"Hill Pond" Feasibility Study

Share "Hill Pond" Feasibility Study on Facebook Share "Hill Pond" Feasibility Study on Twitter Share "Hill Pond" Feasibility Study on Linkedin Email "Hill Pond" Feasibility Study link

Consultation has concluded

Map of Hill Pond

This project is now archived. View the final report here.

This project is a feasibility assessment and alternatives analysis of the erosion issues at a pond (unnamed) along the Spring Creek trail, just northwest of The Gardens on Spring Creek. We are referring to this pond as "Hill Pond" for the purpose of this study.

This is a multi-faceted concern impacting multiple landowners, a ditch company, and the City of Fort Collins. The City agreed to fund this initial study to help identify problems, potential solutions, and financial considerations. Decisions based on this study would be a collaborative community effort based on funding, land ownership, stakeholder input, and community input.

This project is now archived. View the final report here.

This project is a feasibility assessment and alternatives analysis of the erosion issues at a pond (unnamed) along the Spring Creek trail, just northwest of The Gardens on Spring Creek. We are referring to this pond as "Hill Pond" for the purpose of this study.

This is a multi-faceted concern impacting multiple landowners, a ditch company, and the City of Fort Collins. The City agreed to fund this initial study to help identify problems, potential solutions, and financial considerations. Decisions based on this study would be a collaborative community effort based on funding, land ownership, stakeholder input, and community input.

Consultation has concluded

This report details proposed alternatives for the pond site, as well as a feasibility assessment.

Click here to review the report.

Please review the report and submit any questions you have by June 16.  Answers to questions will be uploaded here, and may be incorporated into the final draft of the report as applicable.

  • Share Please correct the name of the Pond throughout the document. It is "Unnamed", not "Hill Pond". Hill Pond is located about 1000 feet to the west at approximately Latitude: 40.563039, Longitude: -105.093797. on Facebook Share Please correct the name of the Pond throughout the document. It is "Unnamed", not "Hill Pond". Hill Pond is located about 1000 feet to the west at approximately Latitude: 40.563039, Longitude: -105.093797. on Twitter Share Please correct the name of the Pond throughout the document. It is "Unnamed", not "Hill Pond". Hill Pond is located about 1000 feet to the west at approximately Latitude: 40.563039, Longitude: -105.093797. on Linkedin Email Please correct the name of the Pond throughout the document. It is "Unnamed", not "Hill Pond". Hill Pond is located about 1000 feet to the west at approximately Latitude: 40.563039, Longitude: -105.093797. link

    Please correct the name of the Pond throughout the document. It is "Unnamed", not "Hill Pond". Hill Pond is located about 1000 feet to the west at approximately Latitude: 40.563039, Longitude: -105.093797.

    peyronnin asked 10 months ago

    The project team discussed which name to use extensively for the project. Ultimately, the team chose to use “Hill Pond” with the caveat that the pond is unnamed, as this is what it is often referred to colloquially. Staff also explored renaming the pond, but because it is owned by private landowners, the City is not in a position to pursue this option.

  • Share What can be done to get the Ditch Company to engage in this process? They won't speak with the consultants, and our HOA has been trying to get them involved for nearly 10 years. on Facebook Share What can be done to get the Ditch Company to engage in this process? They won't speak with the consultants, and our HOA has been trying to get them involved for nearly 10 years. on Twitter Share What can be done to get the Ditch Company to engage in this process? They won't speak with the consultants, and our HOA has been trying to get them involved for nearly 10 years. on Linkedin Email What can be done to get the Ditch Company to engage in this process? They won't speak with the consultants, and our HOA has been trying to get them involved for nearly 10 years. link

    What can be done to get the Ditch Company to engage in this process? They won't speak with the consultants, and our HOA has been trying to get them involved for nearly 10 years.

    Michael Still asked 10 months ago

    The Arthur Irrigation Company has been functioning at this location for over 150 years. They have a legal right to supply irrigation water to their customers. There are two City employees who sit on the Company’s board of directors that have suggested the Company participate more. Alternatives were developed with the ditch continuing to operate unencumbered.

    The board has requested to see a final selected plan before reviewing and providing input. If the property owners select a plan, they can submit this to the irrigation company for review and input.

  • Share The Hill Pond Homeowners Association does not have the financial resources called for in this report. The 40 households in the Association pay annual dues of $200. Given that the pond is really a city amenity enjoyed by all those who use the bike path, what kind of cost sharing arrangement could be made between the city and the affected households to stabilize the pond for the benefit of all? on Facebook Share The Hill Pond Homeowners Association does not have the financial resources called for in this report. The 40 households in the Association pay annual dues of $200. Given that the pond is really a city amenity enjoyed by all those who use the bike path, what kind of cost sharing arrangement could be made between the city and the affected households to stabilize the pond for the benefit of all? on Twitter Share The Hill Pond Homeowners Association does not have the financial resources called for in this report. The 40 households in the Association pay annual dues of $200. Given that the pond is really a city amenity enjoyed by all those who use the bike path, what kind of cost sharing arrangement could be made between the city and the affected households to stabilize the pond for the benefit of all? on Linkedin Email The Hill Pond Homeowners Association does not have the financial resources called for in this report. The 40 households in the Association pay annual dues of $200. Given that the pond is really a city amenity enjoyed by all those who use the bike path, what kind of cost sharing arrangement could be made between the city and the affected households to stabilize the pond for the benefit of all? link

