HomeMy WebLinkAboutComplete Nov WRAB packet
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
MEETING DATE: Monday, 18 November2013
MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: 1777 West Conference Room
1777 Broadway
Agenda Highlights
:
1.Call to Order (7:00 p.m.)
2.Approval of the 21 October2013Meeting Minutes (7:01p.m.)
3.*Public Comment (7:05 p.m.)
4.Information Item –Backflow Prevention Program Update(7:10 p.m.)
5.Information Item –Background on Wastewater Collection, Comprehensive Flood
and Stormwater Master Plans (7:30 p.m.)
6.Information Item –Board and Commission Committee Report and
Recommendations (8:10 p.m.)
7.Matters (8:30p.m.)
a.From the Board
b.From Staff
8.Future Schedule (8:45p.m.)
9.Adjournment (9:05p.m.)
* Public Comment Item
Information
: Contact the WRAB Secretary, Laurel Olsen-Horen(303) 441-3203or
olsenl@bouldercolorado.gov. Packets are available in the reference section of the Main
Library and on-line at http://www.bouldercolorado.gov, Departments, Public Works,
Agenda item times are approximate.
Utilities, Water Resources Advisory Board.
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission:
Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting:
21 October2013
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes:
Laurel Olsen-Horen 303.441.3203
Board Members Present:
Vicki Scharnhorst,Dan Johnson,Mark Squillace,Ed Clancy
Board Members Absent:
Chuck Howe
Staff Present:Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works forUtilities
Bob Harberg,Principal Utilities Engineer
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Manager
Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinator
Kurt Bauer, Project Engineer
Katie Knapp, Project Engineer
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Coordinator
Ridge Dorsey, Laboratory and Industrial Pretreatment Supervisor
Laurel Olsen-Horen, Board Secretary
Meeting Type:
Regular
Agenda Item 1 –Call to Order [7:00p.m.]
Agenda Item 2–Approval of the 30 SeptemberMeeting Minutes: [7:21p.m.]
Motion postponed until the arrival of board member Johnson.
Motion to approvethe 30 September meetingminutes as with requestedaddition:Clancy;Seconded
by: Squillace
Motion Passes;3:0–board memberScharnhorst abstained
Agenda Item 3–Public Participation and Comment [7:01p.m.]
Public Comment:
Mary Cowan Beitner:
The revised Twomile map was presented at neighborhood meeting last week. Was
that mapping based on the LiDAR flyoverwith the flood waters superimposed over it?Community
members are concerned with the mapping. Community members have not been notified by the city to see if
their property was affected by the flood. The maps presented at the meeting had two public structures,
Foothills Elementary and the Boulder Co. campus on Broadway and Irisshowed no flooding;however
there was flood mitigation occurring atthe time of the flood. Each resident needs to receive an on-site visit
by city officials to discover what impact the flood had on each property in the city. Neighbors are
demanding accurate re-mapping. The culverts in north Boulder on Spring Valley and Linden are only sized
for a two-year flood event. The culverts failed as well due to the lack of maintenance. WRAB needs to
prioritize flood mitigation throughout the city. The city did not maintain the existing culverts. WRAB
should examine how sewage wasteis being handled and implement upgrades as necessary.
Jonah Levine:
Submitted email comments last week and today. The maps that we have seen do not reflect
what occurred during the flood. There is a real disconnect between what the maps show and reality. Would
like to understand the difference between what we see/saw to where the water actually goes/went.
Susan Iott:
The Goss Grove neighborhood has concerns about the ditch that runs through the
neighborhood. It backed up and flooded the neighborhoodduringthe flood event. Would like to know what
the status of the mapping of Boulder Sloughis.There are some dangerous areas along this floodplain and
these needto be a key areato begin re-mapping and study for mitigation purposes. Project schedule would
be very helpful for residents to know.
Board member Johnson arrived at 7:09 p.m.
Nicholas Hagan: (
CU student)The city has done a great job handling the recent disaster. Since water
fluoridation would require a community vote to cease the practice in Boulder, Mr. Hagan is seeking
information on how to proceed.
th
Spice Jones:
Resides on 13St. The accuracy of what the city saw from the recent flood needs to be
th
reflected on the new mapping. The mapping shows a flood on 13St, but that did not occur during the
event.
John Yates:
There is very little flood mitigation in the Fourmile creek which is channeled through a very
WRAB Minutes
21 October 2013
Page No.1
little pipebetween Sumac and Riverside Ln. The recent storm proves that the amount of water that came
through this area cannot be mitigated by such a small pipe. The water overtopped the channel and flowed
down the street. The Fourmile Creek needs to be looked at from an engineering perspective so that these
types of blockages do not occur again.
Agenda Item 4–Information Item –Overview of the Industrial Pre-treatment Program [9:00p.m.]
Ridge Dorseypresented the itemto the board.
Item was moved to after the staff updates on the Flood to allow community members presentthe
opportunity to hear the presentation by staff without delay.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
th
The City of Boulder’s (city’s) 75Street Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) receives all residential,
commercial and industrial wastes dischargedto the city’s sanitary sewer system. At the WWTF,
wastewater passes through a multi-stage treatment process before discharging treated wastewater into
Boulder Creek.
Wastewater generated by industrial activities may contain pollutants that are harmful to wastewater
workers, compromise the effectiveness of wastewater treatment operations, or have an adverse effect on the
environment. The city is required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to maintain an Industrial
Pretreatment Program (Pretreatment Program) to prevent these negative impacts. The city’s Pretreatment
Program is required to establish local limits for various industrial dischargers and pollutants to ensure the
city’s WWTF is not adversely impacted, can meet state-issued discharge permit limits and protect Boulder
Creek.
Chapter 11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) establishes the regulatory authority for the city’s
Pretreatment Program and sets forth limits for the acceptance of discharges to the city’s sanitary sewer
system. Code revisions are periodically developed to comply with state, federal, and local requirements.
Pretreatment Program staff responsibilities include general program implementation, compliance
monitoring, data management, industrial sampling, industrial/business surveying, education/outreach
programs, discharge review/permitting, regulation review, and special projects. Currently, the Pretreatment
Program permits 13 significant industrial users (SIUs) (see Attachment A) with process discharges ranging
from chemical manufacturing to food processing. The total average flow from SIUs to the WWTF is
approximately 5 percent of the overall flow. The Pretreatment Program also works to control pollutant
discharges from non-permitted industrial users (IUs) such as dental office, photo-processors, and
restaurants. IUs are estimated to account for an additional 2.4 percent of the average WWTF flow.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Questions regarding compliance confidence for local industries for various discharge chemicals.
As this was an information item, some clarifying questions were asked to better understand the
materials presented. No action was required from the board at this time.
Agenda Item 5–Matters [7:30p.m.]
From the Board:
Board member Clancy brought up the below matter(s):
Win-Win Proposal document(regarding pharmaceuticals being disposed of down drains)shared
with the board. The activated sludge treatment at the WWTP has helped mitigate the feminization
of the fish in the local stream system. The pharmaceutical issue remains a problem. Students from
the university and local schools are abusing prescription drugs. City Council should allow for
prescription drugs to be turned into the local police departments for collection. The city does not
facilitate collection of pharmaceuticals; however the County does offer this service.
Received an E-mail around Twomile and presented it to staff.
The board should reviewthe Capital Improvement Plan, and perhaps this flood will give the board
an opportunity to prioritize the CIP for flood mitigation.
From Staff: [7:04p.m.]
2014 budget was approved by City Council. The budget was not altered to reflect the recent
disaster. Reserve funds will be used to assistwith the recovery.
JeffArthur presented an overview of the effects of flooding on the city’s infrastructureand
WRAB Minutes
21 October 2013
Page No.2
preliminary assessments for recovery.
BetassoWTPis operational.
o
rd
63Street WTP is back on-line.
o
The feeder canal from Carter Lake is still off-line.
o
Preliminary assessment of Boulder Reservoiris needed due to the influx of sediment
o
from the flood.
The water distribution system seems to be holding up well.
o
th
WWTP is still receiving increased flows which indicate an elevated water table.
75
o
The facility is performing well and we may be able to donate some microorganisms to
Lyons to assist with their WWTP repair and startup.
There was a sewer collapse on Broadway that does not appear to be flood related.
o
Kurt Bauer, Katie Knapp, Chris Trice, Bob Harberg and Annie Noble presented an overview
of each of the city’s 13 tributaries and Boulder Creek to the board: (handout provided)
Board discussion included:
What is to be learned from what was mapped versuswhat was seen during the event?
o
The floodplain maps are based off of clear water(non-debris)flows. This event has
o
required the city to reevaluate the flood flows due to sediment deposits.
What is the availability for usage of the ditch system throughout the city?
o
What about FEMA funding?
o
Has the city learned anything in hindsight?
o
Agenda Item 8–Discussion on Future Schedule [9:39p.m.]
Possible 6:00 p.m. start time for WRAB?
Flood information will continue to evolve; future schedules may not be able to have detailed
flood updates.
Council was scheduled to have a discussion about boards, however due to the flood; this
discussionitem has been pushed back.
Board member Squillace departed at 9:51
Agenda Item 9–Adjournment [9:53p.m.]
There being no furtherbusiness to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:53p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: Johnson; Seconded by: Clancy
Motion Passes 3:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will beMonday, 18 November2013at 7:00 p.m., in the West Conference Room,
st
1floor of the municipal building, 1777 Broadwayunless directed by staff or the board.
APPROVED BY:ATTESTED BY:
____________________________________________________________________
Board ChairBoard Secretary
____________________________________________________________________
DateDate
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary,is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
WRAB Minutes
21 October 2013
Page No.3
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE:November 18, 2013
AGENDA TITLE:
Informational ItemBackflow Prevention Program Update
-
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Manager
Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor
Mike Leone, Water Quality Inspector
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of compliance with drinking water regulations, the City of Boulder (city) implements a
program for cross-connection control, also known as backflow prevention,toprevent
contamination tothe city’swater distribution system.The Backflow Prevention Program
includes tracking the installation and testing of cross-connection control devices (also known
as backflow prevention assemblies) on customer water service linesto protect the city’s system
from backpressureand backsiphon events, as well asperforming education and outreach and
field inspections and investigations.In Boulder, backflow prevention assemblies arerequired
on commercial facilities,fire lines, dedicated metered irrigation lines,but not residential
householdsunless they havededicated irrigation systems.
The city’s Backflow Prevention Program has been in place for many years, but in the past five
years, staff has made significant changes in the program.
Thisagendaitem is intended to provide
WRAB with an overview ofthe backflow prevention program.Staff is not requesting any formal
action by the WRAB.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
Economic:
Economic benefits of the program include minimizing impacts from
contamination to the city’s distribution system. Customers, primarily commercial and
industrial,that are required to comply have a costfor installation and annual testing of
backflow prevention assemblies.All annual testing at non-city facilities is conducted by
private certified testers.
Environmental:
A backflow prevention program is required by Colorado Primary Drinking
Water Regulations to protect human health.
AGENDA ITEM # IV PAGE 1
Social:
Reducing the potential for cross-connections within the city’sdrinking water
distribution system reduces the risk of water borne illnessto the entire community.
BACKGROUND
What is a Backflow Prevention Assembly?
A Backflow Prevention Assembly is a testable
A cross-connection is a physical connection that could
mechanical device that is placed on a customer’s
allow used water, industrial fluid, or water quality
plumbing which allows water to pass through the
below the drinking water standards to flow from a
assembly in the direction of flow, but will not
plumbing fixture or a consumer’s water system into the
allow that water to flow back into the city water
city’s waterdistribution system. Backflowis the
supply. These assemblies prevent “backflow”.
When backflow occurs, water, bacteria or any
undesired reversal of flow, such as a backsiphon or
chemicals in a customer’s internal plumbing
backpressure that could pull or push water from a
threaten to contaminate the distribution system.
connection intothe city’s system.
Backflow prevention is accomplished through check
valves within abackflow prevention assembly that
closeswhen water begins to flow in the opposite
directionfrom a customer connection. Changes in
distribution system hydraulics, like pressure fluctuation
or main breaks, can cause water from inside a property
to pull back into a main service line. Conversely,internalpumps on a property could force
water back into the water main. Both cases can be prevented through the installation of an
approved (tested and functioning) backflow prevention assembly.
Regulatory Requirements
The Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (CPDWR)require testing upon installation
and on an annual basisto assure these assemblies are working (Article 12, CPDWR).The
regulations require public water systems to identify potentially hazardous cross connections,
require system users to install and maintain the containment assemblies, approve containment
assemblies, and track the annual testing of the assemblies.After the Alamosa waterborne
disease outbreak in 2008, the Colorado Department of PublicHealth and Environment
(CDPHE)increasedefforts to implement and enforce the details of the regulation.While
regulation requiring backflow prevention has been in placesince the 1960’s CDPHEhas
developed amore stringent backflow policy including:
More stringent questions during a Sanitary Survey (a regulatory-based review of public
water systems thatoccurs every 3 years)
Specific program triggers thatcould resultin CDPHE issuing a minor or major deficiency
to the water system.
The city similarly increased compliance efforts in 2009 in keeping with state requirements and
to better protect the city’s drinking water.
AGENDA ITEM # IV PAGE 2
City Backflow Prevention Program
The city requires backflow prevention assemblies on commercial facilities, fire lines, dedicated
metered irrigation lines,but not residentialhouseholds unless they havededicated irrigation
systemsor fire lines. Multi-family housing with more than eightunitsmust also comply,
because they typically have larger service lines and pose a greater public safety hazard.
Backflow prevention may be required under other circumstances in which the city determines that
the property represents a high hazard. For example residential customers with high hazards (such
The city developed itsbackflow prevention ordinance in Chapter 11 of the
as well water).
Boulder Revised Code(section 11-1-25),as well as developedDesign & Construction
Standards (Chapter 5, Section5.11).
Primary tasks of the Backflow Prevention Program include, but are not limited to:
Identifyingcustomers that must comply and contactingthemby letter to remind them of
annual testing requirements
Determining hazards associated with different types of customer accounts
Tracking all backflow prevention assembly testing. The city has incorporated the tracking
with the city’s utility billing database
Working with customers and testers on determining compliance
Working withthe Planning &Development Servicesto ensure assemblies are installed and
inspected
Working with all city facility staff to maintain compliance
Outreach and education
The city Backflow Prevention Program does not perform the installation and testing of
assemblies on customer service lines. However, some city departmentshave certified staff for
testing so they can perform testing on city facilities (e.g., Parks and Recreation).The city
currently tracks approximately 4,200accounts for backflow prevention. Over the past four
years, staff has specifically increased compliance by reaching out to property managers,
testers, and business and residential owners. The city’s compliance rate has increasedfrom
35%(2008) to 97% (2013).
Program improvements in recent years include:
Updating Contact Lists.
Staff has put significant effort into gathering and updating contact
information for testing companies, property managers, plumbers, etc. to assist customers with
compliance. The increase in new backflow prevention assemblies installed in recent years
indicates the communication has raised awareness and increased compliance (652 new devices
were installed within the city in 2012 and 955 in 2011).
Documenting and Tracking Fire Lines
.Staff has coordinated tocreateunique identification
in the utility billing database to enabletrackingand distinguishingfire from domestic lines and
also fire lines with and without chemical (antifreeze).For known fire lines, differences in
address identification by various city departments (e.g. Utility Billing, Fire Department,
Planning) make known fire lines easier to cross-reference and verify if multiple fire lines
AGENDA ITEM # IV PAGE 3
identified in the different databasesare the sameor if there are multiple fire lines at a given
property.
Identifying Property Hazards.
Staff hascreated Tier levels for potential hazard levels for
each property. Tiers range from I(high) to III(low).By categorizing the degree of hazard
potential, this helps prioritize accounts for compliance. This also helpswhen ownership
changes and the past hazard ranking changes.
Identifying Backflow Prevention in Constituent Relationship Management System.
Customers are able to direct questions or concerns for backflow prevention through this
system.
Performing Educationand Outreach.
