HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/04/2018 - PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO.Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 4, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Heather McDowell, Senior Development Review Engineer
Theresa Connor, Water Engineering Field Operations Mrg
Carol Webb, Deputy Directory, Utilities
Ken Sampley, Water Systems Engineering Manager
Matt Zoccali, Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2018, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins to Adopt a New Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and Making Various Related Changes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for City Council to adopt the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
(Manual) into City Code, and to make related changes to City Code updating references to the Manual. The
Manual sets forth design guidelines and technical criteria that are utilized in the analysis and design of
stormwater drainage systems. The Manual serves as the governing criteria for all stormwater improvements,
public or private, that are designed and installed within Fort Collins and its Growth Management Area (GMA).
In short, the Manual is the primary reference document for engineering consultants when preparing stormwater
system designs, and for Fort Collins Utilities staff to confirm stormwater system designs are in compliance with
regulations and associated requirements.
The Manual is being updated to replace, in its entirety, the previously adopted “Fort Collins Amendments to the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual” dated December 2011. The objective is to create a
single, stand-alone document that incorporates all key design guidance and more effectively communicates
the criteria for Fort Collins and its Growth Management Area (GMA). The Manual is consistent with the recent
City-wide development review process updates and will be more user-friendly and easier for users to navigate,
interpret and apply. While the criteria presented in the updated Manual are consistent with the currently
adopted Manual, there are some proposed technical updates and policy changes included.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
History and Origins of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
The first stormwater reference manual for the City of Fort Collins was developed in the early 1980s, with formal
adoption in May 1984. Subsequent updates to the original manual were adopted in March 1991 and in January
1997. The updates incorporated portions of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Manual,
and more specifically, the Volume 3 (Water Quality) requirements. The UDFCD was established by the
Colorado legislature in 1969 for the purpose of assisting local governments in the Denver metropolitan area
with multi-jurisdictional drainage and flood control problems. UDFCD promulgates criteria and publishes their
own criteria manual, for adoption by communities within the region. The UDFCD Criteria Manual is a “best
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 2
practices” document that is widely recognized both regionally and throughout the United States for its
excellence.
In July 1997, Fort Collins experienced the Spring Creek flood. Following this devastating event, the City
completed a study to re-evaluate the amount of rainfall associated with the 100-year frequency storm. In
March 1999, City Council adopted the new rainfall standards to be used in the design of stormwater facilities.
The prior criteria of 2.89 inches for the 100-year, two-hour storm was revised to 3.67 inches.
UDFCD Influences on the Manual
With the basis of the Fort Collins storm drainage criteria becoming more and more influenced and based on
UDFCD standards, it was determined in late 2008 that the Manual should be updated once again, but this
time, the UDFCD Manual was adopted in its entirety, along with amendments and exceptions that were
specific to Fort Collins.
The resulting Manual, which was adopted by Council in December 2011, is referred to as the Fort Collins
Amendments to the UDFCD Manual. The “amendments” format resulted in a document that included text
where Fort Collins regulations amended or differed from those of the 2001 version of the UDFCD manual. The
end-users of this document were required to refer to both the “amendments” manual and the 2001 UDFCD
manual simultaneously for a complete understanding of the criteria. Staff has received feedback from the
development community and consulting engineers that the format of the “amendments” manual is difficult and
cumbersome to follow and can create confusion in the application of criteria. In addition, the UDFCD updated
and completely reformatted its manual in 2016 rendering the “amendments” references outdated.
Proposed “Stand-Alone” Format of the Updated Manual
The updated Manual replaces in its entirety the previously adopted “Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual” dated December 2011. The updated manual also
changes from a format of making “amendments” to the UDFCD Manual to a stand-alone document that
incorporates all key design guidance and more effectively communicates the criteria for Fort Collins and its
GMA. The document will be more user friendly and easier for users to navigate, interpret and apply. While the
criteria presented in the updated Manual are consistent with the currently adopted Manual, there are some
proposed technical updates and policy changes included.
Updated Manual Chapter Highlights
Information incorporated into the various chapters includes, but is not limited to, the following main topics:
• Chapter 1: Drainage Principles and Policies.
This Chapter includes an overview of the City of Fort Collins guiding principles on the control and
treatment of stormwater; including discussion on how the principles are made operational through a set of
policies.
• Chapter 2: Development Submittal Requirements.
This Chapter outlines all submittal requirements for drainage and erosion control for each step of the
development review process. In addition, this Chapter outlines a variance request process for designs that
do not conform to the criteria. This Chapter is an enhancement to the previous manual because it provides
more specific step-by-step details and checklists for each step of entitlement and is consistent with the
recent Citywide development review process updates.
• Chapter 3: During and Post-Construction Requirements.
This Chapter outlines standard procedures during the construction phase for: erosion control measure
installations, inspections and ongoing maintenance, and drainage certification requirements at or near the
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 3
end of construction that enables the development team to receive building permits and/or certificates of
occupancy (CO).
• Chapter 4: Construction Control Measures.
This Chapter provides information on the City’s erosion and sediment control program criteria.
• Chapter 5: Hydrology Standards.
This Chapter provides rainfall data, design storm standards and methodologies in which to compute
stormwater runoff; including further defined technical requirements on hydrology calculations and hydraulic
analyses.
• Chapter 6: Detention.
This Chapter provides the design requirements for traditional detention basin design as well as alternative
detention facilities such as underground detention options.
• Chapter 7: Water Quality.
This Chapter includes design guidance in selecting, maintaining and implementing permanent best
management practices (BMPs) for development sites that minimize water quality impacts from stormwater
runoff. This Chapter further defines the similarities and differences between standard BMPs and Low
Impact Development (LID) water quality control practices. LID practices include more filtration of storm
runoff to achieve higher reduction of pollutants. This Chapter discusses the LID ordinance requirements
and provides design guidance for LID systems.
• Chapter 8: Grading.
This Chapter provides requirements and guidance on site grading parameters to be incorporated into
overall site design and for more specific locations such as single-family lots and detention basins. In
addition, this Chapter provides more specific guidance on drainage easement requirements.
• Chapter 9: Streets, Inlets and Conveyance.
This Chapter provides design guidance for stormwater collection and conveyance systems, utilizing
streets, inlets, storm drains and other types of conveyances such as open channels.
• Appendix A: Development Review Checklists.
To be utilized by design engineers that are preparing drainage reports and construction plans for
development projects.
• Appendix B: Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, 2009.
This document provides guidance for creating detention basin areas that look and feel like natural areas
that may support habitat, serve as buffer zones and that can be multi-purpose spaces.
• Appendix C: LID Implementation Manual.
The LID Manual illustrates various LID concepts suitable for different land use types and drainage
conditions and provides general guidance for the successful implementation of LID in order to comply with,
or exceed, current City LID criteria. The LID Manual is a significant addition to the updated Manual.
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 4
• Appendices D, E, F: Construction Control Measures Guidance, Fact Sheets and Standard Notes.
These appendices focus on the practical application of the erosion control requirements by providing
document preparation guidance and field implementation examples.
The updated Manual continues to utilize much of the information included in the UDFCD Manuals, old and
new, and acknowledges UDFCD for its role in advancing the practice of science, engineering and
management of watersheds and streams through research, innovation and education. However, there are
some criteria in the UDFCD Manual that are not applicable in Fort Collins and its GMA and do not meet the
requirements set forth in the updated Manual. In addition, there are certain requirements that Fort Collins
continues to regulate that are set forth in the updated Manual but are no longer fully addressed in the current
UDFCD Manual.
LID Technologies and Techniques in the Updated Manual
Low Impact Development (LID) refers to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes to
infiltrate, evaporate, reduce stormwater runoff and reduce potential release of pollutants in order to protect
water quality.
With the adoption of the City of Fort Collins’ LID ordinance in February 2013 (Ordinance No. 152,2012), it
became increasingly necessary to establish design parameters and construction details for the various LID
systems so that the end product is a functional system that meets the intent of the ordinance. In late 2015, a
“LID and Permeable Pavers Roundtable” committee was established to review the application of the LID
criteria and to respond to inquiries from the development and consulting engineering community. As a result of
this committee, the code language for the LID policy was revised in 2016. (Ordinance No. 007, 2016) Since the
LID policy was established subsequent to the current “amendments” manual, the manual did not provide
information explaining how the LID criteria should be implemented. The committee therefore recommended the
creation of an LID Implementation Manual (LID Manual) to provide examples showing how the criteria should
be applied to typical development projects.
The purpose of the LID Manual is to act as a tool for development design teams to better understand and meet
City LID requirements for development projects. The LID Manual illustrates various LID concepts suitable for
different land use types and drainage conditions and provides general guidance for the successful
implementation of LID in order to comply with, or exceed, current City LID criteria. Additionally the LID Manual
offers guidance on the maintenance of various types of LID facilities and provides the City with a consistent set
of digital construction details that standardize the construction of LID measures on public and private property.
It is designed as a living document that can be easily adapted and updated as new LID technologies are
adopted by the industry and by FCU. The Low Impact Development (LID) Manual is included as Appendix C in
the updated Manual.
Scheduled Manual Updates
It is the intent of the FCU Stormwater staff to provide updates to the Manual on a bi-annual basis, if needed.
The contents of the Manual will be reviewed for any needed technical or industry standard updates. Technical
corrections or updates will be processed through the Utilities Executive Director. Any policy updates or
changes would be brought to City Council for approval.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The updated Manual was developed internally using existing Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater staff. The LID
Implementation Manual was created with the assistance of a consultant at a cost of $55,000. A separate
consultant was hired at a cost of $3,000 to review the erosion control content of the Manual to ensure
consistency and alignment with the City’s MS4 permit requirements.
Staff does not anticipate additional design costs as a result of the Manual and believes that there will be cost
savings due to a more streamlined process and Manual. Construction costs associated with individual lot
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 5
erosion control are estimated to average $2000 per lot. This may be considered a cost implication due to the
proposed codification of the single lot protection requirement with the Manual. City staff assembled a detailed
document responding to the costs of installing and maintaining erosion control. This document is included as
Attachment 3.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The LID Implementation Manual (Appendix C of the updated Manual) was presented to the Land Conservation
Stewardship Board on July 12, 2017. The LID Implementation Manual was unanimously endorsed by that
board following the presentation.
The updated Manual project was presented to the Water Board on two different occasions. The first, on
September 21, 2017, which provided an overall review of the Manual and the updating process. In 2017, the
Water Board recommended unanimously that City Council adopt the updated Manual. The second
presentation to Water Board occurred on October 18, 2018 to further detail outreach efforts and subsequent
technical and policy revisions related to the erosion control criteria of the Manual. In 2018, the Water Board
again recommended unanimously that City Council adopt the updated Manual.
The updated Manual project was presented to the Chamber of Commerce on two different occasions. The first,
on November 3, 2017, and the second in June 22, 2018. Like the process for the Water Board, the first
presentation to the Chamber included a broader overview of the updated Manual, and the second presentation
was focused on the erosion control criteria.
Most recently, the Manual was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board Work Session on September 14,
2018 and the Development Review Advisory Committee on November 13, 2018.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
An extensive public outreach effort was conducted for this project starting in May 2017 and finishing recently
with a presentation to the Development Review Advisory Committee on November 13, 2018. The initial
outreach efforts for the updated Manual consisted of emailing over 160 contacts that have worked with FCU
staff in recent years. The contacts included people from local development firms, consulting engineers, land
planners and contractors that provide all variations of construction work including erosion control, utility
installation, structural work, building contractors and landscaping companies. The updated Manual was also
reviewed by several City departments including: Engineering Development Review, Environmental Regulatory
Group, Planning and the City Attorney’s Office.