    The Hill Pond Homeowners Association does not have the financial resources called for in this report. The 40 households in the Association pay annual dues of $200. Given that the pond is really a city amenity enjoyed by all those who use the bike path, what kind of cost sharing arrangement could be made between the city and the affected households to stabilize the pond for the benefit of all?

    lambornjoan asked 10 months ago

    The City is committed to maintaining the Spring Creek trail per the easement with the landowner because of the public benefit and access provided to all. The City does not fund projects on private land.

  • Share Wildlife was a major response in the listening session, but I don't see a consideration in the draft. on Facebook Share Wildlife was a major response in the listening session, but I don't see a consideration in the draft. on Twitter Share Wildlife was a major response in the listening session, but I don't see a consideration in the draft. on Linkedin Email Wildlife was a major response in the listening session, but I don't see a consideration in the draft. link

    Wildlife was a major response in the listening session, but I don't see a consideration in the draft.

    Michael Still asked 10 months ago

    The study focused on analyzing the ability to halt and potentially reverse bank erosion. The potential impacts on ecological habitat were qualitatively assessed due to the scope of the study and funding.

  • Share What funding options could be developed for the residents on the north side of the pond? on Facebook Share What funding options could be developed for the residents on the north side of the pond? on Twitter Share What funding options could be developed for the residents on the north side of the pond? on Linkedin Email What funding options could be developed for the residents on the north side of the pond? link

    What funding options could be developed for the residents on the north side of the pond?

    Michael Still asked 10 months ago

    Funding options include:

    • Low-interest Colorado Water Conservation Board loan
    • City of Fort Collins Nature in the City Program
    • City of Fort Collins Certified Natural Areas Program
    • Natural Resource Conservation Service
  • Share 1. Water rights should be an issue regardless of which alternative is selected INCLUDING do nothing. Don't understand how you keep ignoring this. 2. What is the point of this if you can't get Ditch Company involved? None of the alternatives will be sustainable without LEGAL Ditch Company commitment. 3. A consistent water level is essential but it does not have to be the high, summer level. This high level is far more than the Ditch Company required for 100 years. The high level is for their convenience NOT a necessity. 4. An alternative NOT mentioned is to return to pre-1980 wetlands. 5. "Multi-criteria analyses" was not included in Appendix C. I would have thought these analyses would have considered wildlife (access to pond) & impact on property values among others. 6. I am not convinced any of these account for the impact of climate change on water levels and rainfall. A 1 in 100 yr. estimate is no longer sufficient. 7. What should the consultants be indicating who is paying for what? Just provide the alternatives and costs. on Facebook Share 1. Water rights should be an issue regardless of which alternative is selected INCLUDING do nothing. Don't understand how you keep ignoring this. 2. What is the point of this if you can't get Ditch Company involved? None of the alternatives will be sustainable without LEGAL Ditch Company commitment. 3. A consistent water level is essential but it does not have to be the high, summer level. This high level is far more than the Ditch Company required for 100 years. The high level is for their convenience NOT a necessity. 4. An alternative NOT mentioned is to return to pre-1980 wetlands. 5. "Multi-criteria analyses" was not included in Appendix C. I would have thought these analyses would have considered wildlife (access to pond) & impact on property values among others. 6. I am not convinced any of these account for the impact of climate change on water levels and rainfall. A 1 in 100 yr. estimate is no longer sufficient. 7. What should the consultants be indicating who is paying for what? Just provide the alternatives and costs. on Twitter Share 1. Water rights should be an issue regardless of which alternative is selected INCLUDING do nothing. Don't understand how you keep ignoring this. 2. What is the point of this if you can't get Ditch Company involved? None of the alternatives will be sustainable without LEGAL Ditch Company commitment. 3. A consistent water level is essential but it does not have to be the high, summer level. This high level is far more than the Ditch Company required for 100 years. The high level is for their convenience NOT a necessity. 4. An alternative NOT mentioned is to return to pre-1980 wetlands. 5. "Multi-criteria analyses" was not included in Appendix C. I would have thought these analyses would have considered wildlife (access to pond) & impact on property values among others. 6. I am not convinced any of these account for the impact of climate change on water levels and rainfall. A 1 in 100 yr. estimate is no longer sufficient. 7. What should the consultants be indicating who is paying for what? Just provide the alternatives and costs. on Linkedin Email 1. Water rights should be an issue regardless of which alternative is selected INCLUDING do nothing. Don't understand how you keep ignoring this. 2. What is the point of this if you can't get Ditch Company involved? None of the alternatives will be sustainable without LEGAL Ditch Company commitment. 3. A consistent water level is essential but it does not have to be the high, summer level. This high level is far more than the Ditch Company required for 100 years. The high level is for their convenience NOT a necessity. 4. An alternative NOT mentioned is to return to pre-1980 wetlands. 5. "Multi-criteria analyses" was not included in Appendix C. I would have thought these analyses would have considered wildlife (access to pond) & impact on property values among others. 6. I am not convinced any of these account for the impact of climate change on water levels and rainfall. A 1 in 100 yr. estimate is no longer sufficient. 7. What should the consultants be indicating who is paying for what? Just provide the alternatives and costs. link