The city providesthe following outreach to the
general public and to specific customers(See Attachment A for example outreach material).
City of Boulder Website (Boulderwater.net/Backflow Prevention)-
We have received
positive feedback from other utilities and customers on the education and information we
offer on our backflow portion of the website.
Educational Billing Insert-
An annualbilling insert to residential property owners
provides information on backflow andinstalling and maintainingbackflow devices on
irrigation lines.
Backflow Protection Education Council (BPECC) -
The city has been on the board since
2008 and continues to educate through means of this council. We tackle current issues that
should fall under the regulations for the State. We provide guidelines, pamphlets, and
materials used in teaching backflow certification classes. We are also working on the latest
version of the “Cross Connection Manual” for Colorado.
Operator Certification classes at Colorado Mountain College-
Teaching a backflow
prevention class every year to students that are preparing for Operators Certification.
ANALYSIS
The city’s Backflow Prevention Programstrives to be a model program in terms of improving
compliance through tracking and efficiency in implementing the program. The city has the
following ongoing projects and considerations.
Data EntryAutomation.
The Backflow Prevention Program is in the process of going
virtually paperless through developing an online test report submittal, which will potentially
save an approximate ¼ to ½ an FTE spent on manual data entry.Testers and customers
currently submit reportsto the city via email, fax, or mail. The changewould save resources
spent entering data and increase resource availability for program/department improvement.
Reverse Flow Meter Pilot.
One of the issues with backflow events is that we don’t know if or
how often theymay occur.The city is working with Boulder Housing Partnersby installing
sub meters that record any reverse flow of water and record any leaks in the system. This pilot
project will help identifyoccurrences thatcan be recorded at set intervals ranging from one
AGENDA ITEM # IV PAGE 4
minute to one hour or more. This pilot is currently in place at a few locations with one of the
city’s HOA’s.
Update Boulder Revised Code and Design & Construction Standards.
Both the Revised
Code (Chapter 11) and the Design and Construction Standards (Chapter 5, section 5.11)
reference backflow prevention. Utilities is currently working with Planning& Development
Servicesand the City Attorney’s Officeto improve the clarityand consistencyofthe rules,
requirements, enforcement and terminology of the Backflow Prevention Program.
Enforcement Action Options.
In lieu of shutting off customer’s water servicefor
noncompliance, other options for enforcement action have not beenfully developed. The
Backflow Prevention Program isreviewing(withCity Attorney andPlanning& Development
Services) options for enforcement action to develop a standard approach and timetable for
implementation. This includes reviewing when and if administrative penaltiesshould be
assessed for customers that are out of compliance. Currently, time and effort is committed to
working with individual customers on compliance issues.
Regulatory Participation
.CDPHE has been in the process ofrewritingthe cross connection
requirements of the CPDWR(Article 12). City staff staysinvolved with backflow prevention
discussions at the state level,proactively considersproposedregulatorychanges andwill
participate in the stakeholder process, which is expected to begin in 2014.
The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act will become effective on January 4, 2014,
substantially reducing the allowable amount of lead in pipes, fittings and fixtures installed to
deliver drinking water to consumers.Standardsfor maximum lead content of the wetted
surfaces of plumbing products such as pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures will
decrease from 8%to a weighted average of 0.25%.
The program has made significant strides in recent years in improving tracking and
communication processes, program documentation, and compliance.Although the city’s
compliance rate is high, the program continues to address complexities with certain situations.
For example, tracking all new and changed account types and ownership, backflow thefts,
confirmation of non-visibleassemblies in meter pits, and addressing site-specific situations
that limit or add significant cost to implement backflow prevention. As an example, backflow
prevention for the University of Colorado (CU) master meters would require significant cost
for construction on vaults for sizable assemblies. CU proposed an alternative compliance
through isolation devices within campus facilities (currently over 500 assemblies). City staff
continuesto work with customers, city legal staff, and the state in addressing these issues.
NEXT STEPS
Pilot the online test report submittalprocess with testing companiesLate 2013.
-
Participate in CDPHE stakeholder process to revise CPDWR Beginning of2014.
-
Propose revisions to Boulder Revised Code and Design & Construction Standards-2014.
ATTACHMENTS
A–
Example Backflow Prevention Education Materials
AGENDA ITEM # IV PAGE 5
CityofBoulderPublicWorks/Utilities*WaterQuality&EnvironmentalServices
DrinkingWaterProgram*BackflowPreventionProgram*5605N63rdSt.*Boulder,CO80301
ǡ
Ƭ
Ƭ
ǫ
B
ackflowistheundesiredreversalofwaterflow,mostoftencausedbypressurechangesinsideyourhome
Whenbackflowoccurs,waterinsideyourirrigation
orinthepipeswhichdeliverwatertoyourhome.
systemcanflowbackintoyourdrinkingwater.
Chemicals,bacteriaorstagnantwatercanenterinto
yourdrinkingwaterwhengardenhosesandirrigationsystemsarenotproperlyprotected.Asaresidential
customer,youmaynot(generally)posearisktothedrinkingwatersupply,butyoustillneedtomakesure
thewaterinsideyourhomeissafeforyouandyourfamily.
ǫ
Justlikeconservingwaterisimportant,youalsowanttoprotectthewateryou
have.
Anytimeyouirrigateusingasprinklersystem,adripsystem,orevenagardenhose,
backflowpreventionmeasuresneedtobetaken.Hereareafewwaysyoucanprotectyourself:
ǣ
Asidefromfertilizers,pesticidesandfungicides,whichcan
entersprinklerlines,irrigationsystemsarealsoahomeforbacteria.Whetherfromsoiloranimalwaste
(fromyourfamilypet),bacteriacanentersprinklersystemswhenwater
drainsintosprinklerheads.Plumbingcodeusuallyrequiresthata
PressureVacuumBreaker(PVB)beinstalled,butsometimespeopleinstall
systemswithoutPVBsorremovethePVBbecauseitcanleak.HavingafunctioningPVB
iscriticaltoprotectingwater.
ǣ
Thereareanumberofdripirrigationsystems
rangingfromtrue͞ĚƌŝƉ͟systemstosoakerhoses.Althoughthepressurein
thesesystemsisreduced,thereisstillapotentialforbackflowtooccur.
Oftenacheckdevicecanbepurchasedinthesprinkleraisleofyourlocal
store,whichcanhelppreventbackflow.Thesecheckscanbeinstalledon
thedripsystemjustaftertheconnectiontothespigotorhosebibb.Another
optionistoprotecttheentirehosebibbbyinstallingavacuumbreakeronit.
Ƭ ǣ
Gardenhosesareoneofthemost
oftenreportedsourcesofbackflow.Whengardenhosesareconnectedtohose
bibbstheyoftenhavenobackflowprevention.Whentheoppositeendofthe
gardenhoseisconnectedtohandheldfertilizersorleftlayinginapuddleofmud,
backflowofcontaminantsispossible.Installingavacuumbreaker(asshownbelow)can
helppreventbackflowfromoccurring.
ǣ
Alwaysremembertowinterizeyour
VacuumBreakersinstalledonhosebibbs
irrigationsystem,includingthe
PVBhasbeeninstalled,tested&repaired
maintenanceand/orremovalofbackflow
Gardenhosesareputawayafteruse
preventionassembliesanddevices.Dripsystemshavecheckvalves
ǣ
VacuumBreakersdrainedorremoved
FormoreInformation,pleasegoto
PVBremovedorprotectedfromfreezing
Boulderwater.netandlookforBackflow
Gardenhosesremovedfromhosebibbs
PreventionundertheWaterQualityheading.
Dripsystemremovedfromhosebibbs
BackflowPreventionAssemblyRequirements:
Aquickguidefornewinstallationsandremodels
dheinformationprovidedhereprovidesaquicklookatrequirementsandinnoway
alleviatesthecustomer,contractororplumberfromreviewingplumbingcode,
manufacturerspecifications,and/orothercityrequirementsforbackflowprevention
assemblies,plumbing,etc.PleasereferencethecityofBoulderDesignandConstruction
StandardsChapter5:WaterDesign.
džĂŵƉůĞƐŽĨůĂƌŐĞĂŶĚ
ƐŵĂůůďĂĐŬĨůŽǁ
Assemblyrequirementoverview:
ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂƐƐĞŵďůŝĞƐ
Theassemblymustbe:
;WŝĐƚƵƌĞƐŽƵƌƚĞƐLJŽĨ
1)Installedafterthemeterandpriortoanyplumbingbranches;
tĂƚƚƐZĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌ
2)Installedaccordingtomanufacturerspecifications;
ŽŵƉĂŶLJͿ
3)Installedbyalicensedplumberaccordingtolocalplumbingcode;
4)Installedwithoutanypipes,hosesorvalvesthatcouldbypasstheassembly;
inwhichitisinstalled;
5)USCapprovedfortheorientation
6)Testedbyacertifiedbackflowtesterinaccordancewithstateregulation;
7)Testeduponinstallationandannuallythereafter;and
8)Workingproperlysuchthatapassingtestreportissenttothebackflow
preventionprogramusingthecorrectformwithin10daysofthewater
servicebeingturnedon.
Assemblyrequirementsbylinetype:
&ŝƌĞ>ŝŶĞƐ͗Atestablebackflowpreventionassemblyisrequiredforfire
sprinklersystems.ReducedPressureZone(RPZ)assembliesshouldbeused.
DoubleCheck(DC)assembliesmaybeusedincertaincasesasallowedbythe
programand/orFireDepartment.Ifthereischemicalinjection,aRPZis
ĂůǁĂLJƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ.ReducedPressureassemblieswillneedappropriatelysized
drains.
ĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚ/ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ>ŝŶĞƐ͗Atestablebackflowpreventionassemblyis
requiredforirrigationservicelines.ReducedPressureZone(RPZ)assemblies
shouldbeused.PressureVacuumBreaker(PVB)assembliesmaybeusedin
certaincases(wherethereisnobackpressure),asallowedbytheprogram.If
thereischemicalinjection,aRPZisĂůǁĂLJƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ.RPZassemblieswill
needappropriatelysizeddrains.
ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ>ŝŶĞƐ͗Atestablebackflowpreventionassemblyisrequired
fordomesticwaterservicelines.ReducedPressureZone(RPZ)assemblies
shouldbeused.DoubleCheck(DC)assembliesmaybeusedincertaincases,
asallowedbytheprogram.Ifthereischemicalinjection,aRPZisĂůǁĂLJƐ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ.RPZassemblieswillneedappropriatelysizeddrains.
FormoreinformationabouttheBackflowPreventionProgram,
visitwww.boulderwater.netandclickonDz PreventionǤdz
ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌWƌŽŐƌĂŵͬĂĐŬĨůŽǁWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ
ƌĚ
ϱϲϬϱEϲϯ^ƚƌĞĞƚŽƵůĚĞƌ͕KϴϬϯϬϭ
dĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞ͗ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌWƌŽŐƌĂŵ;ϯϬϯͿϰϭϯϳϰϬϬ
ĂĐŬĨůŽǁWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ;ϯϬϯͿϰϭϯϳϰϬϭ
&Ădž͗;ϯϬϯͿϱϯϬϭϭϯϳ
ŵĂŝů͗ŶŽďĂĐŬĨůŽǁΛďŽƵůĚĞƌĐŽůŽƌĂĚŽ͘ŐŽǀ
CityofBoulderPublicWorks/Utilities*WaterQuality&EnvironmentalServices
DrinkingWaterProgram*BackflowPreventionProgram*5605N63rdSt.*Boulder,CO80301
ǡ
Ƭ
Ƭ
ǫ
B
ackflowistheundesiredreversalofwaterflow,mostoftencausedbypressurechangesinsideyourhome
Whenbackflowoccurs,waterinsideyourirrigation
orinthepipeswhichdeliverwatertoyourhome.
systemcanflowbackintoyourdrinkingwater.
Chemicals,bacteriaorstagnantwatercanenterinto
yourdrinkingwaterwhengardenhosesandirrigationsystemsarenotproperlyprotected.Asaresidential
customer,youmaynot(generally)posearisktothedrinkingwatersupply,butyoustillneedtomakesure
thewaterinsideyourhomeissafeforyouandyourfamily.
ǫ
Justlikeconservingwaterisimportant,youalsowanttoprotectthewateryou
have.
Anytimeyouirrigateusingasprinklersystem,adripsystem,orevenagardenhose,
backflowpreventionmeasuresneedtobetaken.Hereareafewwaysyoucanprotectyourself:
ǣ
Asidefromfertilizers,pesticidesandfungicides,whichcan
entersprinklerlines,irrigationsystemsarealsoahomeforbacteria.Whetherfromsoiloranimalwaste
(fromyourfamilypet),bacteriacanentersprinklersystemswhenwater
drainsintosprinklerheads.Plumbingcodeusuallyrequiresthata
PressureVacuumBreaker(PVB)beinstalled,butsometimespeopleinstall
systemswithoutPVBsorremovethePVBbecauseitcanleak.HavingafunctioningPVB
iscriticaltoprotectingwater.
ǣ
Thereareanumberofdripirrigationsystems
rangingfromtrue͞ĚƌŝƉ͟systemstosoakerhoses.Althoughthepressurein
thesesystemsisreduced,thereisstillapotentialforbackflowtooccur.
Oftenacheckdevicecanbepurchasedinthesprinkleraisleofyourlocal
store,whichcanhelppreventbackflow.Thesecheckscanbeinstalledon
thedripsystemjustaftertheconnectiontothespigotorhosebibb.Another
optionistoprotecttheentirehosebibbbyinstallingavacuumbreakeronit.
Ƭ ǣ
Gardenhosesareoneofthemost
oftenreportedsourcesofbackflow.Whengardenhosesareconnectedtohose
bibbstheyoftenhavenobackflowprevention.Whentheoppositeendofthe
gardenhoseisconnectedtohandheldfertilizersorleftlayinginapuddleofmud,
backflowofcontaminantsispossible.Installingavacuumbreaker(asshownbelow)can
helppreventbackflowfromoccurring.
ǣ
Alwaysremembertowinterizeyour
VacuumBreakersinstalledonhosebibbs
irrigationsystem,includingthe
PVBhasbeeninstalled,tested&repaired
maintenanceand/orremovalofbackflow
Gardenhosesareputawayafteruse
preventionassembliesanddevices.Dripsystemshavecheckvalves
ǣ
VacuumBreakersdrainedorremoved
FormoreInformation,pleasegoto
PVBremovedorprotectedfromfreezing
Boulderwater.netandlookforBackflow
Gardenhosesremovedfromhosebibbs
PreventionundertheWaterQualityheading.
Dripsystemremovedfromhosebibbs
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCESADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2013
AGENDA TITLE:
Information Item –Background on Wastewater Collection,
Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plans
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur,Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Principal Engineer -Utilities
Douglas Sullivan, Engineering Project Manager
Pieter Beyer, Civil Engineer II
This information item presents background information concerning the Comprehensive Flood
and Stormwater,the Stormwater and the Wastewater Utility Master Plans.These master plans
provide an analysis of the utility infrastructure and improvements needs. The identified needs
and their relative importance are the primary basis for prioritizing projects identified in the 6-
year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).It is important that WRAB members have an
understanding of the analysis approach and master plan recommended project priorities. WRAB
has a key role in reviewing staff recommendations and making recommendations to City Council
on master plans as well as the annual 6-year CIP budget process.
The flood disaster will likely influence the previously identified master plan based project
priorities. Consideration of additional improvements to utility infrastructure designed to mitigate
future damages may be warranted.
Maps depicting the location of recommended master plan based improvements, along with the
location of flood damages will be available at the meeting for review and discussion.