A 70% draft of the Manual was distributed to the stakeholder group on May 23, 2017. Comments and input on
this draft were requested to be provided by June 16, 2017. Of the 34 consulting engineering firms contacted,
11 different firms responded. Many of the comments provided were based on grammatical errors and
requested formatting changes and were not substantive in nature.
Important highlights from the responses and feedback included:
• further clarification on technical requirements for hydrology and hydraulic analyses;
• erosion control documentation and construction site requirements;
• variance process updates;
• further clarification on LID system design parameters; and,
• clarification on required easements
A 90% draft of the Manual was distributed again to the same stakeholder group on July 28, 2017 with
comments requested by August 14, 2017. All comments have been reviewed, taken under consideration and
incorporated where appropriate.
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 6
As noted previously, the LID Implementation Manual was created as a result of the outreach. This went
through a separate public outreach process that included the formation of an LID Roundtable consisting of staff
and representatives from the public who discussed ways to ease the implementation of the current LID criteria
and policies. This effort led to the creation of the LID stakeholder team, consisting of City staff, local design
professionals, public individuals interested in the subject and two City Councilmembers (Councilmember Ross
Cuniff and former Councilmember Gino Campana). This group was instrumental in brainstorming with staff
about what issues needed to be addressed by the LID Implementation Manual and offered valuable feedback
to staff by reviewing a draft of the manual. A steering committee was formed, which consisted of City staff
from multiple departments, to develop the final LID Implementation Manual. The City departments represented
in the steering committee included personnel from Utilities, Planning and Development, Engineering and
Forestry.
While significant stakeholder outreach was conducted in late 2017, staff determined that additional
engagement was needed on the erosion control requirements stated in the Manual. Key outreach events
included a Developer’s Breakfast meeting on June 21, 2018 and a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce
on June 22, 2018.
Both events were well attended, and a great deal of feedback was received. Staff organized the feedback into
6 primary categories – (1) vegetation density, (2) signatory requirements, (3) plans and reports, (4) escrows,
(5) individual lot protection and treatment train approach and (6) cost. City staff assembled a detailed
document responding to these focus areas. The full document is included as Attachment 3. A summary is
provided herein.
1. Vegetation Density
a. Summary of Input: Several external stakeholders noted that achieving 70% vegetative cover
on sites in Fort Collins is an impractical and difficult standard to achieve, especially with native
seed. This requirement has been in City code since the early 90s, when the more typical
vegetation coverage was irrigated turf. As the City now encourages a greater use of native
seed, this standard has been very difficult to achieve and may take years to reach compliance
which results in the City holding erosion control escrow for several years.
b. City Response: The updated Manual is not proposing any changes to the current standard.
However, the City is committed to addressing this concern:
i. A City of Fort Collins internal Revegetation Team has been assembled and will meet
in January of 2019 to reevaluate this standard, particularly with a focus on the
requirement for establishment of native species versus turf.
ii. In the first half of 2019, the Revegetation Team will develop a list of potential options
to consider.
iii. In summer of 2019, we will engage community stakeholders in a facilitated workshop
to ensure we have identified common concerns, captured the varied perspectives and
goals around erosion and sediment control and water quality management, and
discuss the possible options. Stakeholder participants may include developers, design
engineers, home builders, erosion and sediment control practitioners, environmental
protection and conservation groups, members, citizens and relevant City departments.
2. Signatory Requirements
a. Summary of Input: Stakeholders commented that proposed language outlining roles and
responsibilities of the developers, owners and contractors, and including a requirement for
signatures of all responsible parties on the erosion control report creates confusion in contract
language between developers and their contractors and creates another step in the process
with limited or no foreseeable benefit.
b. City Response: Staff has removed this proposed change from the Manual.
3. Plans and Reports
a. Summary of Input: Stakeholders commented that the Professional Engineer (P.E.)
requirement for submission of erosion control materials is not appropriate, is unnecessary, and
that other jurisdictions do not require erosion control plans and reports to be prepared by a
P.E
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 7
b. City Response: City staff is committed to working on a resolution for this concern and staff will
engage in data collection and benchmarking effort in 2019 to identify best practices by other
municipalities along the Front Range. Any future proposed changes to this standard will
include stakeholder input and feedback in 2019.
4. Escrows
a. Summary of Input: Stakeholders commented that the City does not have a clear and equitable
process for transferring responsibility of erosion escrows.
b. City Response: The updated Manual provides a process for re-calculation and reduction of
erosion control escrows based on phasing of the construction and stabilization of the site. We
heard from stakeholders that this is a welcomed improvement, but that more work is needed
overall with the city-wide escrow process. In 2019, staff will convene a team of Utilities and
Planning, Development, and Transportation (PDT) staff to look at ways to improve this
process that bridges across several city departments. The timeline and tasks associated with
global changes to the City’s escrow process are not clear at this point, but our commitment is
to provide an update to stakeholders later in 2019.
5. Individual Lot and Treatment Train Requirements
a. Summary of Input: Stakeholders commented that requiring individual lot protection, in addition
to downstream sediment and erosion controls, is redundant and excessive and creates undue
maintenance and cost implications.
b. City Response: Currently, City staff recommends including this requirement in the updated
Manual. Without individual lot protection we have:
i. Increased sediment tracking onto public streets, which ends up in the storm sewer
system
ii. A higher volume / load of sediment and associated pollutants being directed and
deposited into end treatments (i.e. water quality ponds) resulting in higher and more
frequent maintenance.
iii. Challenges with ensuring frequent maintenance is performed on end treatments,
tracking the appropriate responsible parties, and not impacting already fully
constructed and established end-treatments
iv. Introducing a higher level of associated pollutants (i.e. hydrocarbons, nutrients) into
the treatment process which reduces its efficiency.
c. The updated Manual does provide a variance to allow an engineer to design for “equal or
better” treatment. City staff will continue to explore other technologies and applications for
controlling sediment at its source and remains open to further discussion with the
development/home builder stakeholders.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Link (PDF)
2. Summary of Changes (updated October 2018) (PDF)
3. 2018 Updates Construction Site Runoff Control Comments and Responses (PDF)
4. Water Board Recommendation and Minutes (PDF)
5. Land Conservation Stewardship Board minutes, July 7, 2017 (PDF)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
Website link:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-guidelines-
regulations/stormwater-criteria
ATTACHMENT 1
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
1: Drainage Principles and
Policies 2.3.2 Detention Basins Included 1000 sf threshold for detention requirements; included drain time criteria CRS §37‐92‐602(8)
2.3.4 Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) Permit
Included more thorough explanation of what the MS4 permit is, which sections apply to developers and includes
definitions of some of the terms included in this manual.
2.3.5 Water Quality Treatment
New: changed land disturbing activities threshold from 0.5 acre disturbance to 1.0 acre disturbance to be consistent
with the MS4 permit requirements
2.3.11 Erosion and Sediment
Control
Included narrative on how soil erosion and sediment transportation can impact waterways and that planning helps
to reduce those impact from construction activities.
2: Development Submittal
Requirements 1.0‐7.0
This chapter includes/outlines the specific submittal requirements for each step of the development review process
through the City. This includes submittal information and requirements for: Conceptual Reviews (CRs)and
Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs), Overall Development Plans (ODP) and Reports, Project Development Plans
(PDPs) and Reports, Final Plan (FPs) and Reports, Development Agreements, and Erosion Control Plan and Report
requirements. The new manual provides new lists of requirements for each step and is less prescriptive about the
formatting of the reports.
6.0 Erosion Control Material
Requirements
New clarification that an acceptance of Erosion Control Materials by the City does not constitute a fulfillment for
any State and Federal Requirements.
6.0 Erosion Control Material
Requirements New language to clarify that at all times the most restrictive language will need to be followed.
6.0 Erosion Control Material
Requirements
Included that Erosion Control will no longer be required during be PDP, rather it will be required during the FDP
review which is a more logical submittal timeline with the rest of the current standard development review process.
6.0 Erosion Control Material
Requirements
Included those non‐standard review processes (MA, MJA, BDR, Capital Projects, etc.) that are not a clear as the
Development Review Process and established a New estimated submittal time line that mirrors the submittal of
same expected erosion control materials.
6.1 Standards and Submittal
Requirements
New assumption that all projects are expected to require Erosion Control Materials unless proof is submitted to the
contrary.
6.1 Standards and Submittal
Requirements
Included the requirements to include; excavation, development construction, and stockpile permits to the previous
terminology of building permits as they were not the only permit that result in site disturbances that could result in
water quality impacts.
6.1 Standards and Submittal
Requirements New chart that was added as a tool to simplify what materials would be needed for any particular type of project.
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
Page 1 of 10
ATTACHMENT 2
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
6.1 Standards and Submittal
Requirements
New: Erosion Control Reports are no longer going to be asked of projects that are under an acre and not part of a
larger common development. This was an effort to remove some of the undue hardships on smaller projects
typically renovation builders, and small demolitions. Erosion Control Plans and Escrows will still need to be
collected.
6.1 Standards and Submittal
Requirements
New clarification about how a larger common development is applied on those projects less than an acre (in
alignment with State Permits)
6.1.1 Projects that do not need
erosion control materials New clarification about emergency work exemption only applies when activities are < 1 acre.
6.1.1 Projects that do not need
erosion control materials
New clarification about how a larger common development is applied on those projects less than an acre (in
alignment with State Permits)
6.1.1 Projects that do not need
erosion control materials Include clarification about City and Developer together verify that a project is under the given threshold.
6.1.1 Projects that do not need
erosion control materials
Include clarification that demolitions, a form of building permit, are not excluded from providing erosion control
materials when and where the demo activity is part of a future construction or when it is over 10,000 SF.
6.1.2 Request for Project
Clarification Regarding the
Applicability of Requirements
Included description of how to submit proof that a project is under the requirement since there are times projects
are questionable and in the past have turned out to have actually needed to supply erosion control materials when
none were submitted.
6.1.3 Elements of an Erosion
Control Plan Include a weblink for developers to vet materials against a Check List (This will updated once the Criteria is passed)
6.1.3 Elements of an Erosion
Control Plan Include information of where Erosion Control Plans information will need to be located in the submittal materials.
6.1.3 Elements of an Erosion
Control Plan
Include clear expectation of what will be looked for in the erosion control plan in alignment with State Construction
Permits and clarity around what was expected of Plans before but was not necessarily in black and white or what
was only included in prior guidance documents.
6.1.3 Elements of an Erosion
Control Plan
New the Standard Notes were updated (Appendix F) and give the direction not to be amended to allow consistency
with following the criteria and enforcement.
Page 2 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
6.1.3.1 Chart or Table of
Calculations
New: Chart or table requiring documentation including: 1) total onsite and total offsite area of disturbance, 2) total
storage/staging not incorporated into disturbance calculations, 3) total area of new or improved haul roads
(offsite), 4) heavy vehicle traffic areas, 5) approx. % of project that will be disturbed at any one time, 6) depth to
groundwater, 7) number of phases, 8) total volume of imported or exported materials, 9) steepest slope and 10)
distance to sensitive areas
6.1.3.2 Project Sequencing
Sequencing was part of prior Criteria, New is the requirement of a sequence chart for project sites < 3 acres and
sequence sheets for project sites > 3 acres
6.1.3.6 Phasing and Large Projects New: Project sites over 5 acres will require phasing of the erosion control plans
6.1.4 Elements of an Erosion
Control Report
Include clear expectation of what will be looked for in the erosion control reports in alignment with State
Construction Permits and clarity around what was expected of Report before but was not necessarily in black and
white or what was only included in prior guidance documents.
6.1.4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources
New added Bulk Storage of Materials and Saw Cutting & Grinding as pollutant sources typical of a construction site.
Included clarification of aligning significant dust and particulate generation with the existing Fugitive Dust
Ordinance.