    1. Water rights should be an issue regardless of which alternative is selected INCLUDING do nothing. Don't understand how you keep ignoring this. 2. What is the point of this if you can't get Ditch Company involved? None of the alternatives will be sustainable without LEGAL Ditch Company commitment. 3. A consistent water level is essential but it does not have to be the high, summer level. This high level is far more than the Ditch Company required for 100 years. The high level is for their convenience NOT a necessity. 4. An alternative NOT mentioned is to return to pre-1980 wetlands. 5. "Multi-criteria analyses" was not included in Appendix C. I would have thought these analyses would have considered wildlife (access to pond) & impact on property values among others. 6. I am not convinced any of these account for the impact of climate change on water levels and rainfall. A 1 in 100 yr. estimate is no longer sufficient. 7. What should the consultants be indicating who is paying for what? Just provide the alternatives and costs.

    fffffff asked 10 months ago
    1. The assumption was made that the pond could continue to operate as it currently does under a “Do Nothing” alternative. Water rights costs can be transferred between alternatives and scaled for the volume of water needed through a right.
    2. The Arthur Irrigation Company requested to review completed plans prior to providing any input. Alternatives were developed with the ditch continuing to operate unencumbered.
    3. Maintaining a higher water level allows for a limited earthwork and vegetation rehabilitation to reestablish vegetation along the banks above the water line. A lower water level would require a larger earthwork effort to restore banks above the water line to reestablish vegetation.
    4. The feasibility study and alternatives analysis was based on community feedback. Many stakeholders and community members who provided feedback shared that keeping the pond was their primary concern. Additionally, it is likely that removing the pond, reconstructing a stream habitat, and reconnecting/maintaining the Arthur Irrigation Company would be the most expensive approach with the most site disruption. Therefore, it was not pursued for this study.
    5. The report will be updated to reflect that the multi-criteria analysis is provided in Section 3 of the report. The study focused on analyzing the ability to halt and potentially reverse bank erosion. The potential impacts on ecological habitat were qualitatively assessed due to the scope of the study and funding.  
    6. A hydrologic study was not performed as part of this study. The bank erosion is occurring due a combination of factors including the rapid drawdown of the pond and vegetation being unable to thrive under differing flow depths.  Any long-term change in rainfall and runoff would not impact the severity of the erosion due to the drawdown.
    7. Funding was anticipated to come from property owners that benefit from improvements.
  • Share Can you explain why one of of the alternatives for the pond site was not to return it back to a creek and have a "Fox Meadows" like area. I know many people are interested in this option and may be the most cost effective. on Facebook Share Can you explain why one of of the alternatives for the pond site was not to return it back to a creek and have a "Fox Meadows" like area. I know many people are interested in this option and may be the most cost effective. on Twitter Share Can you explain why one of of the alternatives for the pond site was not to return it back to a creek and have a "Fox Meadows" like area. I know many people are interested in this option and may be the most cost effective. on Linkedin Email Can you explain why one of of the alternatives for the pond site was not to return it back to a creek and have a "Fox Meadows" like area. I know many people are interested in this option and may be the most cost effective. link

    Can you explain why one of of the alternatives for the pond site was not to return it back to a creek and have a "Fox Meadows" like area. I know many people are interested in this option and may be the most cost effective.

    LRParoz asked 10 months ago

    The feasibility study and alternatives analysis was based on community feedback. Many stakeholders and community members who provided feedback shared that keeping the pond was their primary concern.

    Additionally, it is likely that removing the pond, reconstructing a stream habitat, and reconnecting/maintaining the Arthur Ditch Irrigation Supply would be the most expensive approach with the most site disruption. Therefore, it was not pursued for this study.

  • Share Could you please provide a bullet breakdown of this report. For those of us with vision problems, this report is absolutely impossible to read in its present format. Thank you. on Facebook Share Could you please provide a bullet breakdown of this report. For those of us with vision problems, this report is absolutely impossible to read in its present format. Thank you. on Twitter Share Could you please provide a bullet breakdown of this report. For those of us with vision problems, this report is absolutely impossible to read in its present format. Thank you. on Linkedin Email Could you please provide a bullet breakdown of this report. For those of us with vision problems, this report is absolutely impossible to read in its present format. Thank you. link

    Could you please provide a bullet breakdown of this report. For those of us with vision problems, this report is absolutely impossible to read in its present format. Thank you.

    Katef asked 10 months ago

    Given the complexity of the alternatives presented, it is difficult to make a narrative summary more precise. However, if you would like a printed copy of the report mailed to you, please email Heather Young at hyoung@fcgov.com with your name and address. 

    Table 5: MCDA Qualitative Evaluation by Alternative provides the most concise summary of the differences, pros, and cons of each alternative.