Staff will be investigating the cause of various damages and reviewing the recommendations of
these master plans in preparationfor the 2015 budget process. Recommendations will be made
regarding any revisions to the previously approved master plan based project priorities along
with financing options.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: City Council Agenda Memo –Comprehensive Flood Master Plan11-16-2004
Attachment B: City Council Agenda Memo –Stormwater Master Plan06-05-2007
Agenda V Page 1
Attachment C: City Council Agenda Memo–Wastewater Utility Master Plan02-02-2010
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 16, 2004
November 9, 2004
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of a motion to accept the Comprehensive Flood and
Stormwater Utility Master Plan, repeal the Comprehensive Drainage and Utility Master
Plan adopted in 1989, affirm, restate and otherwise approve that, for the purposes of
Section 11-5-3 B.R.C. 1981, that the following documents comprise the City’s “master
drainage plans” (1. Stormwater Collection System Master Plan (1984), and 2. the Major
Drainageway Planning, Boulder and Adjacent County Drainageways – Phase B (1987)),
and direct the city manager to continue to work towards updating the Stormwater
Collection System Master Plan (1984) in the near future and continue working on
updating plans for major drainageways over time with individual plans for drainageways
such as Fourmile Canyon Creek, which is currently inprogress.
PRESENTER/S:
Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Alan Taylor, Flood Program Manager
Donna Scott, Stormwater Quality Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this agenda item is to brief Council on the Comprehensive Flood and
Stormwater Utility Master Plan (CFS) and to provide an opportunity for additional public
comment and Council input. CFS was developed as the tool for reviewing and setting the
direction for the city’s Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. Staff recommends that
Council confirm this direction by accepting the CFS Utility Master Plan by consideration
of a motion.
The CFS sets the agenda for implementing programs and activities of the city’s
Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. Unlike other city master plans, CFS does not
identify specific Capital Improvement Projects. Rather it provides guiding principles,
program elements and action items as summarized in the Executive Summary
(Attachment A).
Acceptance of the CFS will allow staff to take immediate action consistent with the
following policies:
Floodplain Mapping Updates – Implement a 10-year cycle for mapping
updates and incorporate risk assessments.
Flood Preparedness – Enhance flood monitoring and prediction and
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE1
implement the findings from recent system evaluations.
Property Acquisition and Floodplain Mitigation – Balance structural with
non-structural alternatives to floodplain management. Construct flood
mitigation projects as well as proceed with select floodplain property
acquisitions.
Sub-basin Management – Focus on reducing the impact of runoff by
focusing on preventive measures to minimize pollution at the source and
implementing “Best Management Practices.”
Certain policy recommendations made in the CFS require further public review and input
as well as review and action from boards and Council before proceeding to action.
Floodplain Regulations – Consider developing 500-year protection
standards for critical facilities; consider “no adverse impact” approach to
floodplain management.
Water Quality Regulations – Update city codes to be compliant with, and
where applicable, to exceed state and federal regulations. (Updated code
changes are proposed in Agenda Item 3I.)
Some action items identified in the plan have been included for funding in the proposed
2005 Utility Fund submission(and are noted below):
Public Education and Flood Insurance - Allocate $125,000 annually to
fund and staff a flood management program resource center (Action item -
$125,000 included in 2005 budget proposal).
Water Quality - Ensure funding for continued participation in WASH.
(WASH funding is included in the 2005 budget proposal.)
One-time allocation of $250,000 proposed in 2005 budget to update the
Stormwater Collection System Master Plan.
Ongoing funding of $50,000/year to begin an inspection and maintenance
program for stormwater quality and existing private on-site detention
facilities.
Ongoing funding of $50,000/year for GIS tool development and system
support.
The CFS is intended to replace the Comprehensive Drainage Utility Master Plan
(CDUMP) that has been in effect since 1989. The CFS is an advisory document and will
not constitute the "master drainage plan" for the purposes of § 11-5-3, B.R.C. 1981. The
City's "master drainage plans" for the purposes of 11-5-3 are the Stormwater Collection
System Master Plan (1984) and the Major Drainageway Planning, Boulder and Adjacent
County Drainageways – Phase B (1987). The CFS calls for the Stormwater Collection
System Master Plan to be updated in the near future. Plans for major drainageways will
be updated over time with individual plans for drainageways such as Fourmile Canyon
Creek (currently in progress.)
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE2
The CFS does not in and of itself establish any new funding or regulations. This will be
accomplished as separate follow-up actions. Two of these follow-up actions are part of
the current (Nov. 16, 2004) Council agenda including the 2005 budget and regulatory
changes pertaining to connections and discharges into the stormwater collection system.
Other follow-up actions will be submitted to Council for consideration at a later date. For
example, the CFS recommends that analysis proceed with the development of a 500-year
protection standard for critical facilites in line with federal guidance. If the CFS is
accepted by City Council, this analysis would proceed and the results would be provided
to various advisory boards and the public before returning to City Council for its final
review and consideration.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There are no fiscal impacts associatedspecifically with acceptance of the CFS.
Recommendations that have fiscal impacts will be considered as part of the annual
budget process. The CFS as presented is a “cost constrained” version. The financial
approach recommended in the CFS considered evolving regulations, technology and
development characteristics. This slower, methodical approach will allow for planning
and adapting to these anticipated changes.
OTHER IMPACTS:
The CFS contains recommendations and action items for further consideration which
may result in changes to city regulations. Analysis of any changes will include an
assessment of possible options, ramifications,potential costs to property owners and an
opportunity for public feedback.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) reviewed the CFS on May 17, 2004 and
unanimously recommended approval of the plan and the associated capital improvements
with the following comments and recommendations: (1) the path the city has chosen is a
slower, more affordable path and there is a faster path that is a lot more expensive, and
(2) there needs to be better coordination between departments on flood issues. (See
Attachment B for the summary minutes.)
The Planning Board reviewed the CFS on Oct. 21, 2004 and unanimously recommended
to City Council the acceptance of the plan. Planning Board review focused on the
following questions:
1.Is the master plan consistent with the goals, policies and growth projections of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan?
2.Does the Master Plan outline the BVCP Service Standards and a plan to meet
them into the future?
3.Does the plan/update describe and assess capital needs and a funding plan for
them?
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE3
The guiding principles of the CFS are consistent with the current goals and policies of the
BVCP and the CFS provides a plan to implement these goals. Certain CFS related goals
and policies will be reviewed as part of the 2005 BVCP major update process.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
A Community Review Group (CRG) was convened to review the analysis and
recommendations of the plan through the CFS development process. The group was
asked to raise issues or challenges to the information and draft recommendations that
staff presented. Input from the CRG is described throughout the CFS document under the
“Public Input” section for each recommended program elements.
An Independent Review Panel (IRP) of flood hazard experts met with staff and
consultants to review CFS information and draft recommendations. The IRP comments
and concerns are reflected throughout the CFS document. A letter from the panel to City
Council outlining an overview of its work and recommendations is included in
Attachment C.
Members of Plan Boulder County submittedcomments regarding the CFS to the Water
Resources Advisory Board in April 2004. Revisions to the CFS were made to address
these comments, and responses to these comments are presented in Attachment D.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopts a motion to:
Accept the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan as
1.
presented;
Repeal the Comprehensive Drainage Utility Master Plan adopted in 1989;
2.
Affirm, restate, and otherwise approve that, for the purposes of Section 11-5-3,
3.
B.R.C. 1981, that the following documentscomprise the City's "master drainage
plans":
The Stormwater Collection System Master Plan (1984);
1.
The Major Drainageway Planning, Boulder and Adjacent County
2.
Drainageways – Phase B (1987).
Direct the city manager to continue to work towards updating the Stormwater
4.
Collection System Master Plan (1984) in the near future and continue working
on updating plans for major drainageways over time with individual plans for
drainageways such as Fourmile Canyon Creek which is currently in progress.
ANALYSIS:
The CFS attempts to balance programs and activities in the city’s Stormwater and Flood
Management Utility to satisfy current local interests, accommodate changing trends,
philosophies, regulations and standards, ensure maximum effectiveness and cost
efficiency, and meet evolving community goals and objectives. A summary of CFS
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE4
analyses including proposed guiding principles, program elements and action items is
presented in the Executive Summary (Attachment A) and a broad overview is presented
below.
Flood Management
The city of Boulder is extremely vulnerable to flash flooding due to its geographical
location at the base of the Rocky Mountains. Flash flooding can occur with less than 30
minutes of warning. Recent flash floods along Colorado’s Front Range include a 1997
flood in the city of Fort Collins that caused $200 million in damage and claimed five
lives. The flood was caused by a storm that dumped 14.5 inches of rain. Storms of this
magnitude aren't uncommon along the Front Range; yet 100-year flooding in Boulder can
occur with only three inches of rainfall. In 1976, the Big Thompson River flood
destroyed over 300 houses and killed 300 people when 12-14 inches of rain fell in the Big
Thompson Canyon along Highway 34. The canyon is very similar to the canyons just
west of Boulder. Within the city of Boulder’s 100-year floodplain, there are thousands of
people and approximately 3,600 structures with an assessed valuation of almost $1
billion. CFS includes specific program elements to address flood hazard including
emphasis on floodplain mapping updates, risk assessments, flood preparedness, public
education and flood insurance.
Over the last 15 years, the city has focused its flood management program efforts by
removing structures from high hazard flood areas. Through these efforts 134 of 279
identified high hazard structures have been removed from the regulated high hazard flood
zone. This was accomplished based on a combination of major drainageway
improvements that narrowed the floodplain and/or the acquisition and physical removal
of individual structures. A project that acquired and physically removed 13 multi-family
structures (169 units) near Boulder High School is a major example of these efforts. This
project also excavated the area north of Boulder Creek (now recreational/sports fields) to
improve flood conveyance. CFS proposes to continue these efforts, balancing property
acquisition and constructed flood mitigation projects.
Although current flood regulations require protection for flood levels up to 100-year
event, there is concern that larger floods such as those experienced in Fort Collins and
along the Big Thompson River will cause considerable damage and loss of life. The city
currently regulates the 100-year conveyance and high hazard zones. Although floodplain
maps identify a 500-year floodplain, this is only for information purposes, and there are
currently no regulatory requirements. City Council discussed floodplain regulation issues
at a Jan. 29, 2002 study session as documented below:
“Updated floodplain regulations to address redevelopment, critical facilities and storms
exceeding 100-year levels were supported subject to the consideration of the results of
additional analysis answering the following questions:
1.What would be defined as critical facilities?
2.What is the impact of the 500-year floodplain compared with the 100-year
floodplain?
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE5
3.How would the regulations be revised to address redevelopment concerns?
4.What impacts would the revised floodplain regulations create?”
500-
One of the action items recommended in the master plan is to proceed to develop
year protection standards for critical facilities
in line with federal guidance to ensure
access to, use of and uninterrupted service for critical facilities such as: fire and police
stations; water and sewer treatment plants; utility infrastructure for water, sewer, gas,
electric and communications; schools; day care and senior care facilities; hospitals; major
roads and bridges; and hazardous materialstorage. This action item will assess the
appropriate level and type of regulation in the 500-year flood zone and will explore
whether critical facilities should be held to a higher standard or if these uses should be
excluded from the 500-year flood zone. (Note: several critical facilities have recently
been constructed in the 500-year floodplain with 500-year flood protection including the
Foothills Boulder Community Hospital and the Foothills Housing Development.)
Recent projections indicate that almost five percent of the parcels of land designated with
redevelopment potential have greater than 50 percent of their land area within the high
hazard or conveyance flood zones. Current city regulations would significantly restrict
redevelopment of these parcels. Almost 20 percent of the parcels of land designated with
redevelopment potential have greater than 50 percent of their land area within the 100-
year floodplain. Current city regulations do not restrict redevelopment of these properties
but require suitable flood protection measures. However, these properties would still be
subject to flood damage from larger flood events. Many of these parcels which would be
impacted by Boulder Creek flooding are located in the Boulder Valley Regional Center
and the downtown business area. These issues will be further evaluated as part of the
Flood Hazard Land Use Analysis, a joint effort between the Utilities Division and Long
Range Planning staff.
The Utility has recently reorganized its activities to provide a point person (Flood
Program Manager – Alan Taylor) to manage nonstructural flood management activities
including floodplain mapping, risk assessments, floodplain regulations, public education,
flood insurance and flood preparedness.Permitting of floodplain development will
continue to be managedby Planning and Development Services.
Analyses of the flood management program including proposed guiding principles,
program elements and action items are presented in Chapter 3.
Stormwater Quality
In 2001, in response to Federal Clean WaterAct requirements, the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) expanded its regulations to include
regulations for discharges from municipal storm sewer systems for cities with
populations less than 100,000 and more than 10,000. The intent of this stormwater
permit program is to reduce the amount of pollutants entering streams, lakes and rivers as
a result of runoff from residential, commercial, municipal and industrial areas including
construction sites. Stormwater permit compliance is based on implementing activities
intended to reduce pollutant loading fromurbanized areas. Changes to the Boulder
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE6
Revised Code (BRC) and Design and Construction Standards (DCS) to ensure that these
city regulations are in compliance with our current permit requirements have been
proposed by staff and will be considered by City Council on Nov. 16, 2004. CFS
proposes a proactive approach to comply with both current and anticipated regulations
including sub-basin management.
Water quality in Boulder Creek and its tributaries is a significantconcern. The Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment is considering listing Boulder Creek as
an impaired water body for E. coli bacteria contamination. Elevated levels of E. coli
have been found in Boulder Creek, west of the city to outside its eastern boundary and
again in the segment below the confluence with Coal Creek.E. coli are bacteria found in
the intestine of warm blooded animals and are associated with fecal waste. The source of
the E. coli contamination in Boulder Creek is unknown. Suspected sources include
wildlife (raccoons), domestic pets (dogs) and human waste products. CFS proposes a
proactive approach to address this issue including stream enhancement.
Currently, Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified as options in the City’s Design
and Construction Standards (DCS) are geared more toward new development than
toward redevelopment. Boulder is predominantly “built-out,” and guidelines focused
toward new development have limited applicability in denser, redeveloping areas such as
the Boulder Valley Regional Center and the downtown business center. Therefore, more
innovative solutions need to be applied. Examples of these BMPs include porous
pavements, subsurface detention, vegetated landscape filters and hydrodynamic separator
devices. CFS proposes that these BMPs be further investigated and considered.
Analyses of the stormwater quality program including proposed guiding principles,
program elements and action items are presented in Chapter 4.
Stormwater Drainage
The existing Stormwater Collection System Master Plan provides the city of Boulder
with a guide for minor storm (two-year frequency for residential areas and five-year
frequency for commercial/ industrial areas) drainage related Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP). This 20-year old plan should be updated to include drainage, detention,
groundwater and stormwater quality issues. Land use has changed significantly, and the
plan should consider planned developmentand redevelopment activities. Stormwater
quality permitting requirements and BMPs should be further assessed and applied to
individual sub-basins. CFS recommends that a Stormwater Management Plan be
developed to address these issues.
The city has required on-site detention for new developments that increase
imperviousness since the early 1970s. On-site detention storage is required for all
developments other than individual single-family lots that are not part of a larger
development. Most of these facilities are privately owned and maintained. The design of
these facilities is reviewed by city staff at the time of application. The facilities are
inspected and as-built drawings are now required to be submitted. However, there is
currently no follow-up city inspection to assure these facilities are functioning as
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE7
originally intended. CFS proposes ongoing inspection of these facilities and further
consideration of maintenance requirements.
Groundwater and sump systems create nuisance drainage in the public rights-of-way and
potential hazards due to build-ups of slime and ice. Also, groundwater dewatering
systems can affect local water wells and wetlands by lowering the groundwater table.
Requirements for groundwater extraction and release are loosely defined in current city
regulations. CFS proposes that these requirements be further defined.
Analyses of the stormwater drainage program including proposed guiding principles,
program elements and action items are presented in Chapter 5.
Program Integration and Implementation
The Stormwater and Flood Management Utility is part of the city’s Public Works
Department. The organizational structure of the department provides both opportunities
for and challenges to integrating various program interests and other multi-objectives.
CFS points to a number of opportunities that will be used to integrate program activities
by staff.
A significant opportunity for integration with other city objectives is the 2005 major
update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (2000). The update process will
provide an opportunity to review land use and zoning designations from the perspective
of flood hazard, water quality and drainage issues.