6.1.4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources
New pollutant sources of "Other non stormwater discharges" and "other areas where spill can occur" were added
to be in alignment with MS4 requirements and State Construction Permits.
6.1.4.5 Construction Control
Measures Includes that each control measure called out for, will need a description and/or call for a Detail to follow.
6.1.4.5 Construction Control
Measures Includes that all control measures called out for in the plans, will need to be included in the report.
6.1.4.7 Project Phasing Includes that any phasing requires some discussion in the erosion control report.
6.1.4.8 Maintenance and
Inspection Requirements Includes that all control measures will have recommended maintenance that will need to be followed.
6.1.4.9 Final Vegetation and
Stabilization
Includes clearer description of what constitutes stabilization and what this section of the report will need to
include.
6.1.4.9 Final Vegetation and
Stabilization
Includes removal of sediment from all pipes as part of this report. (This was always in the Stormwater Standard
notes but should be included here as well.)
Page 3 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
6.1.5 Erosion Control Escrow
Includes language about when and how to break erosion control escrows up into smaller phases of the overall
project (All based upon prior project issues). Includes a requirement to include a phasing map when erosion control
escrows are broken into smaller phases. Includes clearer expectations as to when the erosion control escrow will be
returned and who it can be returned to. Includes who is responsible for changing over erosion control escrow when
property changes hands. Includes info on how the erosion control escrow will be called upon when erosion
protection is being neglected.
6.1.5 Erosion Control Escrow
New: allows the City the option to recalculate and escrow and can allow individual residential lots to default to the
minimum escrow value without a calculation. New form will need to be filled out when an erosion control escrow is
being collected (When no Development Agreement is associated with the project).
6.2 Submittals, Review and
Acceptance of Preconstruction
Designs
Include a further explanation of all the various types of holds that could occur as a result of not satisfying the
criteria.
6.2.1 Submittal Check lists of
Erosion Control Requirements New reference link to an online accessible checklist of the submittal requirements.
6.3.1 State Permit: Stormwater
Discharges Associated with
Construction Activities New regulatory compliance about how this criteria does not affect other permit requirements by other entities.
6.3.2 Qualifying Local Program
Included explanation of what a qualifying local program is and how Fort Collins is not one of those municipalities,
prior was a simple sentence saying we were not one without understanding. This was also changed to help clarify
that permits issued by Fort Collins does not mean a project pulled a State Permit.
6.3.3 Rainfall Erosivity Waivers
Included explanation of what a rainfall erosivity waiver is and how Fort Collins still requires erosion control criteria
be met even when a site is exempt from a State Permit.
6.3.4 Oil and Gas Operations &
Exploration
Included clarification that oil and gas construction operations are not exempt from the requirements of this manual
and that other City Code Sections apply to these type of construction activities.
6.3.5 Chemical Removal of
Sediment Laden Water from
Construction
New clarification in the Manual, Included information on not allowing chemical treatments for stormwater releases
from construction sites.
Page 4 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
6.4 Erosion Control in the
Development Review Process
Map
New process flow maps have been added to help clarify various processes that are taken to get through the erosion
control process.
8.0 Variance Request Process
This is a new section in the manual that has been provided as a mechanism to request variances to the
requirements of the manual and the parameters in which the request must be made.
3: During & Post‐Construction
Requirements
2.0 Erosion Control Inspections
and Field Requirements New paragraphs introducing the erosion control inspections and field requirements to this new Chapter.
2.1 Construction Activity and
Escrow
Includes the City not just reserves the right to enters upon the land to make corrective actions, but clarifies the
City's option to pursue other legal actions and code violations.
2.2 Developer Inspections
Includes required inspections to only projects that have a State Permit, recommended inspections for projects that
are not required to have a State Permit in alignment with State Requirements.
2.2.1 Frequency
New addition of reduced self inspections by the Developer after construction is completed and awaiting seeding in
alignment with the State Permit.
2.2.1 Frequency Includes clarification and numerical limits for when inspection may be suspend during snow conditions
2.2.1 Frequency
Includes how the Developer is required to correct deficiencies and conduct a follow up inspection ASAP to
document correction; includes 12" snow depth exclusion.
2.2.2 Inspection Records
New: specific list of included requirements in an inspection report (aligns with industry standards); (this is an
expanded list as there are currently some requirements under the current manual)
2.2.2 Inspection Records
Includes requirements about keeping the inspection records in order by the Developer and easily referenced for all
inspecting parties
2.2.3 Erosion Control
Administrator
New outlines who and what an Erosion Control Administrator is and what they are accountable for as they should
be the primary site contact for the City's erosion control inspectors
2.2.4 Developer Inspector
Qualifications
Includes recommendations that the Developer's inspector have training and awareness of City, State and Federal
regulations around erosion control.
2.3 Initial Inspection Requests New step by step list on how to fulfill erosion control requirements through the various permitting processes.
2.3 Initial Inspection Requests Includes directions on how to go about requesting an initial erosion control inspection.
2.3 Initial Inspection Request New: Clarification that individual lot protection installation is required as part of Initial inspection process
Page 5 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
2.4 Maintenance
New: Developer's requirements to maintain control measures so that they function as intended to minimize
potential pollutants from the source
2.4 Maintenance Includes State verbiage and requirements to have things corrected immediately
2.5 Removal and Disposal of
Temporary Measures
New: clarification of proper disposal of control measures once removed and then returning permanent erosion
control structures back to design specs; removal of temporary control measures 30 days after final stabilization and
must be confirmed by FCU
2.6 Final Stabilization and
Established Vegetation Criteria Includes a clearer explanation of what does and does not constitutes final stabilization.
2.6 Final Stabilization and
Established Vegetation Criteria New: All construction related pollutants must be removed from site as part of the final stabilization criteria
2.6 Final Stabilization and
Established Vegetation Criteria
Includes information around seeding and requirements around a two step hydroseeding/hydro mulching process.
New: seed shall not contain Colorado Noxious weeds.
2.6 Final Stabilization and
Established Vegetation Criteria
Includes clarification that permanent non‐erosive cover is considered a stabilized surface in alignment with State
guidance documents. New: mulch shall be applied to manufacturer's recommended installation details (application
rate of 2 tons/acre and 50% straw by weight)
2.9 Municipal Inspections
Includes that the City will conduct inspections to verify compliance with the MS4 permit and further clarifies that
these City inspections are not fulfilling of the Developer's Construction Permit Inspections.
2.9.1 Initial Municipal Inspections Includes what an initial municipal inspection is and consist of.
2.9.2 Routine Municipal
Inspections Includes what a routine municipal inspection is and consist of.
2.9.3 Complaint‐Driven Inspection Includes what a complaint driven municipal inspection is and consist of.
2.10 Enforcement Includes how preventing potential pollutants from leaving a site is mandatory in alignment with City Code
2.10 Enforcement
New addition of enforcement tools to include Letter of warning, proof of correction, submitting future inspection
records, require training, corrective action plans and notices of violation.
2.10 Enforcement New: Preventing potential pollutant sources from leaving the site is mandatory (re: 26.498)
2.10 Enforcement
Includes rational for why the City does not give a corrective action deadline as it pertains to State's right under the
NPDES Permit.
Page 6 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
3.0 Drainage Certification
Included links to the "Overall Site and Drainage Certification", the "During Construction Inspection" and the
"Certification of Lot Grading" checklists
4.0 Escrow Procedure for
Drainage Certifications Included the escrow procedure for drainage certifications
5.0 Close‐Out Process Included a more specific description of the initial and final close out processes
4: Construction Control Measures 2.0 Scope of Applicability
Includes language around clarifying cases where projects are required to apply these criteria as there are some
circumstances that the City is not the MS4 and the entity is not required to fulfill the Criteria. These are primarily
around school, state institutions, and federal buildings.
2.1 Exemptions to the Scope of
Erosion Control Requirements
New emergency work under one acre will be exempt from erosion control requirements where as before over an
acre was also included in this exemption. This is in response to State MS4 Permit guidance.
2.1 Exemptions to the Scope of
Erosion Control Requirements
Includes language that though projects may be exempt from supplying erosion control materials they are still
responsible fore preventing pollution discharge from their activities.
3.1 Erosion
Includes section added to inform the connection of soil and the various qualities of soil have direct connections to
erosion potential.
3.4 Fundamental Erosion and
Sediment Control Principles Includes section to inform how erosion and sediment controls function best
4.0 Overview of Construction
Control Measures New information about how the Chapter was further laid out.
4.2 Sediment Control Measures Includes emphasis that the City does not recommend the use of chemical treatment with construction activity.
5.0 Control Measure Selection and
Planning
New requirements that erosion control materials shall be selected, designed, installed, maintained and removed.
Existing language suggested, new language requires.
5.0 Control Measure Selection and
Planning
New control measures now shall be selected, designed, installed, maintained, and removed based upon good
engineering, hydraulic and pollutant prevention practices.
5.0 Control Measure Selection and
Planning
Includes language around phasing and sequencing need to be taken into account and as the site changes so to will
the need for control measures to change.
5.0 Control Measure Selection and
Planning
Includes recommendations that the Developer may want to look into contracts to get sub‐contractors in alignment
with the erosion control.
5.0 Control Measure Selection and
Planning Includes information around unique project require some unique control measure applications.
Page 7 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
5.1 Documenting Alternative
Methods of Control
New process for alternative control measures should follow the variance process. Alternative control measures
shall be submitted for review and approval under a variance process.
5.1 Documenting Alternative
Methods of Control Includes information that should be provided when following the variance process.
5.1 Documenting Alternative
Methods of Control Includes how the use of the control measure is at the risk of the Developer not the City.
6.0 Detailed Construction Control
Measures Includes direct requirements that the Developer will need to follow the control measure as outlined here.
6.0 Detailed Construction Control
Measures Includes direct language to prevent potential pollutant sources from impacting the river.
6.1 Erosion Control Detail/Fact
Sheets
New language to ensure that if buffer strips are used that they must be in tandem with an additional control
measure. This aligns with State materials around vegetative buffers.
8.0 Standard Erosion Control
Notes
New requirement that the Standard Erosion Control Notes not be changed to ensure consistency for enforcement
between projects.
8.0 Standard Erosion Control
Notes New link to where the Standard Erosion Control Notes can be found.
5: Hydrology Standards 2.0 Runoff Methodologies
Included clarified acreage requirements for Rational Method vs SWMM runoff analysis; rational analysis
requirements were stated two different ways in the old manual ‐ 90 acres and 20 acres
3.2 Runoff Coefficients Included simplified zoning classification runoff coefficients
3.3 Time of Concentration Included all time of concentration calculation information (inadvertently left out of the 2011 manual)
3.3.3 Channelized Flow Time
Included Manning's equation to calculate channelized flow time instead of older industry standard of nomography
to determine velocity
4.1.3 Basin Width (SWMM)
Included: this section has been expanded to specify that the designer may utilize other ways to determine basin
widths
6: Detention 1.2 Drain Time Criteria Included drain time criteria per CRS §37‐92‐602(8)
2.2 SWMM
New: SWMM theory and methodology discussions have been removed from the manual. The user is now directed
to use the SWMM users manual.
New: OLD manual included information on operations and maintenance of detention basins. Specific information
regarding maintenance procedures have generally been removed from the manual as maintenance personnel are
not likely going to look in a design criteria manual for direction on maintenance. Maintenance procedures are now
covered in the SOPs (no a part of the manual).
Page 8 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
2.5 Alternative to Quantity
Detention ("Beat the Peak")
Included: an analysis procedure allowing design engineers to analyze the timing of the hydrograph of the site
relative to the hydrograph of adjacent waterways. This "alternative" is only allowed for development sites that are
directly adjacent to waterway outfall locations.
3.3.2 Water Quality Orifice Plate
Included: This section specifies that water quality orifice plate design should be based upon the Urban Drainage
design procedure from 12/2004.
