.47 $ 553,551.66 $ 1,541,625.97
2019 $ 4,521,788.49 $ 904,357.70 $ 4,115,934.31 $ 3,074,816.17 $ 8,289,276.64 $ 542,614.62 $ 956,130.00 $ 883,920.00 $ 1,840,050.00 McClellands, 7-1 $ 244,190.58
2020 $ 5,976,699.10 $ 1,195,339.82 $ 5,311,274.13 $ 4,064,155.39 $ 7,763,000.00 $ 564,200.00 $ 8,327,200.00 Magnolia, Phase 2 $ 4,026,232.03 $ 717,203.89 $ 352,350.00 $ 541,300.00 $
893,650.00 Spring, 1-5 $ 67,744.48
2021 $ 6,246,591.60 $ 1,249,318.32 $ 6,000,000.00 Harmony Rd $ 560,592.45 $ 4,247,682.28 $ 4,310,000.00 $ 4,310,000.00 Myrtle Storm Sewer $ 3,963,914.31 $ 749,590.99 $ 489,375.00 $ 489,375.00
Fossil, 3-1 $ 327,960.47
2022 $ 6,519,954.25 $ 1,303,990.85 $ 1,864,583.30 $ 4,433,568.89 $ 8,397,483.20 $ 782,394.51 $ 1,110,354.98
2023 $ 6,407,662.78 $ 1,281,532.56 $ 3,146,115.85 $ 4,357,210.69 $ 11,500,000.00 $ 475,300.00 $ 11,975,300.00 Oak St Extension $ 779,393.89 $ 768,919.53 $ 1,137,090.00 $ 213,062.00 $
1,350,152.00 Fossil, 7-1 $ 529,122.51
Engineering Analysis/Design
Land Acquisition
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Criteria
Habitat Improvement Potential
Habitat Connectivity Benefit
Environmental
Draft
S COLLEGE AVE
E TRILBY RD
W TRILBY RD
0 Ü 0.25 0.5 Miles
Figure Reach and X.X: Cross Fossil Section Creek, Mail Location Creek, Map and Lang Gulch
Data Source: City of Fort Collins GIS
Legend
Fossil Creek
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
Reach 9
Burns Tributary
Reach 1
Lang Gulch
Reach 1
Mail Creek
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
E Cross Section Location
Lakes
City Limits
Streams/Canals
Streams/Canals
Streams/Canals
Lakes