The Greenways Program is currently limited to Boulder Creek and six tributaries
including Fourmile Canyon, Wonderland,Goose, Skunk, Bear Canyon and South
Boulder Creeks. It is recommended that the Greenways program be expanded to all 15 of
the city’s major drainageways to provide for better integration of multiple objectives.
Analyses of program integration and implementation issues are presented in the Chapter
6.
Alternative Proposals or Options
Although it is recommended the Council accept the CFS Utility Master Plan, Council
may choose not to do so and provide direction as to specific chapters, issues or topics that
require additional anlaysis and information.
Approved By:
Frank W. Bruno,
City Manager
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE8
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Management Utility Master Plan
Executive Summary
Attachment B: Summary Minutes of May 17, 2004 Water Resources Advisory Board
Meeting
Attachment C: IRP Final Report from Flood Management Review Process dated April 2,
2004
Attachment D: PLAN Boulder County - Summary of Comments and Responses dated
June 22, 2004
Attachment E: CFS Utility Master Plan Document dated October 2004
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE9
ATTACHMENTA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
System Maintenance and
Restoration.
I
NTRODUCTION
Flood and Stormwater Regulation
and Compliance.
The Comprehensive Flood and
Stormwater Utility Master Plan (CFS)
System Master Planning and
provides a framework for evaluating,
Design.
developing, and implementing
various programs and activitiesinthe
Public Education and Community
withinthe scope of the available
Outreach.
budget.The CFS replaces the 1989
Comprehensive DrainageUtility
Flood Prediction.
Master Plan (CDUMP).
Stormwater Quality
The CFS isthe result of the periodic
Management.
need to update programs and
activitiesto satisfy current local
Emergency Preparedness and
interests, accommodate changing
Day-to-Day Operations.
trends, philosophies,regulationsand
standards, ensure maximum
Capital Improvements and Land
effectiveness and cost efficiency,
Management.
and meet evolving community goals
and objectives.The CFS Utility Plan’s main objectives
are to address:(1) flash flood
The Stormwater and Flood
hazards; (2)stormwaterquality; (3)
Management Utility(Utility) is
stormwater drainage;(4) program
responsible for the administration of
integration and implementation;
the City's flood management,
and (5)financialconsiderations.
stormwater quality, and stormwater
drainage programs. Its
AD
REAESCRIPTION
responsibilities include:
The Boulder Creek Watershed
encompasses some 440 squaremiles
Administration and Operations.
and extends from the Continental
Dividetothe high plains east of the
Utility Rates and Finance.
City. There are 15major
drainageways(orcreeks) in Boulder,
Program Developmentand
within which a total of 17 sub-basins
Management.
have been delineated.The tributary
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE10
drainageways all eventually feed to an assessed valuation of almost $1
Boulder Creek north of the Valmontbillion.
Reservoir.
The City continues to grow through a
The study area itself isnearly “builtcombination of new development
out” resulting in a highly urbanizedand redevelopmentactivity.Within
drainagesetting. The natural hazardsthe floodplain, these activities pose
related to stormwaterand flood additionalpotential for hazards due
management are particularlyto flash floods.
complicated by the fact that space
Recentprojections indicate that
is at a premium and that so many
almost 5 percent of the parcels of
structures are withinthe floodplain.
land designated with
redevelopment potential have
PP
UBLICROCESS
greater than 50 percent oftheirland
A Community-ReviewGroup(CRG)
area within the high hazard or
was used to provide “real-time”
conveyance flood zones. Current
inputtothe analysis and draft
City regulations would significantly
recommendations for the CFS Master
restrict redevelopment of these
Plan.The CRG was created based
parcels.Almost 20 percent of the
on the key interests affected by the
parcels of land designated with
CFS.
redevelopment potential have
greater than 50 percent oftheirland
The Independent Review Panel (IRP),
area within the 100-year floodplain.
a panel of flood hazard experts,also
Current City regulations do not
participated inthe CFS
restrict redevelopment of these
development process.
properties but require suitable flood
protection measures.However,
TheWater ResourceAdvisory Board
these properties would still be
(WRAB) met twicein 2003 and
subject to flood damage from larger
discussed key issues and the master
flood events. Many ofthese parcels
plan process.
are located inthe Boulder Valley
Regional Center and the downtown
FM
LOODANAGEMENT
business area whichwill be
impacted byBoulderCreek
The Flood Management Program is
flooding.
responsible for all programs and
activities related to local flooding
Boulderfloodplain policies havenot
and the floodplain.
been updated since adoption ofthe
CDUMP.As a result, our local
The City of Boulder is extremely
floodplain managementprogram
vulnerableto flash flooding due to its
has fallen behind the progression of
geographical location atthe base
national and regionaltrends and
of the RockyMountains.Withinthe
philosophies, and the nonstructural
City of Boulder’s100-year floodplain
floodplainpolicy objectives outlined
there are thousands of people and
inthe early years of our floodplain
approximately 3,600 structures with
management program have never
been fully realized.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE11
Current Program Elements
updating new citywide topographic,
planimetric,and aerial base
Current flood management program
mapping used for the study
elements include floodplain
purposes.
mapping, risk assessments,
regulations,flood information and
In-depth analysis of floodplain
insurance, emergency
mapping results can offer insights
preparedness, property acquisition,
into the associated risks and levels of
and flood mitigationcapital
hazard inside the floodplain. The
improvements.
expanded hazard informationis
valuable for enhancing non-
Guiding Principles
structural flood management
program activities supported by the
Using national and regionaltrends
community.
and philosophies, current and past
local policies, and
Recommendations include:
recommendations from the IRP and
CRG as a backdrop for updating
Adopt a 10-year update cycle
Boulder’s flood management
for local floodplain mapping
program,staff is recommendingfive
studies.
guiding principles:
Include floodplain risk
1.“Preserve Floodplains.”
assessments in all floodplain
mapping updates.
2.“Be Prepared for Floods.”
3.“Help People Protect
Public Education and Flood Insurance
Themselves from Flood
Hazards.”
The guiding principleto “help
people protect themselves from
4.“PreventAdverse Impacts and
flood hazards” focuses on educating
Unwise Uses inthe Floodplain.”
the publicabout flooding and
providing information and resources
5.“Seek to Accommodate
the publicmay access to reduce
Floods,Not Control Them.”
their own exposure to flooding.
GiventhatBoulder is nearing “build-
out,” this approach allows the flood
Recommended Flood Management
management program to reach out
Program Elements
and benefitthe community at large.
Floodplain Mapping Studies Program
There has been a strong community
interestin offering a greater balance
Floodplainmapping studies are
of non-structural flood management
essential in determiningareaswhere
program activities as part of the
life safety is threatened and
overall Stormwater and Flood
damage to property islikely.
Management Utility program.These
recommendationswill serve tohelp
A10-year update cycle coincides
achieve thisbalance:
withthe City’s average timeline for
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE12
warning, and multiple notification
Create a flood management
measures by implementing the
program resource center and
findings in theUniversityof
program manager.
Coloradoand recent system
Allocate $125,000 annual funding
evaluations.
and staff resources for program
Update and improvethe flood
support.
response and flood recovery
plans to address actions by
Enhance the flood management
public officials and actions by
Web site.
residents and members of the
public.
Pursue an improved Community
Rating System(CRS) rating given
Developinnovative user friendly
available resources.
information materials for the
public and residentsto follow in
Research a local flood proofing
the eventof a flood.
program.
Floodplain Regulations
Flood Preparedness
Floodplainregulations are land use
The guiding principleto “be
regulationsintended to regulate
preparedfor floods” focuses on
activities and developmentinthe
floodplain emergency
100-year floodplain,conveyance
preparedness. Flood preparedness is
zone (or floodway), and highhazard
a critical elementinthe City’s
zone. They are designed to provide
floodplain managementprogram,
a mechanism to address life safety
considering that more than 15
and property damageimpacts by
percent of the community is
restricting certain activities and
impacted byfloodplains.
improvements in the floodplain.
The more prepared a community
The floodplain regulatory revisions
can be with pre-flood preparedness,
include recommendationsintended
ongoing monitoring, effective
to better address issues of life safety
warning systems, trained response,
and structural safety:
and post-flood recovery, the better
chance the risks of flooding may be
Assess the adequacyof
life
managed.
safety measures.
Recommendations include:
Address
floodplain mapping
uncertainties.
Enhance coordination between
the Officeof Emergency
Develop options for
mitigating
Management and the City of
encroachments.
new floodplain
Boulder bytaking a more active
rolein emergency management.
Develop
500-year protection
standards for critical facilities.
Continueto enhance flood
monitoringand prediction, early
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE13
The following recommendations
Evaluatethe adequacy of the
offer approaches to balance
flood protection elevation for
structural and non-structural
flood proofed structures.
alternatives:
Develop
hazard analysis
Floodplain riskassessments,
standards.
developedin conjunction with
Seek FEMAapproval of
floodplain mappingupdates,
engineered foundation standards
should be used to identify and
for crawlspaces.
quantify life safety and property
damage risks to determine
Research limited residential flood-
appropriate measures for
proofing options for structures
property acquisition and
located in lower-risk shallow
floodplain mitigation.
flooding areas.
A balance of constructed flood
EvaluatetheAssociation of State
mitigationprojects(based on risks
Floodplain Managers “no
to life safety and of property
adverseimpact” approach to
damage)and acquisition of
floodplain management.
property(including removal of
associated structures)should be
Seek FEMAand UDFCD
appliedto long-term floodplain
acceptance of the City
management and preservation.
conveyance zone (floodway).
Non-structural alternatives shall
Seek Boulder County/City of
be considered and balanced
Boulder regulatory consistency.
with structural measures for
floodplain planningand
mitigation activities.
Property Acquisition and Floodplain
Mitigation
SQ
TORMWATERUALITY
The floodplain risk assessments will
provide a more detailed framework
The City’s Stormwater Quality
for evaluating floodplain
Program is responsible for managing
management and/or mitigation
local activitiesto preserve, protect,
alternatives.
and enhance water quality
affecting Boulder’s streams and
The property acquisition and
drainages.The current program has
constructed flood mitigation
four main components:
program has been very successful
overthe years. However, modern
Public Education
communityinterests and national
trends awayfrom structural
Water Quality Monitoring
drainageway construction have
raised questions regarding previousRegulatory Compliance
structurallyoriented projects that
Source Control
involve significant costs and raise
environmental and aestheticissues.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE14
In 2001, in response toCleanWaterregulations, sub-basinmanagement
Act requirements, Colorado and stream enhancement.
Department of Public Health and the
Guiding Principles
Environment (CDPHE)expandedits
regulations to include regulations for
Recommended stormwater quality
dischargesfrom municipal storm
guiding principles, based on national
sewer systems for cities with
trends and current local policies,
populations less than100,000 and
include:
more than 10,000. Stormwater
permit compliance is based on
1.“Preserve Our Streams”
implementation of stormwater
management programs intended to
2.“ PreventAdverse Impacts
reduce pollutant loading from
from Stormwater”
urbanized areas.
3.“Protect and Enhance Our
Water quality in Boulder Creek and
Stream Corridors”
itstributaries is a significant concern.
The CDPHEis considering listing
Boulder Creek as an impaired water Recommended Stormwater Quality
bodyfor E. colibacteria
Program Elements
contamination.
Water Quality Regulations
Currently, Best Management
Practices(BMPs) identified as options
Implementation of a common
inthe City’s Design and Construction
approach results in consistency
Standards(DCS) are geared more
throughout the Boulder Creek
toward new developmentthan
watershed and provides more
toward re-development. Boulder is
comprehensive, regional protection
predominantly “built-out”, and
of water quality.
guidelines focused toward new
development have limited
Continuedwater quality monitoring
applicability in denser, redeveloping
of the main stem of Boulder Creek
areas such as the Boulder Valley
will provideinformation needed to
Regional Center and the downtown
evaluate the impact of existing and
business center.Therefore, more
new regulatory requirements such as
innovativesolutions need to be
the Total Maximum Daily Limit(TMDL)
applied. Examples of these BMPs
and sediment/aquatic life standards.
include porous pavements,
Recommendations include:
subsurface detention, vegetated
landscape filters and hydrodynamic
Update City codes and
separator devices.
development standards to meet
applicable federal and state
Current Program Elements
regulations. UpdateCity
standards to exceed federal and
Current stormwater quality program
state requirements where
elements include waterquality
appropriate to meet local water
quality protection needs.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE15
Ensure adequate funding for theExaminethe stormwater utility
continuedparticipation in therate structure to promote
WASH program and the City’sinnovativeBMPs and investment
individual requirements forin public regional BMPs.
compliancewith the City’s
Developincentive programs to
Stormwater Permit.
promote BMPs in both residential
Continueto pursue opportunitieslandscapes and commercial
to collaborate with otherdevelopmentthat are innovative
communities to address waterand exceed City requirements.
quality issues.
Explore the use of subsidies,
Track upcoming regulatorypublic-private partnerships,
changes to developthe mostand grant-funding toimplement
cost effective approach toinnovativeurban BMPs. Consider
compliance.special improvement districtsfor
targeted areas, such as the
Enhance water quality
BoulderValley Regional Center
monitoring program to improve
and downtown business center.
data analysis, program
evaluation and complianceIncrease the water
tracking.quality benefits derived from the
City's urban forest through
support of the City's Urban Forest
Sub-basin Management
Program and tree planting
programs for parks and other City
Sub-basinmanagement focuses on
owned properties. Consider
reducing the impactof runoff by
updating regulationsand
focusing on preventive measures to
standards toincrease tree
minimize pollution at the source.
planting requirements for
Recommendations include:
new development and re-
Research BMPs oriented to
development projects.
redevelopment and existing
Integrate multipleobjectives
developmentin highly urbanized
including water quality
areas such as the Boulder Valley
enhancement on City-owned
Regional Center and the
land and in decisions regarding
downtown business center and
future property acquisition.
incorporate appropriate BMPs
into City Ordinances and
Develop GIS tool to prioritize
Standards.
water quality improvement
projects for sub-basinsusing data
Integrate water quality objectives
such as potential pollutant
into the City master planning
loading, land-use, impervious
process, such as updatestothe
surface, groundwater recharge
Boulder ValleyComprehensive
and otherdata, some of which
Plan(BVCP)and the update to
has been developedin the 2000
the Stormwater Management
Boulder Creek Watershed Study.
Plan.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE16
Greenways project
Update developmentand re-
implementation.
development regulations and
standards to expand runoff
Update theGreenways Design
reduction and water
Guidelines toincludemeasures
conservation requirements.
to stabilizechannel erosion and
sedimentation, support fish and
Stream Enhancement
other aquatic species
movement, protect riparian
Stream enhancement focuses on
habitat, and other measures to
the streamcorridor itself. Stable
promote stream stability.
stream environmentsare necessary
for fish and other aquatic species to
survive. Riparian habitat provides a
SD
TORMWATERRAINAGE
number of water quality and
ecosystem functions.
The City’s stormwater collection
system consists of a variety of storm
Recommendations include:
sewers and open drainage ditches
that collect water and divert the
Protect and preserve the
water to major drainageways.
watershed’s most critical and
fragile areas – floodplains.
Irrigation ditches collect stormwater
Provide ample flood capacity
in many places inthe City.
and freeboard,allowing for
Depending on the amount of
increase in riparian vegetation
rainfall, stormwater flows may
and roughness. Integrate
exceed the capacity of the ditch
floodplains protection with
and spill from the ditchin an
stream channel enhancement
uncontrolled manner.
through the major drainageway
planning process.
In the past, the ’s emphasis has been
to providestructural solutions, such
Expand the Greenways Master
as drainageways and storm sewer
Plan principals to alltributaries
facilities, to resolve stormwater and
beyond Boulder Creek and the
floodmanagementissues. Now, the
sixtributaries currently studied.
overall guiding principles are in
place to develop a balance of
Use balanced approaches to
structural and non-structural solutions
drainage solutionsthat provide
tothese critical programs and
multiple benefits, includingthe
activities.
water quality/quantity benefits of
preserving thestream corridor
and its natural character.