4.1 Underground Detention
Facilities
New: The requirements have been completely updated from the OLD manual. Underground facilities are no longer
discouraged and a significant amount of design guidance has been added. Included here are the underground
storage provisions outlined in Ordinance 006, 2016.
7: Water Quality 1.0 Overview
Included clarification that stormwater quality provisions are required for the entire area of redeveloped sites;
standard water quality must be provided where LID is not.
6.0 Low Impact Development
Including LID Ordinance language and further defining some terms in that language such as what constitutes an
"impervious surface" and "added", "modified" and "paved"; defining LID threshold and general requirements of the
standard; conglomerating best management practices and industry design standards for common LID systems such
as permeable pavers, bioretention, sand filters, underground systems, vegetated buffers, etc.
6.9 Drainage Easements for LID Including clarification for which LID systems require drainage easements
8: Grading 2.1 Single Family Lot Grading Including schematics of single‐family lot grading based on industry standards
2.3 Channel/Swale Grading Including parameters for swale surface types based on slope; included detail of "soft pan"
3.0 Detention Basin Grading
Design New: detention basin invert must be a minimum of 24" above water table
9: Streets, Inlets & Conveyance 3.0 Inlets
New: Type R inlets are discouraged from being placed along Local streets or residential areas for safety purposes
because the throat depths are deeper than combination inlets
4.3 Design Process,
Considerations and Constraints
New: Storm pipes need to be sized to convey at least the minor storm and must also be sized to convey the amount
of water conveyed to them from inlets. The HGL and EGL within the pipe system must be below the roadway
surface.
New: OLD manual included information on natural channel design and open floodway design and environmental
permitting issues that have now been removed from the updated manual because these technical design
components are beyond what the vast majority of development projects are going to require for stormwater design
parameters.
Page 9 of 10
Chapter Section Info (Included or New)
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ‐ Summary of Changes ‐ updated October 2018
This list is a summary of the updates that can be found in the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This list distinguishes between information that is "included" in the
updated Manual, meaning that the currently adopted Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual may not have explicitely included the
information or that the information may have been a part of a separate adopted document or industry standard document but not in the current Manual itself. Information that is
"new" are sections in the Manual that are a change or update to an existing policy or technical requirement. These are introducing a new policy or new requirement.
New: OLD manual included the Hydraulic Structures Chapter and the Culverts Chapter from the UD manual. The
new manual does not include these chapters because these technical design components are beyond what the vast
majority of development projects are going to require for stormwater design parameters.
Appendix A: Development
Submittal Checklists
New: Checklists for Drainage Memo, ODP Drainage Report, ODP Drawings, PDP and FP Drainage Report, PDP and FP
Drawings
Appendix B: Landscape Design
Standards and Guidelines for
Stormwater and Detention
Facilities
Included: This previously adopted guideline document is now included within the overall manual for grading and
landscaping guidance in detention basin areas.
Appendix C: LID Implementation
Manual
New: This manual provides examples of how the LID criteria can be met and typical applications for development
sites.
Appendix D Section 1.0 ‐ 6.0
New the whole Appendix D sections 1‐6 provides examples of ways the erosion control materials could be supplied
that would be acceptable to fulfill the requirements set forth in the earlier chapters.
Appendix E
7.0 Control Measure Selection and
Planning
New/Includes means and guidance on how to select control measures selection and pollution prevention planning.
This consists of major sections rewritten from urban drainage that was prior included as part of the Criteria.
Appendix F Appendix F
New notes that reflect new conditions through out the criteria and Includes notes that have been clarified to make
the requirements straight forward and remove many of the questions that arise about what should and should not
happen. Made for quick reference for Erosion Control Staff and Developers in the field.
Page 10 of 10
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.212.2900
V/TDD: 711
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
2018 Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Updates
Construction Site Runoff Control (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Comments and Responses
October 2, 2018
Jesse Schlam
City of Fort Collins Utilities
Environmental Regulatory Specialist
970-224-6015 jschlam@fcgov.com
Executive Summary
In 2016, City of Fort Collins Environmental Regulatory Affairs (ERA) and Utilities Development
Review staff initiated the process to update and revise the City of Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual (SWCM). The SWCM, originally adopted by City Council in 1991, was last
updated in 2011. This most recent updated is necessitated by regulatory agency requirements
and expectations coupled with the evolution of design, installation, and maintenance standards
by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District.
The scope of this update includes work completed by the Low Impact Development (LID) and
Permeable Pavers Roundtable group in 2015, revisions to the Urban Drainage Flood Control
District (UDFCD) Manual in January of 2016, and updates to the SWCM, initiated in March of
2016. Outreach was conducted in 2017 that shared proposed changes with key stakeholders.
Staff gathered comments and adjusted or reaffirmed Utilities’ approach in consideration of the
stakeholder input. Additional and more targeted outreach was continued in 2018, with two key
events occurring in June: A Developer’s Breakfast event on June 21, 2018 and a presentation to
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce on June 22, 2018. Events were well attended, and a great
deal of feedback was received. Staff also received electronic and phone feedback throughout
the months of June and July 2018. City staff extends its thanks and gratitude to our community
partners for their attendance at these meetings and input in the process.
This document captures stakeholder comments and offers City responses and any
recommended follow up actions. Table 1 provides an overview with comments organized into 6
primary feedback categories. A more detailed discussion follows in Table 2.
ATTACHMENT 3
2
Table 1: Summary of Environmental Regulatory Affairs (ERA) Responses to Stakeholder Feedback on Erosion Control
Requirements
Comment Summary ERA Response
Vegetation Density/Native Vegetation Requirements:
Several respondents noted that achieving 70%
vegetative cover on sites in Fort Collins is an impractical
and difficult standard to achieve. Feedback from the
development community indicates the desire to
reevaluate this standard, particularly with a focus on
the requirement for establishment of native species
versus sod.
The updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is not proposing any
changes to the current standard, which is the 70% vegetative density standard.
Changing the 70% criteria as it currently stands is not within the scope of the
current criteria updates.
This requirement was developed with input from multiple internal City
departments. Changes to this standard will potentially impact Environmental
Planning, Zoning, ERA, and others; these departments have established an
internal Revegetation Team to address vegetation density and native seed
requirements; follow up outreach on potential solutions will be conducted in
2019-2020.
Additional information, comments, and responses related to Vegetation Density and Native Vegetation Requirements
Signatory Requirements:
Several respondents commented that proposed
language outlining roles and responsibilities of the
developers, owners and contractors, and including a
requirement for signatures of all responsible parties on
the erosion control report creates confusion in contract
language between developers and their contractors, as
well as seeming punitive.
City staff has chosen to remove this proposed requirement from the update to
the SWCM.
This change to the SWCM was originally proposed to address challenges City staff
encountered when attempting to identify development/construction site
representatives with adequate authority and accountability to make corrective
actions when erosion control installation and maintenance items are identified.
City staff is committed to working through these challenges with developers,
project managers, and construction site superintendents without requiring
signatures of all parties on Erosion Control submittals/materials.
Additional information, comments, and responses related to Signatory Requirements
Erosion Control Plans:
One respondent commented that the Professional
Engineer (P.E.) requirement for submission of erosion
The updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is not proposing any
changes to the current standard regarding P.E. requirements for submission of
erosion control plans and reports. Changing the party responsible for preparation
3
Comment Summary ERA Response
control plans and reports is not appropriate, is
unnecessary, and that other jurisdictions do not require
erosion control plans and reports be provided by a
professional engineer (P.E)
of the plans and reports is not within the scope of the current criteria updates.
Staff will engage in data collection and benchmarking effort in 2019 to identify
best practices by other municipalities along the Front Range. Any future
proposed changes to this standard will include stakeholder input and feedback in
2019.
Additional information, comments, and responses related to Erosion Control Plans
Erosion Control Escrows:
Feedback was given that the City does not have a clear
and equitable process for transferring responsibility of
Erosion escrows.
The proposed Stormwater Criteria Manual provides a more clearly defined
process to allow for flexibility when reassigning fiscal responsibility on a site.
Proposed criteria also allow for escrows to be assigned or reduced based on
phasing of the construction.
Like the 70% revegetation requirement, the escrow process crosses several City
departments. City Planning and Development Review staff are currently working
to improve, align, and simplify the escrow process with the other City
departments collecting escrows.
Additional information, comments, and responses related to Escrows
Individual Lot Protection and Treatment Train
Approach:
Several respondents stated that requiring individual lot
protection in addition to downstream sediment and
erosion controls is redundant an excessive and
questioned if the requirements exceeded the State
standard.
While the previous SWCM (2011) included guidance that “...erosion control
measures can be arranged to perform in sequence so that sediment reduction
caused by one measure releases less sediment to the next”, the proposed manual
establishes an explicit requirement for individual lot protection to ensure
sediment/topsoil does not leave the site.
Based on best professional judgment as well as guidance from regulatory
agencies, the proposed SWCM includes this requirement because individual
sediment controls are not designed to handle all the sediment mixed with
stormwater as a standalone control. The industry standard is to install multiple
practices at multiple stages to treat runoff (“Treatment Train”).
4
Comment Summary ERA Response
The Stormwater Criteria Manual includes a variance process for projects that can
demonstrate that an alternative design is equal to or better than individual lot
protection and/or the treatment train approach.
Additional information, comments, and responses related to Individual Lot Protection and Treatment Train
Concerns Regarding Costs Relative to Other
Jurisdictions:
The development community is concerned the City of
Fort Collins may have more stringent erosion control
measure requirements than neighboring jurisdictions
and has indicated this results in increased construction
costs.
An analysis of typical erosion control measure construction costs has been
conducted by ERA staff, specifically for sites in Fort Collins and based on limited
data available to staff. A broad analysis/comparison of neighboring jurisdictions
was not conducted and was not within the scope of this update.
The limited analysis performed suggests that costs of the individual lot protection
measures in Fort Collins are typically $2-3K per lot. In larger subdivisions with
more lots to carry the overall costs, economy of scale is realized, resulting in
approximately $1200 per lot.
Additional information, comments, and responses related to Erosion and Sediment Control Costs
Additional information, comments, and responses related to General Questions
5
Table 2 Detailed Environmental Regulatory Affairs (ERA) Responses to Stakeholder Feedback on Erosion Control Requirements
Comment ERA Response
Comment Category: Vegetation Density and Native Seeding Requirements
One respondent stated, “The EPA and CDPHE require a
70% of pre-existing vegetation. Typically, on the front
range up north we see about 60-70% pre-existing
vegetation. Usually closer to 60% especially if you go
back to wagon wheels. We err on the conservative side
in our SWMPs so we state 70% pre-existing thus you
need 70% of 70% = 49% to achieve final stabilization. To
require 70% total is probably a greater density than
preexisting vegetation (greater than 100%). Also, it is my
understanding that sod is actually 90% density (looking
at root structure). Let me try to find the sod data for
you, I am trying to recall where I learned that so I can
give you the actual facts versus hear say.”
Changing the 70% native seeding and revegetation criteria is not within the
scope of these criteria updates.
Historically, City of Fort Collins’ 1991 Storm Drainage Design Criteria and
Construction Standards, established a requirement of 90% vegetation density
as a part of acceptance process.
“11.3.10 Acceptance, Seeded areas shall be evaluated after one growing
season to determine whether additional maintenance and/or weed
control is required. Acceptance of seeded areas after the second growing
season shall depend upon whether a satisfactory stand of grass is
evident and weeds have been controlled. A satisfactory stand of grass is
where 90% of the seeded area has an evenly distributed grass surface.”
In 2011, the criteria update was updated, and was changed to more closely
align with the State’s minimum 70% vegetation density requirement.