Current Program Elements
Avoid hydrologic disconnect
Current stormwater drainage
between groundwater and
program elementsinclude
surface waterin stream channels.
stormwater collectionsystem and
planning; designandconstruction
Implement sub-basin water
standards; maintenance; detention
quality management practices
and projectsin conjunction with
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE17
and groundwater extraction and
Assesscurrent and future land
release.
use and associated
imperviousness.
Guiding Principles
Update hydrology/hydraulic
Guiding principles for the stormwater
models.
drainage program component
based on nationaltrends and
Consider groundwater flows
current local policies are proposed
when evaluating existing
as follows:
capacity.
1.Maintain and Preserve Existing
Consider peak flows for the minor
and Natural Drainage
and major storm events.
Systems.”
Limitthe post development peak
dischargerate to the pre-
2.“Reduce and Manage
development discharge rate for
Developed Runoff.”
single design two-year storm
3.“Eliminate DrainageProblems
events.
and Nuisances.”
Separate stormwater drainage
from the irrigation ditches.
Recommended Stormwater Drainage
Focus on known problem and
Program Elements
future developmentareas.
Stormwater Collection System and
Integrate water quality and other
Planning
multi-objectiveissues in the
updated plan.
The existing Stormwater Collection
System Master Plan providestheCity
Re-evaluate detentionincluding
of Boulder with a guide for minor
the possibility of regional
storm(2-year frequency for
detentionand increasing existing
residential areas and5-year
detention.
frequency for commercial/industrial
areas)drainage related Capital
Locate (estimate)thewater
Improvement Projects (CIP).This20-
table throughoutthe City.
year old plan should be updated to
Re-evaluate remaining projects
include drainage, detention,
for necessity and community
groundwater and stormwater quality
objectives.
issues. Land use has changed
significantly and theplan should
Re-prioritize recommended
consider planned developmentand
projects.
redevelopment activities.
Stormwater quality permitting
Review and revise the City’s
requirements and BMPs should be
criteria forprioritization.
further assessed and appliedto
individual sub-basins.The following
issues should be considered:
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE18
Design and Construction Standards
Remove debris from inlets on a 2-
year cycle or as needed based
The City's Design and Construction
on requests.
Standards(DCS) regulatethe design
Remove silt and sand deposits
and construction of public
from manholes and open
infrastructure, improvements, and
channels on a 2-yearcycle or as
landscaping withinthe City's public
needed based on requests.
rights-of-way and public
easements. The current standards
Inspect and repair storm sewer
were last updated November 16,
pipe on a 2-year cycle or as
2000, and need to be consistentwith
needed based on requests.
the most currentversions of the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control
Clean excessive deposits of
District (UDFCD)standards.
sediment within storm sewers on
Stormwater drainage and
a 2-yearcycle or as needed
stormwater quality standards also
based on requests.
need to be integrated.
Detention
Maintenance
The City has required on-site
The recommended actionitemswill
detention for new developments
address the current maintenance
sincetheearly 1970s. On-site
issues of frequency and trackingof
detention storageis required for all
maintenance activities.
developmentsother than individual
single-family lots thatare not part of
Integrate above grade facility
a larger development. Most of these
information associated withthe
facilities are privately owned and
major drainageways intothe
maintained.The design of these
City’s maintenance
facilitiesis reviewed by City staff at
management system.
thetime of application. Thefacilities
are inspected and as-built drawings
Integrate maintenance
are now required to be submitted.
performedby the UDFCD intothe
However, there is currently no follow-
City’s maintenance
up City inspectiontoassure these
management system.
facilities are functioning as originally
Include project management
intended.
personnelin the Call-Log
Recommendations for on-site
database.
detention include:
Inspect and removeexcessive
vegetation and debris along
Review each development plan
open drainageways on a yearly
to look for opportunities to
cycle or as needed based on
increase detention greater than
requests.
the minimum currently required.
Integrate water quality BMPs into
on-site detention requirements.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE19
The amount of detention should Identify problem areas and
be based on the degree of require more precise water table
redevelopment proposed or an information that considers
incentiveplan, where goingseasonal fluctuations.
above and beyond decreases
If the City believes or knows of a
fees.
problem area, then a mitigation
Recommendations for existing
plan should be required priorto
detention facilitiesinclude:
permitting.
Determine if additional inspection
If groundwater is notexpected
and maintenance isneeded
butis encountered during
based on the condition
construction then a mitigation
assessment of a random
plan should be required priorto
sampling of the existing facilities.
issuing the certificate of
On-going inspection and
occupancy.
maintenance could be
accomplished by either the City
Evaluatethe implications of
or privateproperty owners.
groundwater contamination and
further explore existing available
Require property owners to
soils information.
periodically submit aninspection
report tothe City once every 5
Consider groundwater discharge
years to certify thatthe detention
as part of the update to the
facilityis functioning as originally
Stormwater CollectionSystem
designed or there is a plan for
Master Plan.
improvements.
Identify problem areas and issues
Groundwater
including the effect of
groundwater de-watering on
Groundwater and sump systems
local water wells and wetlands.
create nuisance drainage inthe
Develop mitigation options for
public rights-of-way and potential
specific problem areas based on
hazards due to build-up of slime and
estimates of additional
ice.Also, groundwater de-watering
groundwater flow.
systems can affect local water wells
and wetlands by loweringthe
groundwater table. Requirements for
PI
groundwater extraction and release ROGRAMNTEGRATION AND
are looselydefined incurrent City
I
MPLEMENTATION
regulations.
O
PPORTUNITIES
The recommended actionitemswill
The Stormwater and Flood
allow for a proactive, ratherthan
Management Utility ispart of the
reactive, approach to dealing with
City’s PublicWorks Department. The
groundwater issues:
organizational structure of the
Department provides both
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE20
opportunities for and challenges to
Flood Management Program
integratingvarious program interests
Greenways Program (including
and other multi-objectives.
update to Greenways Design
Current Program Elements
Guidelines)
The following institutional
Boulder ValleyComprehensive
opportunities for integration are
Plan
currently defined:
Water Quality Master Plan
Annual Budget Process
Maintenance Program
Greenways Master Plan and
Program
Annual Budget Process
Project Planning and Approval
Asignificant opportunity for
Process (PPAP)
integration withother Cityobjectives
isthe 2005update to the Boulder
Community and Environmental
Valley Comprehensive Plan.The
Assessment Process(CEAP)
update process will provide an
opportunity to reviewland use and
Design and Construction
zoning designations from the
Standards (DCS)
perspective of flood hazard, water
quality and drainageissues.
Recommendations
A Flood Management Program
office will be established to enhance
Program Integration
and integratevarious program
functions and providea more
This masterplan recommends
focused point of contact for other
maintaining existing coordination
staff and the public.This office will
and integration processes. In
work closely with Planning and
additionto these existing processes
Development Services - Floodplain
for programintegration, this master
andWetland Management, which
plan has identified additional
will continue to be the focal point for
opportunities for coordination:
interactions withthe development
community.
Board and Council Review and
Discussionof CFS UtilityMaster
In additionitis recommended that
Plan
the Greenways program be
expanded to all 15 ofthe City’s
Interactive WebSite
major drainageways to provide for
better integrationof multiple
Stormwater Management Plan
objectives.
Major DrainagewayPlanning
These additional opportunities
providea wayto integrate various
Design and Construction
Standards
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE21
Stormwater Management
program interests and other multi-
objectives.
Itis proposed that:
Program Implementation
A one-time additionalfunding
allocationof $250,000 should be
To assure integration withvarious
made inthe 2005 budgetto
program interests and other multi-
update the Stormwater
objectivesthe City will use a multi-
CollectionSystem Master Plan.
disciplined approach and involve
staff from appropriateworkgroups.
Additionalannual funding of
$50,000 should be allocated to
begin an inspection and
FC
INANCIALONSIDERATIONS
maintenance program for
stormwater quality and existing
The is an enterprise funded primarily
private on-site detention facilities.
by monthly utility fees.TheUtility
today receives annual revenuesof
Additionalannual funding of
over $4 million that are applied to
$50,000 should be allocated to
operating activities,emergency
GIS tools development and
preparedness, stormwater quality,
support.
stormwater maintenance and
capital improvements.
At proposed funding levelsit willtake
manyyears to achieve the goals of
In general,existing programs are
this masterplan. Thefinancial
adequatelyfunded. However,
approach recommended inthisplan
severalincreases to existing program
considers evolving regulations,
funding are presented.To support
technology and development
theseincreases in funding, money
characteristics.A slower,
will need to be reallocated from the
methodical approach will allow for
existing budget or a rate increase
planning and adapting tothese
will be required as follows.The
anticipated changes.
following proposed financial plan will
be considered as part of the City’s
on-going budget process.
Flood Management
Itis proposed that annual funding for
the on-going flood management
program increased from $100,000 to
$350,000 per year.This represents a
shiftto balance structural and non-
structural solutions for flood
management.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE22
ATTACHMENT C
,QGHSHQGHQW5HYLHZ3DQHO
)LQDO5HSRUWIURP)ORRG0DQDJHPHQW5HYLHZ3URFHVV
April 2, 2004
Dear Mayor Toor and Members of the Boulder CityCouncil:
We are writing today to provide a brief overview of the work of a dedicated set of volunteers who
have been in-service to the cityof Boulder since 1999, and to provide a recommendation for what
we hope will become an operating standard in floodplain master planning and management for
the future of Boulder.
In December1999, Brian Hyde, MaryFran Myers,Gilbert White, and Ken Wright were
appointed toan Independent Review Panel (IRP) to provide oversight and advice on the restudy
of the Fourmile Canyon/Wonderland Creek floodplain when the city discovered discrepancies in
the existing floodplain mapping, and consequent community-confidence challenges were raised
by the citizens living in that corridor. Since then we have provided similar assistance on the
restudyof South Boulder Creek and the Comprehensive Flood andStormwaterMaster Plan
update. During the past five years, we have been joined byotherscientists and experts as
necessary, including: Dr. Bill Bradleyand Dr. Rich Madole, who sat with us in the first two
years as we reviewed the alluvial geology for the Fourmile-Wonderland formation. Dr. Jonathon
Freidman provided invaluable assistance in reviewingthe paleohydrology for South Boulder
Creek. Most recently, UDFCD Executive Director Scott Tucker joined the IRP in the review of
the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) master plan update.
During this period there have also been national reviews of a number of public flood management
policies that are relevant to the Boulder area.For example, the Federal policy with respect to
definingproperty subject to possible 100-year flooding and mandatoryFederal flood insurance
has been subject to critical evaluation. In recent years, the estimated national annual losses from
floods outside the mapped 100-year floodplain have been larger than losses from within the 100-
year flood zone, and there are questions as to whether or not the frequency adopted in the national
insurance program has increased vulnerability to flood losses. Within the city of Boulder, for
example, there are nearly 5300properties known to be subject to the 500-year flood event.
We have truly enjoyed the opportunity to serve the city of Boulder.As the draft Comprehensive
Flood and Stormwater drainage Master Plan moves into the boardreview process, we feel that we
have met our obligations as an independent panel and it is time that we disband as a review
group. However, please know that while we will no longer be sitting together as the “IRP,” we
do wish to be called upon in the event that the City Council has new questions or issues for which
we can be of assistance.
We want to leave our work with a summary statement which we recommend guide the future of
Boulder’s floodplain management practice.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE23
In our 2001 Fourmile Canyon Creek Phase A Report recommendation, we provided a set of
directions for staff to include in the PhaseB scoping effort. In its most basic form, our
recommendation, which is applicable to each of Boulder’s 13 creeks/tributaries, suggests that the
cityof Boulder adopt flood management practices that consider the specific geology, challenges
of adjacent development and anticipated flooding for each reach of each stream,and that the full
array of non-structural mitigation tools (e.g., education and training, warning devices, and
individual property flood-proofing) be given equalweight and consideration to structural
applications (e.g., engineered flood-managementinstallations, widened and channelized creeks,
dams and floodwalls) so that situation-specificmitigation may be identified and designed to best
fit each case.
Thus, we ask that the City Council acknowledge the contribution of five years of professional
expertise and opinion by requesting the City Manager to assemble a flood risk management
program that gives equal weight to non-structural and structural options and that is tailored to
address the needs and resources identified in each particular floodplain.
We also remind the cityofthe role that citizen education will have in the formulation of the
above-described tailored floodplain management system. Boulder must provide comprehensive
floodprotection education so that our residents canmeaningfullyparticipate in the formation of
alternatives for their watershed.
Actions which citizens of Boulder should take in response to flood hazards include the following:
1)Effective emergency action everyoccupant in a floodplain should take, or NOT take,
to reduce damages to life and propertyin the event a public flood warning is issued;
2)What action everyproperty occupant in a floodplain could take in advance of a flood
to prevent or reduce losses before a flood occurs;
3)The effect of non-development in the floodplain on potential flood losses;
4)How to implement flood proofing measures;
5) Advantages of; and how to acquire flood insurance.
Again, we want to thankyou for involving us in this important work. We have enjoyed the
opportunity to serve our community and work on these critical projects.
Members of the IRP since 1999 and for the 2003-2004 CFS Review:
BrianHyde Mary FranMyers
GilbertWhite Ken Wright
L. ScottTucker
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE24
ATTACHMENT D
City of Boulder
Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS)
Utility Master Plan
April 2004 Draft
PLAN Boulder County
Summary of Comments and Responses
June 22, 2004
PLAN-Boulder County urges you to support the draft Comprehensive Flood and
Stormwater Utility Master Plan. Among other useful recommendations, it outlines
valuable guiding principles for flood and stormwater management and recommends a
balanced approach between structural and non-structural options, recognizing the vital
role of community education. Notably, it also recognizes the importance of addressing
floods greater than 100-year floods by recommending 500-year flood protection for
critical facilities.
We recommend three additions to the draft Master Plan:
1.The City should identify a flood management point person (manager, coordinator,
ombudsman, etc.) and establish a set location where the public can contact the
floodplain management office. Consolidation of the flood management function is
necessary to enhance the city's ability to coordinate its flood management
responsibilities and to provide a single point of public contact. This flood
management point person or persons should have authority to make decisions and
be able to draw on resources scattered throughout City departments. The
floodplain management office also should be charged with the responsibility of
maintaining accurate maps for the 100 and 500-year floodplains.
Response: Utilities ProjectManager, Alan Taylor, has been assigned to manage the
City’s flood management program as outlinedin the CFS Utility Master Plan. As the
new “flood management program manager,” Mr. Taylor will be responsible for
facilitating coordination between flood management activities that occur in various
work groups that support the Storm Water and Flood Management Utility, including
Planning and Development Services, Utilities Maintenance, Storm Water Quality and
Utilities Project Management. The flood management program manager will also
serve as the point of contact on city-wide flood management issues, such as
floodplain mapping and risk assessmentstudies, floodplain management and
mitigation planning, coordinating local responsibilities for the National Flood
Insurance Program and Community Rating System, emergency preparedness, and
general flood management program operations.
The City is also implementing measures to better establish an improved identify for
and access to the flood management program. This effort will clarify public contact
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE25
points and locations for various flood management resources such as floodplain
mapping information, floodplain development regulation, flood preparedness and
education materials, flood insurance information and local efforts in flood
management and mitigation. In order to fully serve the public on flood related
matters, the City intends to establish user friendly resources that are publicly
accessible by telephone, the Internet, regular mail and walk-in customer service at
nd
the City office on the 2 floor of the Park Central Building (1739 Broadway).
2.The city should examine whether upgrading our existing regulations to provide
500-year flood protection for all development is a viable course for the city to
pursue. We know that greater than 100-year floods will occur. The energy and
money we should spend on preparing for them ahead of time through regulation
and public education are small compared to the human and material costs of not
doing so once a big flood occurs. We urge that this new Master Plan commit the
city to exploring this alternative.
Response: CFS proposes that the flood management program evaluate the
effectiveness of the 100-year storm event as the basis for established floodplain
regulations. The analysis would be performed subsequent to the adoption of CFS and
would provide for a separate public involvement process. It is intended the analysis
would address factors including the risk of larger floods and their impact on the
community, the uncertainty associated with establishing a regulatory boundary given
continued encroachments from alloweddevelopment in the floodplain and the
emerging statistics that indicate 30-50 percent of flood damages in the United States
are occurring in areas outside the 100-year floodplain.
The flood management program plans to perform an analysis of flood hazards and
impacts in the 100-year with respect to local land use and development policies. The
results are expected to provide an overview and basis for evaluating the effectiveness
of flood hazard reduction policies balanced with local land use policies addressing
community development and vitality. A component of this analysis involves the
definition and protection of critical facilities for 500-year flooding events (as applied
to the recent development of the Boulder Foothills Community Hospital).
3.Finally, before this Master Plan goes to City Council for adoption, there should be
a more clearly articulated fiscal component, so that the budgetary implications of
the Master Plan are acknowledged.
Response: Additional information concerning financial considerations has been
added to Chapter 7.
AGENDAITEM #_______PAGE26
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 5, 2007
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of a motion accepting the Stormwater Master Plan
(SMP) and the associated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) master plan
summary revisions
PRESENTER/S:
Robert E. Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Robert J. Harberg, Engineering Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Douglas Sullivan, Engineering Project Manager, Presenter
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) is a comprehensive analysis of the city’s storm sewers and
local drainage systems, and is intended to guide future Stormwater and Flood Management
Utility (Utility) decisions. The SMP serves to update the 1984 Stormwater Collection System
Master Plan (1984 Plan). The SMP goals include the following:
Efficiently manage stormwater runoff
Protect water quality
Minimize localized flooding impacts
The SMP involved the development of a hydrologic and hydraulic model to evaluate the
stormwater collections system’s ability to convey the flow associated with the two-year and five-
year storm events. The SMP identifies a recommended Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) list for
storm sewer conveyance and water quality improvements throughout the city. This project list
includes 51 conveyance water quality projects, which are organized into three categories (Tier 1,
Tier 2 and Tier 3). Tier 1 projects represent major system deficiencies; Tier 2 projects represent
moderate system deficiencies; and Tier 3 projects represent nuisance system deficiencies. There
are four Tier 1 problems, 16 Tier 2 problems and 31 Tier 3 problems identified. These potential
projects range in cost from $63,000 to $10,700,000. A map of the recommended CIP is shown
in the report’s Executive Summary, Figure ES-3 (see Attachment A).
In the report’s presentation, the water quality problems are integrated with the conveyance
problems when they are located in the same vicinity. Additionally, the SMP identifies 12 Water
Quality Areas of Concern, which represent the areas of the city responsible for the largest
volume of pollutant-loading to the drainageways. The Water Quality Areas of Concern represent
potential small capital projects, ranging in cost between $51,000 and $157,000.
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE 1
The 12 projects have an estimated total cost of approximately $1,000,000 with both the
conveyance and water quality problems being addressed:
Tier 1 = $20,000,000
Tier 2 = $22,000,000
Tier 3 = $17,000,000
WQ = $1,000,000
Total = $60,000,000
A map of the Water Quality Areas of Concern is shown in the report’s Executive Summary,
Figure ES-2 (see Attachment A).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Stormwater Master Plan and approve the
BVCP summary revisions.
COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS:
Economic
: The Tier 1 projects have an economic benefit by reducing flood risk and
property damage.
Environmental
: The Tier 1 projects provide an environmental benefit by addressing
stormwater quality issues at identified problem locations.
Social
: The Tier 1 projects have a social benefit by resolving street and flooding issues.
Economic, environmental and social issues are further addressed through the coordination of the
projects with Transportation and Greenways projects and are further reviewed through the annual
budget process.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There are no fiscal impacts at this time. The current Stormwater and Flood Management Utility
(Stormwater Utility) funding is not adequate to address the SMP recommended projects.
Utilities staff is in the process of reviewing the future CIP funding allocation to determine the
most effective method to fund the identified projects.
Cash funding for the current Stormwater Utility CIP is $2 - 2.5 million per year. Over the last 17
years, approximately 80% of this funding has been allocated to the major draninageways
projects. The primary purpose of the major drainageway focus has been to address life safety
and property issues along the city’s 15 major drainageways. Major drainageway projects
typically include the purchase of properties located in the city’s High Hazard Zone, followed by
major channel improvements. Two high profile, major drainageway projects completed over the
last 20 years include the Bear Creek and Goose Creek Drainage Improvements projects.
Over this same period, only 10% of the Stormwater Utility funding has been allocated to the
storm sewer improvements projects. The funding rate for storm sewer projects is approximately
$300,000 for the next few years, but increases to $800,000 in 2012.This proposed increase in
the CIP is intended to fund the Upper Goose Creek improvements. The number one Tier 1
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE 2
thth
project is Upper Goose Creek, located between 9 and 19 streets in the vicinity of Balsam and
Alpine avenues. Improvements associated with this project are estimated to cost $10,700,000.
There are still many identified threats to life safety and property, as well as opportunities to
collaborate as part of the Greenways Program, such that continued emphasis on major
drainageway corridors is likely. These corridors include South Boulder Creek, Wonderland
Creek, Fourmile Canyon Creek, and Elmer’s Twomile Creek as listed in the current Utility CIP.
Staff will evaluate funding options as part of the 2008 budget process and report on these options
to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) in the near future. There are no funding or
policy issues associated with the Stormwater Master Plan for the 2008 budget. Utilities staff has
identified two potential funding options as a means to fund some of the SMP recommended
projects. These options include the following:
1.Reallocate the Stormwater Utility annual funding to shift funds away from the major
drainageways to the storm sewers.
2.Increase the Stormwater Utility revenue by increasing monthly rates or issuing a revenue
bond.
Utilities staff will complete a cost-benefit analysis of the Tier 1 SMP recommended projects to
determine projects values, not only relative to one another, but also relative to the major
drainageway projects in an effort to identify priorities for future CIP funding. Utilities staff will
continue to evaluate the projects’ funding and potential rate impacts during the annual budget
process. The recommendations from the Stormwater Master Plan will not have an impact until
2001 or 2012.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
The SMP was presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) at the Feb. 26 and
April 16, 2007 meetings. The WRAB voted unanimously (5-0) to accept the SMP and
recommended that the Planning Board accept the SMP. The SMP was presented to the Planning
Board at the May 3 meeting. The BVCP summary revisions were presented to the Planning
Board, but not the WRAB. The Planning Board voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the
City Council accept the SMP and unanimously approved the proposed changes to the BVCP
Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Summary contingent on the plan begin
accepted by City Council.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
Public hearings were hosted by the WRAB and Planning Board. There were no comments from
the public at either hearing.
ANALYSIS:
The Stormwater Master Plan represents a comprehensive analysis of the city’s stormwater
collection system. The SMP included a hydrologic and hydraulic model to assess the system
capacity with additional analysis on groundwater, detention facilities and water quality. The
SMP identified over 50 potential storm sewer improvement projects and 12 additional projects
specifically identified to improve water quality.
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE 3
Utilities staff is currently in the process of evaluating an approach to fund the higher priority
projects. Once a project is identified, Utilities staff would complete the Community and
Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) to determine potential impacts.
Approved By:
______________________________
Frank W. Bruno,
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Stormwater Master Plan Executive Summary
Attachment B – February 26 WRAB Agenda memo and meeting minutes
Attachment C – April 16WRAB Agenda memo and meeting minutes
Attachment D – May 3 Planning Board Agenda memo and meeting minutes
Attachment E -BVCP Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Summary
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE 4
9ROXPH²)LQDO5HSRUW
City of Boulder
Stormwater Master Plan
Prepared for
City of Boulder
June 2007
Prepared by
HDREngineering
Supporting Documents
Several technical memorandums (TMs) were developed through the course of this project.
These TMs provide supporting information for the analysis, improvement alternatives and
recommendations contained in this report. The supporting documents are summarized below
for reference and bound in separate volumes for future use by the City and the engineering
community.
Volume 2 – Technical Appendices
Appendix A: Model Input Data Tables, Results Tables and XPSWMM output.
Appendix B: Model Network Mapping
Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates
Volume 3 – Hydraulic Technical Memoranda
TM 3.2 Design Storm
TM 4.2 Groundwater Mapping and Future Tasks
TM 5.1 Hydraulic Conceptual Alternatives
TM 5.1b Storm Drain and Canal Separation Alternatives
TM 5.1c Goose Creek Alternatives
TM 5.1d Broadway Improvement Alternatives
Volume 4 – Water Quality Technical Memoranda
TM 3.5 Water Quality Model and Construction Results
TM 3.6.1 Water Quality Analysis Results
TM 3.6.3 Water Quality Recommendations
TM 4.3 BMP Toolbox
Boulder Transit VillageStormwaterAnalysis
Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................7
1.1Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................7
1.2Stormwater Planning Process........................................................................................7
1.3Previous Studies..............................................................................................................8
1.4Stormwater Management Principles and Policies......................................................8
1.4.1Guiding Principles................................................................................................9
1.4.2Stormwater Management Policies......................................................................9
2. Analysis and Problem Identification Criteria...............................................................17
2.1Study Area......................................................................................................................17
2.1.1Topography.........................................................................................................17
2.1.2Land Use..............................................................................................................17
2.1.3Soils.......................................................................................................................17
2.1.4Climate.................................................................................................................18
2.2System Analysis Criteria..............................................................................................18
2.2.1Design Storms.....................................................................................................18
2.2.2Continuous Simulation Modeling....................................................................19
2.2.3Stormwater Conveyance Elements..................................................................19
2.2.4Landuse and Imperviousness...........................................................................19
2.3Problem Identification Criteria...................................................................................20
2.3.2Water Quality......................................................................................................21
3. Model Development..........................................................................................................23
3.1Modeling Approach......................................................................................................23
3.1.1Data and Basis of Model Construction............................................................23
3.2Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model..............................................................................24
3.2.1Existing Condition Model Construction.........................................................24
3.2.2Model Validation Parameters and Results......................................................28
3.2.3Future Condition Model Construction............................................................31
3.3Water Quality Model....................................................................................................31
3.3.1Model Construction............................................................................................32
4. System Analysis and Results...........................................................................................35
4.1System Description.......................................................................................................35
4.1.1Major Drainageways..........................................................................................35
4.1.2Irrigation Canals.................................................................................................35
4.1.3Storm Drains........................................................................................................35
4.2Storm Drain Problem Identification...........................................................................35
4.3Storm Drain Problem Prioritization...........................................................................36
4.3.1Criteria and Definitions.....................................................................................36
III
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Section Page
4.3.2Criteria Weights and Ranking..........................................................................37
4.3.3Problem Area Priorities......................................................................................38
4.4Irrigation Canal Problem Identification.....................................................................40
4.5Water Quality Areas of Concern.................................................................................40
4.5.1Catchments..........................................................................................................40
4.5.2Outfalls.................................................................................................................41
5. System Improvement Recommendations......................................................................43
5.1Hydraulic Alternatives.................................................................................................43
5.1.1Alternative Development Process....................................................................43
5.1.2Alternative Evaluation Process.........................................................................44
5.1.3Upper Goose Creek ² Alternative Analysis....................................................44
5.1.4Canal Separation Conceptual Alternatives.....................................................45
5.2Water Quality Alternatives..........................................................................................46
5.2.1Alternative Development 3URFHVV² Water Quality Areas of Concern.......46
5.2.2Alternative Development Process ² Boulder Creek Outfalls.......................46
5.2.3Alternative Evaluation and Recommendations.............................................47
5.3Recommended Plan......................................................................................................50
5.3.1Recommendations ² Bear Canyon Creek Subbasin.......................................52
5.3.2Recommendations ² Dry Creek Subbasin.......................................................53
5.3.3Recommendations ² Dry Creek No. 2 Subbasin............................................53
5.3.4Recommendations ² Elmers Twomile Creek Subbasin.................................54
5.3.5Recommendations ² Fourmile Canyon Creek Subbasin...............................54
5.3.6Recommendations ² Goose Creek Subbasin...................................................55
5.3.7Recommendations ² Kings Gulch Subbasin...................................................56
5.3.8Recommendations ² Lower Boulder Creek Subbasin...................................56
5.3.9Recommendations ² Middle Boulder Creek Subbasin..................................56
5.3.10Recommendations ² Skunk Creek Subbasin...................................................58
5.3.11Recommendations ² Viele Channel Subbasin................................................59
5.3.12Recommendations ² Wonderland Creek Subbasin.......................................59
6. Capital Improvement Program........................................................................................60
6.1Cost Estimating.............................................................................................................60
6.2Implementation Plan....................................................................................................60
6.3Recommended Plan Fact Sheets..................................................................................65
6.3.1Tier 1 Priority Improvements............................................................................65
6.3.2Tier 2 Priority Improvements............................................................................70
6.3.3Tier 3 Priority Improvements............................................................................89
6.3.4Water Quality Specific Projects.........................................................................91
IV
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Section Page
/LVWRI)LJXUHV²5HFRPPHQGHG3ODQ)DFW6KHHWs
GC_02: Upper Goose Creek...................................................................................................................66
MBC_10: 18 and Spruce Street............................................................................................................67
th
MBC_14: Arapahoe and 28 Street.......................................................................................................68
th
DC_01: Gunbarrel ² Spine Road, LOOKout and 63 Systems.........................................................69
rd
SC_01: Moorhead and moorhead frontage..........................................................................................70
MBC_04: Lincoln.....................................................................................................................................72
WC_03: Vail and Independence............................................................................................................73
MBC_22: Arapahoe, commerce, and range.........................................................................................74
MBC_20: Parking structure between foothills and 38.....................................................................75
th
DC2_02: Thunderbird, Osage, and Foothills.......................................................................................76
GC_08: Foothills and valmont...............................................................................................................78
GC_09: Industrial area near pearl parkway and wonderland creek...............................................79
ETC_01: Broadway and Iris...................................................................................................................80
MBC_23: Access rd and 55 st/Pearl and boulder creek..................................................................81
th
DC2_06: Arapahoe/56th street and dry creek....................................................................................82
SC_02: Euclid and 30............................................................................................................................83
th
MBC_09: 16 St........................................................................................................................................84
th
GC_04: Folsom, glenwood, & floral.....................................................................................................85
GC_01: ..........................................................................................................86
Broadway, Iris to Balsam
BCC_03: Gillaspie and shopping center parking................................................................................88
MBC_18: Arapahoe and 30 street.......................................................................................................89
th
MBC_19: Marine avenue and boulder creek.......................................................................................90
LBC_02: Boulder Creek 1,40·(DVt of 75 Street................................................................................91
th
MBC_16: Boulder Creek & 28 Street..................................................................................................91
th
LBC_01: Boulder Creek & 75 Street....................................................................................................92
th
MBC_06: Boulder Creek & East Broadway Street & Arapahoe Avenue.........................................92
MBC_11: BoXOGHU&UHHN·:Hst of Folsom Street.........................................................................93
MBC_12: Boulder Creek & Folsom Street............................................................................................93
MBC_03: Boulder Creek & 9 Street....................................................................................................94
th
KG_01: Broadway & skunk creek.........................................................................................................94
MBC_07: Boulder Creek & 13 Street..................................................................................................95
th
MBC_05: Boulder Creek & 11 Street..................................................................................................95
th
V
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Section Page
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Tier 1 Hydraulic and Combined Hydraulic/Water Quality CIP Projects.....................5
Table ES-2: Water Quality Improvement CIP Projects.........................................................................5
Table 2.2-1 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency Values, NOAA Atlas II........................................18
Table 3.2-1 Horton Infiltration Parameters...........................................................................................25
Table 3.2-2 Comparison of Impervious Percentages...........................................................................26
7DEOH0DQQLQJ·V5RXJKQHVV9DOXHV............................................................................................27
Table 3.2-4 CUHP Validation Subcatchment Parameters..................................................................29
Table 3.2-5 Validation Results: 5-yr, 1-hr, Peak Flow Summary......................................................30
Table 3.2-6 Validation Results: 5-yr, 1-hr, Peak Flow Summary......................................................30
Table 3.2-7 Future Condition Imperviousness by Landuse...............................................................31
Table 3.3-1 Event Mean Concentrations (EMC) Values......................................................................33
Table 3.3-2 BMP Pollutant Removal Efficiencies.................................................................................34
Table 3.3-3 Proprietary BMP Locations.................................................................................................34
Table 4.3-1 Problem Prioritization Criteria and Definitions..............................................................37
Table 4.3-2 Weighting Criteria...............................................................................................................38
Table 4.3-3 Summary of Problem Area Ranking Results..................................................................38
Table 4.5-1 Top 12 Pollutant Contributing Outfalls............................................................................41
Table 5.2-1 Common Water Quality Area of Concern and Boulder Creek Outfalls......................47
Table 5.2-2 TSS Removal and Costs for Recommended BMPs..........................................................48
Table 5.2-3 Recommended Water Quality Sites...................................................................................49
Table 5.3-1 Recommended Plan Project and Problem ID Summary................................................50
Table 5.3-2 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Bear Canyon Creek Subbasin..............52
Table 5.3-3 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Dry Creek Subbasin.............................53
Table 5.3-4 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Dry Creek No. 2 Subbasin...................53
Table 5.3-5 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Elmers Twomile Creek Subbasin.......54
Table 5.3-6 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Fourmile Canyon Creek Subbasin.....54
Table 5.3-7 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Goose Creek Subbasin.........................55
Table 5.3-8 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Kings Gulch Subbasin..........................56
Table 5.3-9 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Lower Boulder Creek Subbasin..........56
Table 5.3-10 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Middle Boulder Creek Subbasin......56
Table 5.3-11 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Skunk Creek Subbasin.......................58
Table 5.3-12 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Viele Channel Subbasin.....................59
Table 5.3-13 Summary of Recommended Improvements - Wonderland Creek Subbasin............59
Table 6.2-1 Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 CIP Projects Implementation Plan...........................................60
Table 6.2-2 Water Quality Improvements Implementation Plan......................................................64
VI
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ac-ftacre-feet
BMPsbest management practices
BTVBoulder Transit Village
BVCPBoulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
CFSComprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan
cfscubic feet per second
CIPCapital Improvement Plan
Citythe city of Boulder
Cucopper
CUHPColorado urban hydrograph procedure
DCSdesign and construction standards
DTMdigital terrain model
EMCeventmeanconcentration
HGLhydraulic grade line
lbs/ac/yrpounds per acre per year
LIDlow impact development practices
MDCIAminimum of directly connected impervious area
mg/Lmilligrams per liter
µg/Lmicrograms per liter
mslmean sea level
NOAANational Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
NPDESNational pollutant discharge elimination system
Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil
NRCS
Conservation Service)
Pphosphorous
Pblead
Qratio of peak flow capacity to full flow capacity
Ratio
Q(wq)water quality design storm peak flow (cfs)
SMPStormwaterMasterPlan
SSURGOSoil Survey Geographic (database)
SWMMStormwaterManagementModel
TMCCTwo Mile Canyon Creek
TMstechnicalmemorandums
TSStotal suspended solids
UDFCDUrban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual
USGSU.S. Geological Survey
WQIMPwater quality improvement projects
Znzinc
VII
Executive Summary
The original 1984 City of Boulder Storm Water Collection System Master Plan is being updated
to reflect changes in land use, infrastructure and the regulatory climate as well as anticipated
redevelopment within the community. The revised Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) provides the
City of Boulder with the necessary planning tools and capital improvement projects to address
flood management and water quality within the collector portion of the storm drainage system
for the next decade.