ERA staff has captured these concerns related to vegetation density and native
seed requirements and brought them to the internal, inter-departmental
Revegetation Team, which has been assembled to discuss process
improvements and alignment of departmental requirements.
As an additional follow up, ERA staff conducted an evaluation of neighboring
jurisdictions and related vegetation density and native seed requirements. That
evaluation is included in Table 3 Below:
Table 3
6
Comment ERA Response
Orig- Means the estimate is based off the original vegetation density.
City of Fort Collins
City of Loveland
City of Greeley
City of Longmont
Town of Timnath
City and County of Denver
Colorado Springs
CSU
State Minimum
Percent
Vegetation
70% 90% 85% 90% 70% Orig 70% 70% 70% Orig 70% Orig
Variation for
Native Seed?
No No No 70% No No No No No
Variation for
temp seeding?
No No No No No No No No No
Has an MS4
Permit?
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes -
One respondent asked where the original requirements
for requiring 6” spacing/density between individual
plants came from.
The 6” spacing requirement was agreed upon between the City of Fort Collins
Environmental Planning and Utilities departments. However, City staff has
identified inconsistencies related to this requirement:
The current amendments to the Urban Drainage manual, Volume 2 Chapter 12
Section 3.4 (b) states.
Physical evidence of growth shall include no more than 6 inches of bare
spots and a minimum of seventy percent of vegetative cover over the
entire seeded or planted area.
The proposed criteria Chapter 3 Section 2.6
7
Comment ERA Response
Physical evidence of established vegetation shall include no more than 6
inches of bare spots between grass and a minimum of seventy percent
(70%) uniform vegetative cover (or grass density) as observed from
about 5 feet above the vegetation looking down onto the area directly
below.
Erosion control notes are inconsistent with current seed mix and native seed
mix notes established by the Planning and Zoning Department:
10. Native seed area will be considered established when seventy
percent vegetative cover is reached with no larger than one foot square
(emphasis added) bares spots and/or until deemed established by City
Planning Services and Erosion control.
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/seed-mixes.pdf
To address these inconsistencies, the 6” requirement has been modified to
match the “no larger than one foot square bare spots” requirement.
As mentioned previously, the internal Revegetation Team has initiated
discussion regarding the70% density requirements and discuss the potential
implications to changing the requirements for native and temporary seeded
areas.
One respondent stated that without temporary
irrigation, native seeds often need 5-8 years to establish
and asked for City guidance on the use of temporary
irrigation.
Temporary irrigation especially in Colorado’s dry climate is always encouraged
and recommended for germination but is not currently a requirement. City staff
has observed that the development community often chooses to not water
native seed areas and agrees that it often takes 5-8 years to establish
vegetation using this method.
Comment Category: Signatory Requirements
One respondent asked if the signature block should be
required in the planning stage, with a concern that it is
likely not to have established an erosion control (or
ERA has created one response to several comments related to signatory
requirements:
8
Comment ERA Response
SWMP) administrator at that point The City has removed this requirement from the proposed SWCM.
The purpose of Chapter 2 Section 6.1.4.1 was to convey a way to address
operational challenges to City field inspectors: By requiring the developing
party to identify who will be responsible for specific parts of the project and
their role in the progress of the project. The intent was to create efficiencies for
City field inspectors and was proposed as a beneficial step for the City to work
directly with the responsible party to correct an issue rather than start at the
owner and work down through the hierarchy.
The Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Stormwater Construction permit
includes requiring responsibility of the contractor, developer and owner in
situations where the developing entity (owners, developers, general and sub
contactors, etc.) are all accountable for the site conditions. Obtaining a
commitment and contact information from the developing party is an
important time-saving device to ensure quick response. At this time there is no
existing City criteria requiring this and no requirement in the MS4 Permit; the
City will remove this section. The City may choose to revisit this issue with the
development community, but no timeframe has been established.
One respondent sought clarification on how this is
related to the Development Agreement (DA) and
suggested that this information be embedded into the
DA as a recorded document noting the benefit that the
DAs are recorded and can transfer with ownership.
One respondent stated that the signature block feels like
the City was getting between developers and
contractors with regards to their contract language.
One respondent stated that the signature block is a
redundant and punitive step that creates an adversarial
relationship and saw no advantage in creating the new
forms.
One respondent recommends changing language to “I
hereby certify that this document and all attachments
were prepared by the Design Engineer on my behalf to
meet the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Drainage
Criteria.”
Another respondent suggested that, under the design
engineer’s signature block, the design engineer should
only agree if paid to work with the owners, developers,
contractors. Additionally, this respondent suggested the
following language be included: “If hired to do so, I
agree I will take steps to proactively help the owner,
developers, contractors, and sub-contractors follow the
content of this report and help clarify confusion around
this report as I am considered the subject matter design
consultant on the content of this report.”
Comment Category: Requirements for a Professional Engineer stamp on Erosion Control Materials
9
Comment ERA Response
Several respondents made comments related to erosion
control plans, reports and requirements for a
Professional Engineer (PE) stamp.
One respondent questioned the need for a PE to prepare
erosion control plans and reports, stating that it is not
logical given that the plans are “living documents” and is
managed throughout the life of the project by the
contractor, not an engineer. The respondent suggested
the City consider requiring a PE stamp only for
permanent stabilization and not for erosion
control/temporary best management practices?
Another respondent commented that because the
erosion control plans must evolve and change as the
project progress, there is no value in having the PE
stamp, there is no liability on the design engineer in
allowing the plans to change, and that money is being
wasted “to do it more than once.”
One respondent commented that the City of Fort Collins
is not unique in requiring a PE stamp on erosion control
plans and reports, noting that the City and County of
Denver has the same requirement. The respondent also
commented that the rationale for doing so is due to
considerations of ensuring detention ponds are sized
appropriately to handle construction sediment loading.
One respondent commented that it is unique to Fort
Collins to incorporate EC plans into the overall
ERA has created a single response to multiple comments related to the
requirements of a Professional Engineer for creation of Erosion Control
documentation:
The requirement for Erosion Control Plans to be prepared by a Professional
Engineer is not part of this proposed SWCM update. Erosion Control Plans
currently are required to be prepared by or supervised by an engineer licensed
in Colorado. (Volume 3, Chapter 7, Section 1.3.2 of the Fort Collins
Amendments). As there is no proposed change to current criteria the City
proposes moving forward with the criteria as it is written. Future revisions to
the SWCM may include changes to this requirement and ERA staff will ensure
stakeholder input is incorporated into these changes.
• The City has captured these items of concern related to preparation of
erosion control materials. ERA will seek guidance from Utilities Senior
Staff on the priority of this item and consider possible changes in future
revisions of the SWCM.
10
Comment ERA Response
development review process.
One respondent stated that Erosion Control Reports
should be prepared by the contractors who are most
knowledgeable about their means and methods to
complete construction, and the City should consider
requiring them to supply these construction plans before
beginning construction, not the design engineer.
Comment Category: Escrows and Escrow Transfer Process
One respondent asked for clarification regarding what
the developer is responsible for and for how long, noting
that some scenarios result in a developer escrow
extending for up to 30 years.
ERA has created a single response to multiple comments related to the
requirements of the Escrow:
Currently, for development projects that are completed under one ownership,
from the design until the last house is landscaped and the entire site has
reached final stabilization, the escrow is collected at the beginning and
returned at the completion of a project. In subdivisions that are still being built
out, the City acknowledges that there are escrows still being held, and which
can take up to 30 years to fulfill. As mentioned previously, City Planning and
Development Review is engaged in a process to streamline all escrow collection
and return processes.
The small lot escrow is for installation, maintenance and removals of control
measures. The small lot escrow is proposed to remove the burden on small lot
builders to have to calculate costs for site controls and is intended to save
everyone’s time.
The security escrow measure contributes to water quality protection by
ensuring the public that if the developing entity fails to prevent discharges, the
City will utilize the escrow finds to mitigate and repair the issue. City staff
believes this is an effective way to ensure that adequate standards are met
One respondent sought clarification regarding if the
small site stabilization ($1500) escrow is for control
measure installation or maintenance or both.
One respondent noted that holding large escrows on
projects that could take 10-15 years to fully build out
would make financing by federal financing entities such
as HUD and affordable tax credits difficult. The
responded stated that the entities might not be able to
certify or accept an “undefined” financial obligation with
an unknown duration.
One respondent asked why the City could not be in
alignment with the State, as that agency doesn’t require
escrow. Additionally, the respondent noted that the City
should consider a process for allowing a permit to be
11
Comment ERA Response
transferred from one owner to another without
stabilization being a requirement.
throughout construction for the entirety of a project and not interfere with
issuance of certificates of occupancy when the site is not fully stabilized. While
this may be viewed as “overkill”, this financial incentive is an effective tool to
12
Comment ERA Response
One respondent commented that developers seek a
clear path to stabilize a lot and get escrow returned
based upon final public infrastructure areas and
temporary establishment of temporary lots or pads.
Questions arise about liability of the individual lots and
their responsibility. The respondent sought
clarification/made additional comments regarding that
holding an escrow until the last lot is developed doesn’t
do anything to meet the overall objects of preventing
pollutants from entering waters of the US (State). The
respondent asked if other developers in the room have
that issue as well and stated that if the objective is to
prevent discharge of pollutants to waters, this holding of
the escrow until the last lot is finished seems
unnecessary and “overkill”. The respondent also stated
that holding escrows for each lot when downstream
water quality control measures are in place does not
seem reasonable and that transfer of ownership can
take a while in northeastern Colorado. The respondent
commented that he was not aware of any other
communities that have these requirements. The
respondent asked that the City do more to outline a
solution and a path for the developer to be released
from that last lot.
achieve final stabilization after certificates of occupancy are issued. The State
assumes that a site will be finalized and if found during an inspection that a site
was not finalized would simply enforce on the developing entity, through fine,
court cases, fees, and criminal prosecutions as many cases have been seen over
the past decade. The City uses the escrow as an informal enforcement
mechanism, offering financial incentive for the developer to work with the City
to attain compliance together rather than resulting in an adversarial and
punitive way to get things accomplished.
After almost two decades of collecting escrows, the City has experienced
complexities regarding transfer of ownership. With such large amounts of
investment (either of capital or credit) on the table at any given time, staff
concluded that it makes sense to release appropriate amounts of escrow at
appropriate completion milestones of a project.
The revised criteria is meant to allow flexibility and alternative paths
developers may take when selling, transferring or reassigning responsibility of
the project: in its entirety, in blocks, or in lots to builders or owners, as not all
developers complete the full project while some do. In 2017-2018, ERA
implemented an “escrow phasing system” so those areas that were completed
can have escrow returned or credit lines reduced with the financial institutions,
and those areas that remain a potential pollutant source will still have the
security retainage in case remediation is needed in those areas.
"The Developer is strongly encouraged in the submittal to break the project into
phases, with specific proposed amount of the Erosion Control Escrow for the
entire project allocated to specific phases and/or areas of the project, with
specific Control Measures for such phases and areas. This will facilitate the
project being segmented for the purposes of the Erosion Control Escrow, such
that specific areas that may become stabilized before others so that parts of the
Erosion Control Escrow can be released."
13
Comment ERA Response
One respondent asked if an escrow can be transferred to
individual lot builder.
One respondent sought clarification on the City’s
process for holding/transferring escrows when the only
time remaining was an “unfinished backyards”. The
respondent sated that, as developers are held under
escrow until all lots are stabilized, this could be a process
problem for the developers. The respondent also stated
that any financial burden should not be passed from the
developer to the HOA’s.
The City should have a standard price list for everyone.
That way escrow would be calculated at the same figure
by all persons, not who could get a better deal or for
larger scale projects having less cost per acre.