The Boulder SMP was developed to replace the 1984 plan with a document that is more inline
with present-day problems and opportunities and the City’s overarching environmental,
economic and social goals. The goal of the Boulder SMP is to proactively manage stormwater
runoff to protect water quality and to minimize impacts of localized and downstream flooding by
identifying infrastructure improvements for the collection, conveyance and treatment of
stormwater runoff from within the City. The SMP prioritizes storm drain and water quality
improvements within the City and provides an implementation plan for the construction of
conveyance and water quality improvements
Major activities undertaken in the development of the plan include the following:
Develop system analysis and problem identification criteria,
Develop hydrologic, hydraulic and water quality models,
Evaluate the system and rank problem areas,
Perform alternatives analysis and develop a recommended plan,
Prepare a capital improvement plan.
Study Area Characterization
The City of Boulder, with a population of approximately 100,000 and an area of nearly 25.5
square miles, is locatedalong the front range of the Rocky Mountains, northwest of Denver,
Colorado. Within the City, there are 12 subbasin and 15 major creeks (a.k.a. major
drainageways) that generally flow from west to east as they converge on Boulder Creek, which
is the main tributary flowing through the City. Runoff from within the City is conveyed to these
major drainageways by the City’s collector storm drain system and the irrigation canal system.
At present, Boulder is nearly fully built-out withmuch of the future development expected to
occur as site redevelopment. Collectively, the current impervious percentage, assuming 2006
land use conditions,is 32% and is projected to be 34% under the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan. However, considering the City’s Design and Construction Standards
(DCS), the net future condition imperviousness used for this analysis was determined to be
33%,
Planning and Analysis Criteria
A master planning analysis was performed to identify potential collector system stormwater and
associatedwater quality improvements within the City of Boulder. The evaluation was guided
by a set of system analysis criteria used to identify conveyance and water quality problem areas
and to evaluate potential improvements. These criteria included quantitative assessments of
storm drain surcharging, culvert overtopping, channel/canal flooding, structure flooding
(buildings, etc) and pollutant loadings. Other system analysis criteria used to support the study
1
included design storms (2-year, 5-year and water quality), landuse (existing and future
conditions)and model boundary conditions.
Analysis Approach
A key element in the master planning process is the development of a hydrologic, hydraulic and
water quality model of the natural and man-madestormwater system within the City. The model
should be capable of analyzing runoff conditions; predicting flooding risk; estimating
comparative pollutant loadings; evaluating existing facilitiesand infrastructure; and designing
proposed improvements. To these ends, the primary objectives of the stormwater analysis were
to:
Construct a model that accurately represents the existing stormwater system within the
City’s collector system.
Validate the model to previous studies and regional rainfall-runoff statistics.
Utilize a land use-based method to estimate runoff under current conditions and incorporate
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to represent future development conditionswithin
the City.
Evaluate the existing stormwater infrastructure with respect to the system analysis criteria
and rank each problem in terms of severity.
Locate, size and assess the performance of new stormwater management facilities
including pipes, detention ponds, surface channel and irrigation canals.
Locate, size and assess the performance of new water quality facilities based on areas
identified in the model that exhibit elevated pollutant concentrations and/or loads.
Limits of Analysis
The focus of the Boulder SMP is the collector storm drainage system, which includespipe 18” in
diameter and larger and primary open channel systems that are not part of the City’s major
drainageways. To further refine the stormwater conveyance system, two levels of service are
provided based on landuse and roadway category. For areas that are mainly residential in land
use, the 2-year recurrence interval design storm was used to identify problems in the
downstream conveyance system. For areas draining mainly commercial, industrial and collector
and arterial roadways, the 5-year event was used. Areas within the city that experience
localized flooding (e.g., undersizedpipes that are less than 18 inches in diameter; roadside
ditches; and clogged catch basins) were not considered as part of this study unless they have
been identified by the City as known flooding locations.
Modeling Approach
The modeling approach for the Boulder SMP integrated GIS as a pre- and post-processing tool
with an EPA-based Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) as the hydrologic, hydraulic and
water quality analysis tool. The analysis software used for the project was XPSWMM which is a
proprietary version of EPA-SWMM software that provided an efficient GIS interface that EPA-
SWMM does not have at this date.Workflow began in GIS, where the input parameters for the
SWMM model were developed. This data was transferred out of GIS to SWMM, for the
evaluation of the system hydraulics and water quality. Model results were ultimately brought
back into GIS for post processing and storage for future reference by the City.
Landuse and CityDevelopment Criteria
Land use is a key factor in assessing stormwater runoff because it affectsboth the quantity
(volume and peak) and quality of water being routed through the stormwater system and natural
channels. The effect land use has on water quantity can be generally linked to the amount of
2
impervious area for a particular land use category. The more impervious the area, the faster the
water will be routed to the storm water collection system due to the lower surface roughness of
the ground. It will also have an increase in volume since infiltration can not occur through
impervious surfaces. Consequently, an area with a higher percentage of impervious surfaces
will produce higher peak flows over a shorter period of time than will a similar area with a lower
percentageof impervious surfaces.
The future conditions scenario represents a fully developed urban area according to the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2006 (BVCP). This scenario represents a worst case scenario
from a stormwater perspective because it encompasses the highest level of imperviousness.
However, this scenario has also incorporated the City’s DCS, which require detention and water
quality treatment for all new impervious areas associated with new and re-development
projects. As discussed in later sections of this report, the City performed an inventory of
existing detention and treatment facilities and it was identified that roughly 78% of all current
facilities are adequately functioning (22% have failed). Consequently, to incorporate the DCS,
this same facility performance level (78%) was also assumed to occur under future development
conditions.To accomplish this, thechange in impervious percentage between existing and
future conditions was reduced by 78% to account for the detention and treatment facilities that
will collectively be built as the city develops and/or re-develops.
Problem Identification
Utilizing the verified SWMM model, runoff, hydraulic, and water quality calculations were
completed for two different land use scenarios: existing conditions and future conditions, and
three different design storms: the 2- and 5-yr events and the water quality storm. These results
were then evaluated with respect the previously noted system analysis criteria to identify
specific system deficiencies within the City’s collector storm drain system.
Hydraulic Problem Areas and Ranking
Model results for existing conditions indicate that 572 nodes out of 1635 nodes within the model
violate one or more of the noted criteria. To better understand the cause and affect of each
problem area, a number of these deficient nodes and links were combined together into
individual problem locations. This resulted in a total of 51 hydraulic problem locations. Irrigation
canal segments were also added to the problem identification list if the correspondingdesign
storm causes the channel to overtop its banks and flood the surroundingarea.
Due to the relatively large number of problem locations identified through the modeling and GIS
analysis, and due to limitations within the City’s capital budget, a ranking was performed on the
problem areas to prioritize the conveyance problems. This process resulted in identifying three
problem priority levels; Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 indicatingsevere, major or minor problem areas,
respectively. The process of ranking system problems into tiers utilized a point-basedmatrix
using a weighted criteria approach.Six criteria were used to rank the problem areas. These
criteria include: 1) the extent of the problem, 2) the flooded volume, 3) the impact to neighboring
structures, 4) the length of under capacity pipe, 5) the confidence in the underlying data and 6)
the proximately of the hydraulic problem to waterquality areas of concern. The problem
prioritization process resulted in five Tier 1 problem areas, 17 Tier 2 problem areas, and 31 Tier
3 problem areas. These problem locations are shown on Figure ES-1.
Water Quality Analysisand Problem Areas
The water quality analysis included two separate approaches to identify problem locations within
the collector system: 1) a buildup-washoff analysis using the XPSWMMmodel to identify water
quality areas of concern that produce high pollutant loads and 2) targeted outfall approach
focusing on the collector system outfalls to Boulder Creek. The water quality area of concern
3
approach used the XPSWMMmodel to identify areas within the City having comparatively
higher pollutant concentrations and/or loads. This approach identified 12 locations within the
City that were characterized as water quality areas of concern. The Boulder Creek outfall
approach identified 17 collector system outfalls that do not currently receive pollution reduction
through regional water quality facilities. The water quality areas of concern and Boulder Creek
outfall sites are shown on Figure ES-2.
System Improvement Alternatives and Recommendations
Improvement alternatives were developed for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 problem areas and a
qualitative assessment identified the preferred alternative for each problem area. The Tier 3
problem areas did not receive an evaluation of different alternatives due to the limited severity of
the conveyance problems. Instead, improvements to resolve the Tier 3 problem areas consisted
of pipe replacement to increase the system capacity and resolve the conveyance problem.
For the water quality area of concern sites, improvement alternatives were developed to
evaluate the optimum improvement for a give site or location. Improvements for the Boulder
Creek outfall sites were developed based on the use of proprietary BMPs (a.k.a. water quality
manholes) since these types of facilities are best suited for highly urbanized areas as typically
found near the collector system outfall top Boulder Creek. A cost/benefit analysis was
performed for the improvement water quality improvementsat each of the water quality area of
concern and Boulder Creek outfall sites. This process identified 18 water quality improvement
projects to address the address the water quality area of concern site and the Boulder Creek
outfall sites that favorable cost/benefit ratios or that did not rely on future development for
project implementation.
The recommended plan for addressing the conveyance and water quality problem areas is a
compilationof all hydraulic and water quality improvements developed in this study.Figure ES-
3 provides an overview of the recommended plan improvements with corresponding
improvement projects IDs. In some instances, the recommended water quality improvements
were in close proximity to a hydraulic improvement location and were combined into a single
project. Other recommended improvements consist of improvements that separately address
water quality or conveyance problems.
Capital Improvement Plan
The goal for this master plan is to manage stormwater, by minimizing impacts on localized and
downstream flooding and improving water quality. To these ends, the recommended system
improvements were categorized as 1) Hydraulic and Combined Hydraulic/Water Quality projects
or 2) Water Quality Improvement projects. These two project categories form the collector
system Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The implementation plan for the Hydraulic and Combined Hydraulic/Water Quality CIP projects
follows the Tier 1, 2 and 3 problem areas. Tier1 CIP projects are considered high priority
improvements as they resolve severe conveyance system problems and in some instances
address stormwater quality problems. Tier 1 projects areas are anticipated to a) have a high
social benefit by resolving street and property flooding issues,b) have a high economic benefit
by reducing flooding risk and property damage, and c) provide an environmental benefit by
addressingstormwaterquality issues at identified problem locations. Note that not all Tier 1
locations included a water quality problem site and that the overriding criterion for prioritization
was resolving flooding issues. Table ES-1 identifies the Tier 1 CIP projects; Tier 2 and 3
projects are identified in Sections 5 and 6 of the main report.
4
Table ES-1: Tier 1 Hydraulic and Combined Hydraulic/WaterQuality CIP Projects
RankingImprovementLocationImprovement TypeCapital
IDCost
$10,701,000
1GC_02Upper Goose CreekPipe Replacement
New Storm Drain
Channel Improvement
$1,577,000
th
2MBC_1018 and Spruce Street Pipe Replacement
Storm Drain Re-Routing/Extension
$1,659,000
th
3MBC_14Arapahoe and 28Pipe Replacement
Street
Storm Drain Re-Routing/Extension
Proprietary BMP
$5,694,000
4DC_01Gunbarrel–SpinePipe Replacement
rd
Road, Lookout and 63
Storm Drain Re-Routing/Extension
Systems
Constructed Wetland
The implementation plan for the Water Quality Improvement (WQIMP) projects were prioritized
based on problem severity as identified by pollutant load. The WQIMP category was developed
since many of the water quality project sites were not adjacent to hydraulic problem and
improvement locations.In addition, many of these WQIMP projects could be defined as a small
capital projects since the estimated construction costs are less than $100,000.
Table ES-2: Water QualityImprovement CIP Projects
Location
ImprovementAnnualCapital
IDTSSCost
Load
(pounds)
$104,000
61,900 th
WQIMP 2 Boulder Creek 1,400’ East of 75 Street
$81,000
th
56,500
WQIMP 3 Boulder Creek & 28 Street
$76,000
th
WQIMP 5 46,200Boulder Creek & 75 Street
$157,000
WQIMP 6 & 45,700Boulder Creek & East Broadway Street & Arapahoe
WQIMP 9 & 38,400Avenue
WQIMP 8 $84,000
41,500Boulder Creek 200’ West of Folsom Street
WQIMP 12 $78,000
29,000Boulder Creek & Folsom Street
WQIMP 14 $73,000
24,200 th
Boulder Creek & 9 Street
WQIMP 15 $73,000
22,800
Broadway & Skunk Creek
WQIMP 16 $81,000
20,300 th
Boulder Creek & 13 Street
WQIMP 18 $51,000
th
15,000Boulder Creek & 11 Street
Estimates of capital construction costs included in this plan are considered planning level
estimates to be used in developing stormwater capital budget requirements.