While ERA staff appreciate and recognize this as a positive contribution it is not
within the scope of this project. This is a concept that the City will consider,
however with the ever-increasing costs of labor and materials, the costs may be
hard to standardize and codify.
One respondent commented that City staff have made
improvements with the phased releasing of escrows.
ERA appreciates the positive feedback and are always striving to improve our
customer service processes.
One respondent sought clarification regarding escrow
phasing, allowing for escrow payments per phase and
not overall payment upfront with releases per phase.
The draft criteria manual allows collection of erosion control escrow for only
the phases that are to be disturbed. If construction is not proposed to touch a
certain phase until a future date, then there would be no disturbed area in that
location, and escrow would not need to be collected on that area until work is
to begin there. As each area is completed and stabilized those corresponding
escrow values would be returned.
One respondent asked if the escrow is collected for
residential or commercial projects.
Erosion Control Escrow deposits have been collected for both residential and
commercial projects since 1991 and are intended to be collected for both types
of projects moving forward as well.
14
Comment ERA Response
One respondent sought clarity on the overall
development project (ODP) phasing versus the escrow
phasing, wondering if it requires a different process.
Phasing for erosion control is not the same as the ODP phasing and those
requirements of the ODP. Erosion control phasing plans are typically provided
with final construction drawings or during the FDP stage of a project. Erosion
Control Escrow Phasing shows areas that may be established long before other
areas and would not require such large securities to be held through project
completion.
One respondent sought clarification related to a clear
path for reduction on escrows? The respondent stated
that the process was not clearly laid out.
6.1.5 of the SWCM outlines the process for escrow reduction. The section
requires a map of escrow areas to be provided delineating the desired phases
and a calculation for each phase. Only when that phase has been completed
and reached full stabilization will the corresponding escrow be returned. If a
project did not originally plan for a phased escrow plan, the same procedure
would need to be followed to recalculate the escrow for the desired phases
that are still outstanding.
Comment Category: Individual Lot Protection/Treatment Train
One respondent asked for clarification regarding the
City’s requirements for 10,000 sf lots, including
clarification on whether the State is really requiring
single lot protection. The respondent also asked for
clarification on why ERA staff is so concerned w/
individual lots when detention and/or water quality
ponds are in place.
At this time, the proposed criteria states that individual lot protection is
required. However, to allow for flexibility the it includes a variance process
that can be followed to propose an alternative that is designed to provide equal
to or better treatment than the requirements.
The Colorado Discharge Permit System that issues the Construction Stormwater
Permit has based that permit on controlling the potential to discharge
pollutants to the MS4; control measures must be selected, designed, installed
and adequately sized in accordance with good engineering, hydrologic and
pollution control practices. It is the City’s experience, though input from
regulatory agencies and private erosion control training, that the treatment
train approach is a good industry-accepted practice to reduce the potential of
discharge of pollutants to the MS4. Below is an excerpt from CDPHE SWMP
preparation guidance document:
“Redundant BMP use is highly recommended to eliminate reliance on
15
Comment ERA Response
any one (or two) BMPs, and is often necessary to provide an adequate
treatment train to remove pollutants in runoff.”
Water quality ponds and detention basins are not typically designed to handle
the amount of sediment generated during construction. The primary function
of detention basins is to collect trash, debris and small amounts of sediment
after construction is complete. Routine maintenance is recommended twice a
year to remove these pollutants. Newer basins generally account for sediment
capture in forebays for ease of removal, however, forebays are not generally
sized to handle sediment loads from construction.
In addition, most detention basins are graded in advance to start revegetation
as quickly as possible. If used as a sediment basin through the entire duration
of construction, the time required to stabilize these areas would be extended.
That is because the deposited material must be excavated out (collected and
disposed of appropriately) and the basin must be regraded to the meet the
original design criteria of the detention basin. The seeding process can only
begin once that has been accomplished, therefore causing large delays to
stabilize the site.
City staff is open to a design showing sediment transport downstream to a
sediment trap that is accompanied by calculations, however, there has not
been a single proposed project to date, that has attempted to propose a design
proven to handle and accommodate those large variables and quantities of
sediment.
Finally, in 2010 the Water Quality Control Division conducted a Construction
Sites Program Screening Inspection for the City of Fort Collins. The result of that
inspection indicated four findings with a high potential for, and/or evidence of,
the discharge of pollutants from these construction activities to reach State
16
Comment ERA Response
waters, the storm drainage system, or off site OR systemic failure to implement
or maintain control measures. Two of the findings indicated that while there
was no evidence of significant pollutant discharges from the site, the potential
existed for the discharge of pollutants to State waters, the storm drainage
system, or off site. Specific observations included sediment in the gutter, on
the sidewalk, and in the detention pond as well as inadequate sediment and
erosion control measures to prevent the pollutants from migrating.
Implementation of individual lot protection and treatment train approaches by
City staff were a response to these program deficiencies.
Comment Category: General Questions regarding Erosion and Sediment Control
One respondent asked, “What is the problem with
sediment?”
When dirt (comprised of sand, silt and clay) is transported with stormwater
runoff, the result is an increased sediment load to the streams many times
faster than natural erosion processes. The increased loading of sediment can
change physical characteristics of the rivers and creeks resulting in significant
changes to those waterbodies. Given enough quantity of materials and/or time,
these sources of pollution can change volumes, velocities, and other
hydrological conditions that can result in temperature fluctuations and filling in
of drainage that can permanently change the water’s characteristics and reduce
the biodiversity in our City’s streams and the Poudre River.
As stormwater runoff delivers suspended sediment to nearby surface waters, it
can also transport other pollutants from construction activities. Oils, greases,
solvents, concrete-cutting waste, and wash water/waste can have both acute
and chronic impacts to vegetation, macro-invertebrates, and other animal
species.
One respondent requested clarification regarding how
urban erosion compares with agricultural erosion.
Erosion from both agricultural and urban activities can result in an increased
rate of erosion above natural erosion processes. Both sources of erosion also
have the potential to impact water quality. The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS) estimates that “Soil
erosion from a construction site without proper soil erosion and sediment
17
Comment ERA Response
control practices in place can average between 20-200 tons/acre/year--This is
ten to twenty times greater than typical soil losses on agricultural lands.”
(https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_029230.pdf)
Requirements related to agricultural activities fall under the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and are exempt from the Clean Water Act
currently regulated under the EPA. Most farmers take steps to prevent soil
from leaving their farming facilities. That dirt serves as the media to grow crops
and with the loss of nutrients, farmers have an increased fiscal driver to retain
soil and prevent erosion to ensure a healthy crop. Most evident of this is winter
cover crops and roughening of the fields during fallow seasons just after
harvest.
One respondent asked for clarification on how these
updates to the erosion control requirements will affect
projects that are currently in process or retro-active.
If adopted, there would be no changes to existing projects. Current code
defines the milestone of when criteria is effective as, “at plan approval”. If any
project was approved prior to the adoption of the proposed criteria that project
would follow all previous requirements. Any project approved after the
adoption would be required to follow the updated criteria.
One respondent commented that Chapter 2 Section
6.1.3.3 – general Map Characteristics of the SWCM
requires Utility tie-in locations, noting that language for
the off-site section includes Light and Power, Gas,
Telephone, and cable, which are usually not designed
until after site construction has begun. The respondent
requests that this requirement be removed as they are
not known during that timing of planning.
City Staff acknowledges that utility tie-in locations are not always known until
construction has begun and has amended the noted language to the following:
“Including, but not limited to, storm sewer, water, sewer. When known, light
and power, gas, telephone, and cable should be included.”
One respondent asked “What are the drivers of change
for community values (shown in the presentation), are
these community values or are these complainers? “
From the City perspective there are myriad drivers of change and multiple
customers served by our stormwater programs. Regulatory agency
requirements, public safety, economic development, environmental health, and
social sustainability all blend together to create a complex structure and
foundation of community values.
18
Comment ERA Response
In April of 2010, the Fort Collins City Council adopted the Stormwater Program
Mission Statement:
The City’s integrated, sustainable stormwater management program shall
reflect the community's values of protecting and restoring the City's
watersheds, its tributaries and the Cache la Poudre River for mutual
economic, social, and environmental benefits including, but not limited to
the following:
• Economic: flood damage reduction, increased recreation and tourism
along stream corridors, reduced business interruptions;
• Social: public safety and welfare, reduced need for emergency
response, recreation opportunities promoting community wellness;
and
• Environmental: preserve natural and beneficial functions of
floodplains, enhance stormwater quality, preserve riparian habitat.
The City receives complaints from homeowners occupying homes in
developments that are under construction; mud and "track out" on the street,
for instance, is the most common complaint. We do not view any of our
customers as the "squeaky wheel” but rather do our best to balance these
often-competing interests to find the best solutions.
Bright-line regulatory requirements established in the Clean Water Act and
related programs and permits establish the basis of our program, while
organizational and community values, as stated above guide priorities in
planning and implementation.
One respondent sought clarification regarding
responsibility for and timing of removal of specific
erosion control measures, as well as stating that some
controls, such as inlet protection and rock socks were
The proposed draft manual Standard Erosion Control Notes, number 57, helps
answer this question.
“The Developer shall maintain, monitor, repair, and replace any and all
applicable Control Measures until final stabilization has been obtained.
19
Comment ERA Response
observed in place years after project completion.
All Control Measures must remain until such time as all upstream
contributing pollutant sources have been vegetated or removed the
source from the site. When any Control Measure is removed, the
Developer shall be responsible for the cleanup and removal of all
sediment and debris from that Control Measure. At the point at which
the site has been deemed stabilized and verified by City Erosion Control
Inspector, all temporary Control Measures can then be fully removed.
All measures shall be removed within 30 days after final stabilization is
achieved.”
Chapter 3 Section 5.0 Listed item number 7 states “Owner is to remove all
remaining temporary BMPs from the site.”
The following items have been submitted for review to the City Attorney’s
Office, and, if approved, will be amended to address the stated concerns and
questions:
• Chapter 3 Section 2.5 will be modified to include “removed by the
Owner”
• Chapter 3 Section 5.0 will be modified to correctly word “BMPs” to
“Control Measures”.
• “The source” from the Note 57 will be removed to help clarify and
eliminate some confusion.
One respondent sought clarification and guidance
regarding managing/removing inlet protection during
heavy storms or flooding.
Inlets are to remain in full operational condition through most storms. Inlet
protection should be chosen and designed in a way that does not cause
flooding.
If cases arise where inlet protection is inappropriately sized or does not account
for overflow during an emergent condition, the recommendation is to have the
inlet cleared as best, and safely, as possible to protect property. In these cases,
20
Comment ERA Response
if sediment laden water leaves the site and makes its way to Waters of the
State, an upset condition clause in the State Construction Stormwater Permit
requires notification to that regulatory agency.
Options to install different control measures should always account for bypass
during larger storms. Different inlet controls may be selected based upon an
inlet’s volumetric needs where one type of inlet on a slope may need a slightly
different detail than sump inlet condition. The SC-6 Fact Sheet in both the
existing and proposed language on Inlet Protection provides guidance on
proper design and installation.
Future updates of the erosion control criteria are planned in 2019, including
standardized City of Fort Collins erosion control construction specifications and
details. One of the planned details will be for “inlet protection”, and will include
installation and removal requirements.
One respondent asked how City of Fort Collins
requirements compared to the Town of Timnath and
stated that it didn’t seem appropriate for the City to be
doing more when we all feed into the same
river/watershed. How do our requirements compare to
Timnath? The respondent also asked if Fort Collins’
program goes “above and beyond”.
The 1999 EPA Phase II Stormwater Rule required the City of Fort Collins to
obtain coverage under a Colorado Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) general permit to discharge stormwater from its storm sewer system to
state waters. The MS4 permit requires the implementation of several
programs, including the erosion control program. These programs are designed
to protect water bodies throughout our urban watershed from stormwater
runoff containing pollutants known to be present in an urban environment. This
commitment extends to protection of downstream users of the river.
The town of Timnath, due to its population and location, is not currently
required to operate under an MS4 permit and therefore does not have the
additional layer of local requirements.
The MS4 general permit prescribes the basic requirements permittees must
meet. Each MS4 permittee must determine how to fulfill these requirements to
21
Comment ERA Response
the maximum extent practicable to be effective in protecting water quality. The
City of Fort Collins developed its stormwater requirements prior to obtaining
permit coverage in 2003; to meet the intent of the MS4 permit, these
requirements have evolved to address common issues and are based upon staff
experience and field evaluation of effectiveness.
Builders and developers of sites ≥1 acre of land disturbance must comply with
the Colorado General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity. If those sites are within a regulated MS4 permitted area,
then they must also comply with the local jurisdiction’s requirements, which
may be more stringent than the State’s requirements.
Several respondents asked for clarification regarding
inspection intervals for routine inspections, post-storm
inspections, and inspections of temporarily idle sites.
Additionally, these respondents sought clarification
regarding the definition of a storm event and the
consistency of City inspection frequencies with CDPS
permit inspection frequencies and requirements.
The CDPS Construction Stormwater Permit inspection intervals are as follows:
Project’s current
activity level
Routine
inspection
intervals
After Storm Event
Construction
Inspections
14 days 24 hours
Temporary Idle Site 14 days 72 hours
Revegetation (No
Construction)
30 days None
In response to this feedback, the City has verified that there is no definition of
“storm event” included in the proposed Criteria Manual. The City will align with
the State’s definition and use the City’s “water quality storm” as outlined by the
Stormwater Master Plan to aid in defining a storm event.
• A sentence stating the following has been added to this section of the
SWCM.
“Documented inspections by the Developer shall be conducted at least
22
Comment ERA Response
once every fourteen (14) calendar days and within seventy-two (72)
hours of a storm event while a site is temporarily idle where no
construction activities will occur.”
• The portion of the “24 hours to sites waiting for revegetation” sentence,
which will now reads, “Documented inspections by the Developer shall
be conducted at least once every thirty (30) calendar days and within
twenty-four (24) hours of a storm event after construction is completed
and the site is waiting for reseeding to reach final stabilization.”
• The above table will be added as an aid in the criteria manual.
• The definition of Storm Event has been added to the SWCM:
“Storm event: A site condition where Stormwater causes surface erosion
and has the potential to suspend pollutants and impact Stormwater.
While this potential can occur during any rain event based upon many
factors, this guideline is typical of the "water quality storm" as defined
by the Water Quality Capture Volume or a storm lasting generally longer
than 30 minutes.”
One respondent commented that the threshold of 12” of
snow was too high of a threshold in relation to a “winter
conditions inspection exclusion. The responded stated
that 4-5” is more reasonable and that the State permit
simply says, “snow coverage”. The respondent asked
why the City defines a threshold whereas state does not.
The City has defined a 12” threshold for snow based on the idea that this would
prevent reasonable access to a construction site.
It is the observation and best professional judgement of City staff that there are
many times that 4-5 inches of snow could remain on a site and for long
durations because of low temperatures where construction activities have been
known to continue with 4-5 inches. The possibility of pollutants leaving the site
during these activities remains and therefore winter inspections should
continue unless the 12” threshold is met.
One respondent asked if the City would consider
allowing once weekly and no post storms inspections to
be in line with the new State Permit that is coming out.
The City will review the new CDPS Construction Stormwater Permit at the time
the permit is issued. The City will evaluate final permit requirements, and their
relative impact to City inspection frequency, and determine if changes to
current inspection frequency is warranted.
One respondent asked the City to clarify building Table 6.1-1 in Section 6.1 of Chapter 2 of the draft SWCM states that any
23
Comment ERA Response
demolition requirements, including how these situations
relate to larger development, and if escrow and
agreement will be required but could be phased to make
them less than 10,000 square feet.
project < 10,000 SF and not part of a larger common plan of development or
sale must follow municipal code 26-498 Water Quality Control (prohibiting
potential pollutants from impacting drainage facilities). Additionally, if the size
of the project is close enough to 10,000 SF, City staff may request information
to confirm the project is not required to provide erosion control materials for
review.
If the project is larger than 10,000 SF or part of a larger common development,
then the appropriate and most applicable category on Table 6.1-1 should be
followed to determine what erosion control should be provided for review.
Based on the feedback, the City has taken the following action:
• The footnotes on Table 6.1-1 were changed to state, “These are
assumed to be less than 10,000 sq. ft. and not part of a larger common
plan or development or sale otherwise follow the process for the most
applicable area of disturbance or larger common plan or development
or sale.”
One respondent requested rationale for the
requirement for emergency work that disturbs 1 acre or
more needing Erosion Control Material approval prior to
starting. The respondent stated that the requirement
seems to be counterintuitive as the term “emergency”
implies immediate action needs to be taken and going
through a review process would inhibit any emergency
work response. The respondent provided an example of
the 2013 floods when there was a surplus of emergency
work needed throughout Fort Collins/Loveland. In a
case like this, it seems that waiting for Erosion Control
Material approval would cause more harm. From a
The City’s requirements are in alignment with the State’s MS4 Permit. The
Colorado Stormwater Council (of which the City of Fort Collins is a member)
supplied a similar comment. The State responded to the comments in Fall of
2015:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/COR090000_Fact%20shee
t%20attachment%20A_1.pdf
Page 83 and 84 of the document:
Comment 2: Add an Exclusion for Emergency Projects
Colorado Stormwater Council: Please add an exclusion for site plan
requirement, site plan review, and inspections for emergency type
projects. This exclusion is not intended to allow work without BMPs, but
24
Comment ERA Response
practicality standpoint, a project that is deemed a true
emergency shouldn’t have a pending start for erosion
control documentation submittals.
to allow work to occur without a site plan requirement, site plan review,
and inspections. Occasionally, emergency work is necessary to address
issues such as flooding. During such instances, the focus is to address life
safety issues and it may be necessary to begin land disturbance and/or
construction activities immediately and prior to development of a site
plan…
Response 2: Add an Exclusion for Emergency Projects
This comment has not been incorporated into the permit. Regulation 61
specifically requires permittees to review site plans. Permittees have the
flexibility to set up an expedited site plan review process for emergency
projects…
With this limitation and requirement by the State to have the City review site
plans, the City defaulted to the State’s minimum requirements on emergency
projects. This would be for any project that would disturb 1 acre or more or is
part of a larger common plan of development. The draft criteria accommodate
this with an accelerated review time:
“With respect to such emergency work where there is less than 43,560 ft2 (1
acre) of Disturbed Area, all other erosion control requirements must meet
compliance, except to the extent that they cannot reasonably comply due to
the emergency circumstances necessitating the emergency work. Emergency
work will be allowed an accelerated review time.” (Ch 4, Sec 2.1)
Comment Category: Economic Impacts to developer related to Erosion Control
One respondent asked what the cost is to prepare
Erosion Control plans and suggested the City have a
general sense of the cost to prepare plans. The
respondent requested that the costs be broken down
into per/lot, per/acre, and per/subdivision to provide
The City recognizes there is a cost associated with any requirement.
Erosion Control Materials presented in design submittals tend to vary amongst
engineering firms and are largely based upon differing scopes of work, levels of
expertise and detail provided. Most firms have a standard template report that
25
Comment ERA Response
Fort Collins builders perspective on how this compares
with other jurisdictions.
Another respondent asked to see the cost difference
between state standards and City standard for single lot
protection, adding that if cost is negligible then ok, but if
there is a cost, the development community may have
an issue.
Another respondent stated a concern for potential to
create issues for affordable housing projects.
they start with and amend to meet specific site conditions. With each
development site being unique, a standardized cost per acre is difficult to
determine. (See cost graphs below.)
Using the Erosion Control Plan, the engineer will calculate a cost for the
materials to be included in the required escrow calculations.
The City only has access to cost information in submittals from design
engineers. Staff have attempted to evaluate and prepare a summary of costs
per type of erosion control measure with cost comparison across total site
acreage and between commercial and residential projects based on known cost
information. Included in this evaluation is information from 238 sites in the
City’s database. The following three charts show the corresponding sites and
the cost for control measures at those sites. A trendline has been added to the
data to provide an estimate of the costs for just the materials.
26
Comment ERA Response
27
Comment ERA Response
28
Comment ERA Response
29
Comment ERA Response
While this data represents a quantitative analysis of the raw cost of control
measures at a given site, there are many other factors to account for costs to
install and maintain a control measure through the entirety of a project. To get
a complete understanding of costs, a qualitative analysis was assembled.
The following chart includes the estimated costs of the materials, with proper
installation of control measures, and 18 months of maintenance for easy
comparison. The estimates also include investment costs for the tools to be
used or rented. These estimates are built upon what it would cost to procure
the items from local suppliers. In this case the estimates come from what it
would cost based upon web prices to pick up these materials at Home Depot
and White Cap.
Each project assumed that the worker pay was $25/hour
This qualitative cost analysis is a rough estimate and did not account for
damaged, destroyed or otherwise faulty control measures and the cost
associated with correcting these issues. This is also not what an installation and
maintenance company might charge a general contractor or owner for the
same services. The profit for doing this type of work by a company is not
included in these estimates. This analysis also doesn’t include the costs to
inspect the site on a regular frequency.
The analysis demonstrates that costs of individual lot protection measures are
typically $2-3K per lot. In larger subdivisions with more lots to carry the overall
costs, economy of scale is realized, resulting in approximately $1200 per lot.
With the current cost of housing in Fort Collins, single lot erosion protection
typically amounts to less than 1% of the market value of a lot. As the City does
not have access to developers’ and builders’ costs to build homes we cannot
examine the percent of that profit margin.
30
Comment ERA Response
This cost appears to be a reasonable cost to prevent sediment and pollutants
from transporting off of lots during construction.
Site Size Square Feet
Control Measure Costs
Installation Costs
Maintenance Labor
Costs
Costs for Tools/Rentals
Total Costs
Hacienda Higgins 15,182 $1,663 $100 * $325 ¤ $143 $2,231
Single Family Home
Greenstone 52,211 $2,157 $100 * $325 ¤ $143 $2,725
Single Family Home
Houska Automotive 129,527 $2,002 $450 ** $1,625 ¤¤ $352 $4,429
Commercial
Talon Estates 467,682 $7,924 $1,200 *** $4,847 ¤¤¤ $561 $14,532
Residential (13 lots)
Assumptions:
31
Comment *- 2 workers to install all the controls in 2 hours ERA Response
**- 3 workers to install all the controls in 6 hours
***- 3 workers to install all the controls in 16 hours
¤ - 1 worker sweeping along the curb by hand 5 min/day, 5 times/wk, for 18 mths.
¤¤ - 1 worker sweeping along the curb by hand 10 min/day, 5 times/wk, for 18 mths.
¤¤¤- 1 worker sweeping along the curb by hand 30 min/day, 5 times/wk, for 18 mths.
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes – September 21, 2017
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Update and Low Impact Development (LID)
Implementation Manual
(Attachments available upon request)
Development Review Engineer Heather McDowell and Senior Development Review Engineer
Shane Boyle presented an overview, background and timeline of the manual updates. Stormwater
Criteria Manual: The new Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual will replace the previously
adopted “Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria
Manual” dated December 2011. The new format will change from “amendments” to the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District Manual to a stand-alone manual that incorporates all key
design requirements and will more effectively communicate the criteria specific for Fort Collins
and its growth management area (GMA). Low Impact Development (LID) Implementation
Manual: In spring 2016 following the update to the City’s LID Policy, the City formed an LID
Stakeholders Committee consisting of staff members, community members and City Council
members to explore how to improve on current LID practices and to streamline compliance with
City regulations. This LID Implementation Manual was one outcome of that effort and will
become a technical addendum to the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Staff seeks Water Board’s
recommendation of approval before the item is presented to City Council on October 17.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics including urban drainage,
the science used for manual updates, Low Impact Development (LID), media filtration and
underdrain, sedimentation and maintenance, homeowners associations and pond maintenance;
the manual is more clear and well done; consultants’ feedback, such as off-site drainage
easement issues (downstream drainage easements required), and on LID; the limitations of a
static document while trying to be forward-thinking (staff must stay updated on new scientific
developments); the need for more time at Water Board meetings to discuss stormwater issues
(staff noted they are available to consult with residents on stormwater questions at any time);
rainfall criteria; CSU’s various stormwater groups and Utilities staff communications; next steps
going forward; grandfathering of projects already in the pipeline (City criteria requires using
whatever version of the manual is in use at the time of preliminary submittal; a board member
noted the need to keep older versions of manuals easily accessible online).
In reply to a board member inquiry, Ms. Webb stated she’d ask city attorneys if residents who
manage stormwater issues on their properties can be eligible for a discount on fees; Water Board
members requested to be included in the stakeholders groups that staff consults with on future
manual updates. Staff noted the possibility of reviewing the manual every six months.
Board Member Jason Tarry moved that Water Board recommends City Council adopt the
updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, which includes the Low Impact
Development Implementation Manual, into City Code.
Board Member Michael Brown seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENT 4
Discussion on the Motion
Board members discussed the desire for the update to proceed on time but with the ability to
write a memo to Stormwater stating its position and clarifying minor elements of the updated
manual.
Vote on the Motion: It passed unanimously, 10-0.
Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
October 18, 2018, 5:30 p.m.
222 Laporte Avenue, Colorado River Community Room
10/18/2018 – Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES Page 1
• Stormwater Criteria Manual: Erosion Control
(Attachments available upon request)
o Presentation Summary: Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager Matt
Zoccali and Senior Environmental Regulatory Specialist Jesse Schlam
provided an overview. The updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual will replace the previously adopted “Fort Collins Amendments to
the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual” dated
December 2011. The new manual format will change from “amendments”
to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Manual to a stand-alone
manual that incorporates all key design requirements and will more
effectively communicate the criteria specific for Fort Collins and its growth
management area (GMA).
Staff previously presented the overall manual updates to Water Board on
September 21, 2017. This current presentation is intended to briefly recap
the presented information from last year’s presentation, but the focus will
be on Erosion Control chapters, discussing updates and changes from the
existing manual, and outreach to contractors. Staff asked for the Water
Board’s recommendation of approval before they present the item to City
Council on December 4.
Board members commented on and inquired about various related topics,
including pushback related to the chain system of individual lots (grouping
of lots would be allowed); and costs associated with creating the
document (third-party review of MS4 permit to ensure compliance).
Board Member Bovee moved for the Water Board to recommend City
Council adopt the updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual.
Board Member Tarry seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously, 8-0
ATTACHMENT 5
July 7, 2017
July 7, 2017
July 7, 2017
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 159, 2018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO ADOPT A NEW FORT COLLINS STORMWATER
CRITERIA MANUAL AND MAKING VARIOUS RELATED CHANGES
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a stormwater utility, as described in Article II of
Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins (“City Code”); and
WHEREAS, in Ordinance No. 174, 2011, the City Code was amended to, among other
things, add Section 26-500 and to adopt the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual; and
WHEREAS, the fundamental purpose of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is
to set forth the design guidelines and technical criteria to be utilized in the analysis and design of
stormwater drainage systems; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is necessary for the protection
of public safety, health, and welfare, and to further the purposes of the Stormwater Utility, as
described in City Code Section 26-492; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual adopted in said ordinance was
in the format of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2001 Edition, published by the
Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (“UDFCD Manual”), as amended by the
City; and
WHEREAS, said format of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual has proven to be
difficult to use for City staff and the development community for various reasons including, but
not limited to, having to reference the UDFCD Manual and the separate set of numerous City
amendments; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that revising the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual to be a stand-alone format would improve its usability; and
WHEREAS, the new Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, dated December 2018 is
on file with the City Clerk and will replace the previous manual in its entirety; and
WHEREAS, certain additional changes to City Code are required so that the Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual and City Code correspond; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter, Article II, Section 7, City Council may enact any
ordinance which adopts any code by reference in whole or in part provided that before adoption
of such ordinance the Council shall hold a public hearing thereon and notice of the hearing shall
be published twice in the newspaper of general circulation, published in the city, one (1) of such
publications to be at least eight (8) days preceding the hearing and the other at least fifteen (15)
days preceding the hearing; and
-2-
WHEREAS, in compliance with City Charter, Article II, Section 7, the City Clerk
published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan such notice of hearing on November 18, 2018, and
November 25, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the attached Exhibit “A” is a copy of the text of the Notice of Public
Hearing that was so published and which the Council hereby finds meets the requirements of
City Charter, Article II, Section 7; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 1-14, at least one copy to the Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk available for
public inspection, and one copy shall be kept in the office of the chief enforcement officer
thereof; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-499 (Violations and penalties), states that any person
who violates any provision of Article VII or Chapter 26 of City Code (Stormwater Utility)
commits a criminal misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to the provisions of City
Code Section 1-15, and that, unless otherwise specified, each day that a prohibited conditioned is
maintained shall constitute a separate offense;
WHEREAS, the Water Board has recommended adoption of the new Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have recommended to the City Council that
the following changes be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That all current and previous versions of the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual, except for the version dated December 2018, adopted herein by reference, are
repealed in their entirety.
Section 3. That Section 26-491 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-491. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this Section:
Best management practices shall mean treatment requirements, operating procedures and
practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal or drainage from raw
material storage and schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures
-3-
and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of “state waters,” including
those practices that are described in the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Manual, Volume 3,
entitled “Best Management Practices,” published by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District in Denver, Colorado, in January 2007 Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual pursuant
to § 26-500.
. . .
Maintenance best management practices shall mean those management practices that are
described in the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Manual, Volume 3, Chapter 6, entitled
"Maintenance Recommendations," published by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
in Denver, Colorado, in January 2007.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 26-500 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-500. - Stormwater Criteria Manual.
(a) Pursuant to the authority conferred by Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, there is hereby
adopted by reference the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, dated December 2018, as the
stormwater design criteria of the City, the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2001 Edition,
published by the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, as more specifically
described in Subsection (b) below, as amended by the City, which shall have the same force and
effect as though set forth herein, which shall be referred to as the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual. Said Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is enacted for the purposes of
setting standards in the planning and design of drainageway channels and hydraulic and other
structures and for the purposes of setting standards in the selection, design and implementation
of stormwater quality best management practices, all for the purpose of protecting the public
health, safety and general welfare.
(b) The following articles, sections, divisions and subsections of the Urban Storm Drainage
Criteria Manual are deemed to constitute the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2001
Edition, and to be adopted as part of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual:
(1) Volume 1, Preface, updated June 2001;
(2) Volume 1, Chapter 1, Drainage Policy, updated June, 2001;
(3) Volume 1, Chapter 3, Planning, updated June, 2001;
(4) Volume 1, Chapter 4, Rainfall, updated January, 2004;
(5) Volume 1, Chapter 5, Runoff, updated April, 2008;
(6) Volume 1, Chapter 6, Streets/Inlets/Storm Sewers, updated January, 2004;
(7) Volume 1, Chapter 7, Major Drainage, updated April, 2008;
(8) Volume 2, Chapter 8, Hydraulic Structures, updated April, 2008;
(9) Volume 2, Chapter 9, Culverts, updated July, 2001;
(10) Volume 2, Chapter 10, Storage, updated April, 2008;
(11) Volume 2, Chapter 12, Revegetation, updated June 2001;
(12) Volume 3, Preface, November 2010;
-4-
(13) Volume 3, Chapter 1, Stormwater Management and Planning, November 2010;
(14) Volume 3, Chapter 2, BMP Selection, November 2010;
(15) Volume 3, Chapter 3, Calculating the WQCV and Volume Reduction, November
2010;
(16) Volume 3, Chapter 4, Treatment BMPs (including Fact Sheets), December 2010;
(17) Volume 3, Chapter 5, Source Control BMPs (including Fact Sheets), November
2010;
(18) Volume 3, Chapter 6, BMP Maintenance, November 2010;
(19) Volume 3, Chapter 7, Construction BMPs (including Fact Sheets), November
2010;
(20) Volume 3, Glossary, November 2010; and
(21) Volume 3, Bibliography, November 2010.
(c) The Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2001 Edition, as described in Subsections
(a) and (b) above, is hereby amended by the additions and deletions as described in amendments
adopted by the City Council and separately codified as Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual.
(db) One (1) copy of each of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual and the Fort Collins
Amendments thereto, together referred to as the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, shall
be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection during regular
business hours.
(ec) The Utilities Executive Director may adopt minor additions, revisions and corrections to
the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual as may, in the judgment of the Utilities Executive
Director, be necessary to better conform to good engineering and/or construction standards and
practice. The Utilities Executive Director shall approve only those proposed technical revisions
that:
(1) are consistent with all existing policies relevant to the revisions,
(2) do not result in any significant additional cost to persons affected by the revision, and
(3) do not materially alter the standard or level of service to be accomplished through the
specified infrastructure.
Upon adoption of any technical revisions pursuant to the authority of this Subsection, the
Utilities Executive Director shall provide to the City Clerk documentation of such technical
revisions specifying the date upon which they shall become effective, and shall maintain said
documentation on file in the permanent records of the City Clerk and Utility Services and
available for public inspection.
(fd) The Utilities Executive Director is hereby authorized to make such determinations, and
approve such waivers and variances, in his or her discretion, as set forth in, and in accordance
with, the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual.
Section 5. That Section 26-512 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
-5-
Sec. 26-512. - Stormwater plant investment fees established.
. . .
The following definitions shall apply for the purpose of such formula:
Percent effective impervious area shall mean the percentage of the total parcel area
determined to constitute the equivalent impervious area on a parcel as calculated for the
one-hundred-year, two-hour Fort Collins Ddesign Sstorm as defined in Volume 1,
Chapter 4, of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. The determination shall be
made using the procedures and methodology described in Volume 3, Sections 4 and 5, of
the Stormwater Criteria Manual the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual pursuant
to § 26-500.
. . .
Section 6. That Section 26-547 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-547. - Maintenance of storm drainage facilities.
(a) Any person responsible for any private storm drainage facility required by the City,
whether by law or as a condition of development approval or development agreement,
shall maintain and operate said facility in accordance with maintenance best management
practices.
Section 7. That the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, dated December 2018,
which is on file with the City Clerk is hereby approved and adopted by reference.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
-6-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City Council of the City
of Fort Collins, Colorado, on the 4th day of December, A.D., 2018 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may come on for hearing, in the Council Chambers at the City Hall, 300 LaPorte
Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado for the purpose of considering an ordinance adopting by reference
the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, dated December 2018, prepared by City of Fort
Collins staff.
Not less than one (1) copy of said Manual has been, and now is on file in the Office of the
City Clerk of the City of Fort Collins and is available for public inspection.
The purpose of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, dated December 2018,
adopted by said ordinance is to serve as the governing criteria for all stormwater improvements,
public or private, that are designed and installed within Fort Collins and its Growth Management
Area, and to set forth the design guidelines and technical criteria to be utilized in the analysis and
design of stormwater drainage systems.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
This notice is given and published by order of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Dated at Fort Collins, Colorado this 18th day of November, A.D. 2018.
Delynn Coldiron
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A