5
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2010
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of a motion to accept the Wastewater Utility Master
Plan.
PRESENTER/S:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Robert E. Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Robert J. Harberg, Engineering Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Douglas Sullivan, Engineering Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUMP) is a comprehensive analysis of the city’s
wastewater collection and treatment system, associated water quality programs and facilities. It
is intended to guide future wastewater utility decisions. The WWUMP serves as the overarching
planning document for the wastewater utility and is supported by three primary planning
documents:
The Wastewater Collection System (WWCS) Master Plan
The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Master Plan
The Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP)
The WWUMP provides updated information on the wastewater utility system and a
recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) project list for wastewater utility
improvements over the next 20 years.
The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) accepted the final Wastewater Utility Master
Plan by a 5-0 vote at its May 18, 2009 meeting. At its Dec. 17, 2009 meeting, Planning Board
voted (6-0) to recommend City Council acceptance of the Wastewater Utility Master Plan and
approve the revisions to the BVCP Wastewater Utility Master Plan Summary.
ATTACHMENT A.
A copy of the Executive Summary of the WWUMP is included as A hard
copy of the entire WWUMP document is available in the City Council office and a full electronic
version is available on the city’s Website at
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Utilities/wastewater/WWUMP_Fina_Draft_111309.pdf
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to accept the Wastewater Utility Master Plan.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
Economic: One of the primary purposes of the WWUMP is to assure that the City of
Boulder continues to meet all environmental laws and regulations and avoid
consequences by developing appropriate plans for on-going maintenance of the
infrastructure and improvements to accommodate probable future growth and regulatory
changes. The discharge of pollutants to the environment would expose the city to
possible damages, assessments, and restrictions for existing customers and on any new
development.
Environmental: Two of the Wastewater Utility’s guiding principles directly address
environmental issues: the Protection of Public Heath and Safety, and the Protection of
Boulder’s Natural Resources and the Environment. The Wastewater Utility 20-year CIP
includes numerous projects that ensure that the city is addressing public heath, natural
resources and the environment. The 2006-2008 Liquid Stream Upgrades Project was
completed to ensure that the WWTP could meet more stringent effluent discharge permit
requirements. This project has reduced the effluent ammonia concentration discharged to
Boulder Creek from 9 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L (a 95% reduction). This reduction correlates to
1,000 lbs. less ammonia being discharged to Boulder Creek each day. The 2006-2008
Dewatering Improvements project was completed to provide a more efficient biosolids
program reducing the volume of biosolids delivered to the land application sites. This
project reduced the number of biosolids truck loads from 697 in 2007 to 322 in 2009 - a
54% reduction. This process change reduced the number of biosolids trucks travel by
approximately 54,000 miles, and saves over 6,500 gallons of diesel fuel annually. The
solar Photovoltaic (PV) facility will provide one megawatt (1,000,000 watts) of green
energy in supplying approximately 15% of the WWTP annual power requirements.
Social: Residents are currently benefiting from the recent WWTP improvements project
by the enhanced water quality discharge to Boulder Creek and by the reduction in the
number of large trucks on the highway. The new photovoltaic (PV) system at the WWTP
will produce “green” power, result in cost savings and will provide educational
opportunities at a kiosk located at the WWTP.The PV project will stabilize a portion of
the WWTP annual utility bill at a lower rate than is currently being paid, allowing for
more accurate utility cost projections on an annual basis. This associated savings can be
translated into opportunities for system upgrades and enhanced customer service at the
WWTP.
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________
OTHER IMPACTS:
Fiscal: The WWUMP identifies numerous CIP projects for both the WWTP and the
wastewater collection system. These projects are integrated into the Wastewater Utility
20-year CIP to address discharge permit related issues and the replacement and/or
rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. Recent WWTP improvements have reduced the
cost of biosolids processing and disposal program. Additionally, the WWTP Solar
Photovoltaic (PV) facility will be operational in February 2010. This PV facility will
provide an additional power supply of one megawatt (1,000,000 watts). The PV facility
will provide approximately 15% of the WWTP’s overall power requirements and result in
an estimated annual savings of approximately $43,000.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
Staff presented the draft Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUMP) to the Water Resources
Advisory Board (WRAB) in March 2009 and presented the final WWUMP in May 2009. The
WRAB accepted the final Wastewater Utility Master Plan by a 5-0 vote at the May 18, 2009
meeting.
City staff presented the WWUMP to the Planning Board at its Dec. 17, 2009 meeting. The
Planning Board meeting was a public hearing in consideration of:
A recommendation to City Council concerning the Wastewater Utility Master Plan; and,
Approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Wastewater Utility Master
Plan Summary.
Planning Board voted (6-0) to recommend to City Council acceptance of the Wastewater Utility
Master Plan and approve the revisions to the BVCP Wastewater Utility Master Plan Summary,
incorporating the staff memorandum dated Dec. 17, 2009.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
There was no public feedback at the May 18, 2009 Water Resources Advisory Board meeting or
the Dec. 17, 2009 Planning Board meeting.
BACKGROUND:
th
Boulder’s wastewater collection system and the 75 Street WWTP serve residences and
businesses within the 26 square-mile Wastewater Utility Service Area (WUSA). Areas outside
the WUSA boundary are served by other utility districts or septic systems. Boulder’s wastewater
collection system currently serves a population of approximately 110,000 residents and 101,000
employees associated with commercial and industrial business. Projected growth is anticipated
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________
to occur primarily through infill and redevelopment projects resulting in an estimated 128,000
residents and 156,000 employees within the WUSA through 2035.
The city’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 362 miles of sanitary sewer
pipe ranging in size between 4-inch and 60-inch diameter sewers. The system flows by gravity,
with the exception of one sewage lift station and associated force main. The Diagonal Highway
Lift Station is located at 5600 Diagonal Highway. The force main associated with the pump
station is 12-inches in diameter and approximately 800 feet in length. All sanitary sewer flow is
thth
conveyed to the city’s 75 Street WWTP located at 4049 N 75 Street.
th
The 75 Street WWTP has a rated capacity of 25 million gallons per day (mgd). The WWTP
serves City of Boulder residences, commercial business, and light industry located within the
WUSA. The WWTP has been in operation at its current location since 1968 and has undergone
numerous modifications since that time.
The most recent WWTP modification occurred in 2006-2008 when two significant process
upgrades were completed at the WWTP. The Liquid Stream Upgrades project was completed to
enable the plant to meet more stringent effluent discharge regulations required by the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment. This project represented a transition in the
biological treatment process from a Trickling Filter/Solids Contact process to the Activated
Sludge process. The project also increased the plant’s hydraulic capacity from 20.5 mgd to 25
mgd. The Solids Processing improvements were completed to provide a more efficient and
sustainable solids management program.
The Wastewater Utility Master Plan was developed to serve as an overarching document for the
entire Wastewater Utility. The WWUMP addresses the WWTP and collection system CIP
projects, as well as Operation and Maintenance programs, and the Water Quality and
Environmental Services Program. Utilities staff has previously completed individual master
plans for each of the Utility’s major components. The WWTP Master Plan was completed in
2007. The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan was completed in 2008 as part of the
WWUMP. The Water Quality Strategic Plan was completed in 2009.
ANALYSIS:
Wastewater Utility CIP
The Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUMP) includes a comprehensive list of Wastewater
Utility projects to be completed during the 20-year planning period. These include wastewater
treatment plant capital and maintenance related projects, as well as wastewater collection system
capital and maintenance related projects. The 2010-2030 Wastewater Utility Fund CIP has
numerous line items identifying various projects for the WWTP and the sanitary sewer collection
system. The significant CIP expenditures fall into the following three categories:
WWTP Capital Projects
WWTP Rehabilitation Projects
WWCS Rehabilitation Projects
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________
WWTP Capital Projects
There are five significant WWTP capital projects currently identified in the 20-year CIP. The
total cost of these projects (in 2008 dollars) is estimated at $40,000,000. These projects, their
estimated escalated cost, and their projected timing are listed below:
UV Disinfection – $4,400,000 – 2010
Digester Modifications – $4,000,000 – 2010
Headworks Improvements – $15,600,000 – 2016
Phase 2 Improvements (Denitrification & Phosphorus removal) – $15,000,000 – 2020
Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC’s) removal – $19,000,000 – 2030
The Utilities Division has recently completed a WWTP Evaluation project that provided an
analysis for a future UV Disinfection to replace the plant’s existing gas chlorine system, and
modifications to the existing Digester complex and Headworks facility. This analysis presented
several process alternatives for the various facilities, their respective estimated costs, and
provided recommendations regarding their overall priority.
WWTP Rehabilitation Projects
In addition to the WWTP capital projects listed above, there are numerous WWTP rehabilitation
projects identified in the CIP to address the plant’s aging infrastructure. These projects are listed
in the CIP in years 2016 through 2030, and have a combined cost (in 2008 dollars) of
$8,500,000. Utilities staff will continue to review the WWTP Rehabilitation analysis annually to
identify the estimated timing for the various rehabilitation projects within the six-year CIP.
WWCS Rehabilitation Projects
Lastly, there are numerous wastewater collection system improvement projects currently
identified in the 20-year CIP. These projects were identified in the Wastewater Collection
System Master Plan, which was accepted by the WRAB in December 2008. The CIP currently
lists four Tier 1 projects (highest priority) and seven Tier 2 projects (second highest priority).
The total cost (in 2008 dollars) for these eleven projects is estimated at $28,000,000. The Tier 1
and Tier 2 project groups are listed below with their estimated cost and projecting timing:
Tier 1 Projects – $5,000,000 – 2016 through 2021
Tier 2 Projects – $23,000,000 – 2021 through 2030
MATRIX OF INVESTMENT OPTIONS:
The WWUMP presents the following three investment options based on different levels of
funding:
Fiscally Constrained Plan
Action Plan
Vision Plan
Fiscally Constrained Plan
The Fiscally Constrained Plan reflects an investment strategy which assumes a Wastewater
Utility Fund rate increase of zero percent (0%) in 2010, and a three percent (3%) annual increase
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________
in years 2011 through 2030. Under the Fiscally Constrained Plan, there are numerous programs
and projects that would be either eliminated or have reduced funding. These include the
following:
Either the UV Disinfection or the Digester Modifications project (both scheduled for
construction in 2010) would need to be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
The 2016 Headworks Improvements project would be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
The 2020 Phase 2 Improvements project (Nutrient Removal) would be eliminated from
the 20-year CIP
This project would likely be required to address CDPHE permit issues
o
The 2030 Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC) removal project would be eliminated
from the 20-year CIP
This project would likely be required to address CDPHE permit issues
o
The WWTP Rehabilitation funding would be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
The Wastewater Collection System Replacement projects (Tier 1 and Tier 2) would be
eliminated from the 20-year CIP
The Sanitary Sewer System Rehabilitation funding would be eliminated from the 20-year
CIP
Future budget supplementals would be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
Action Plan
The Action Plan reflects an investment strategy that assumes an annual Wastewater Utility Fund
rate increase of four percent (4%) in years 2016 through 2030, with the following exceptions.
The Action Plan will follow the recommended six-year (2010-2015) CIP, which includes the
following rate increases: 2010 = 0%, 2011-2012 = 3%, 2013 = 4%, and 2014-2015 = 6%. There
is one period of increased funding that is necessary to maintain a positive fund balance in 2030.
Two consecutive years (2019 and 2020) of nine percent (9%) rate increases would be required to
fund the Nutrient Removal project. Under the Action Plan, there are a few programs and
projects that would be either eliminated or have reduced funding. These include the following:
The 2030 Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC) removal project would be eliminated
from the 20-year CIP
This project would likely be required to address CDPHE permit issues
o
The Wastewater Collection System Replacement projects (Tier 2) would be eliminated
from the 20-year CIP
Vision Plan
The Vision Plan reflects an investment strategy that assumes an annual Wastewater Utility Fund
rate increase of four percent (4%) in years 2011 through 2030 with the following exceptions.
There are three periods of increased funding necessary to maintain a positive fund balance in
2030. Two consecutive years (2014 and 2015) of eight percent (8%) rate increases would be
required to fund the Headworks Improvements project. Two consecutive years (2019 and 2020)
of eight percent (8%) rate increases would be required to fund the Nutrient Removal
Improvements project. Two consecutive years (2029 and 2030) of eight percent (8%) rate
increases would be required to fund the EDC Removal Project. Under the Vision Plan, there are
no programs that would have reduced funding.
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________
Rate Increases needed to fund Investment Strategy Options
The table below presents the three different levels of potential Wastewater Utility rate increases
needed to fund corresponding investments in the six-year CIP. The proposed annual rate
increase is presented on a yearly basis through the city’s budget process to the Water Resources
Advisory Board and City Council for review and consideration.
Investment Strategy 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fiscally Constrained 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Action 0% 3% 3% 4% 6% 6%
Vision 0% 4% 4% 4% 8% 8%
Approved By:
______________________________
Jane S. Brautigam,
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A – WWUMP Executive Summary
AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUMP) is the overarching planning document that is
intended to present key issues, programs, projects and associated budgets for the collection
system, wastewater treatment plant and water quality programs. The WWUMP is supported by
three primary planning documents for the Wastewater Utility: the Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan (WWCSMP), the Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan (WWTPMP), and the
Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP).
th
Street WWTP serve residences and
businesses within the 26 sq. mile Wastewater Utility Service Area (WUSA). Areas outside the
WUSA boundary are served by other utility districts or septic systems.
collection system currently serves a population of approximately 110,000 people and 101,000
employees associated with commercial and industrial
business. Projected growth is anticipated to occur
primarily through in-fill and redevelopment projects
resulting in an estimated 128,000 people and 156,000
employees within the WUSA.
A series of guiding principles were used to define the
planning process for the Utility. These guiding
to community sustainability through evaluating
social, environmental and economic impacts
associated with various program and projects within
the city. Specifically, the three guiding principles for
the WWUMP are:
Protect Public Health and Safety
Protect
Environment
Maximize
encompasses 26 sq.mi. and contains five
interceptor sewer basins
2FWREHU L
Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan
The Wastewater Treatment Plan Master Plan (WWTPMP) documents past decisions, the
current facility, and presents the approach that has been used to reach decisions on process
selection and introduce some future decisions that will be facing the utility. To continue to
provide the level of service required by federal regulations and match the expectations of the
community presented in the BVCP Goals, ongoing improvements to the treatment facility are
necessary.
The WWTP was upgraded in 2008 to meet future wastewater treatment capacity demands and
new ammonia-nitrogen limits that were incorporated in the CDPS permit. The upgrades
included improvements to both the liquid stream treatment and solids dewatering processes
(Phase 1). The current treatment capacity is 25.0 million gallons per day (mgd) on a maximum
month basis and provides adequate capacity to meet population growth past 2025 (the current
average annual flow rate is approximately 15 mgd). The Phase 1 improvements also kept the
future total nitrogen discharge at or below the current level. The solids dewatering process
improvements increased solids from the liquid stream treatment process and reduced the
volume of dewatered solids that must be transported from the WWTP site.
Phase 1B construction, currently planned for 2010-2011, will include a UV disinfection system,
solids stabilization (anaerobic digester) improvements, and possibly improvements to the
headworks facility. Phase 2 construction, scheduled for 2020, includes expansion of the
bioreactor with improvements to biologically remove nitrate and phosphorus.
WWTP Evaluation
Even though the City of Boulder recently completed $45 million in major improvements to the
liquid and solids handling processes at the 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant, new
discharge permit requirements are expected in 2010 and will require bringing the entire facility
up to the same level of treatment capacity. As such, the City is currently in the process of
evaluating es specifically focusing on the following
three areas:
ating, etc.) and
recommend improvements to provide greater capacity and operational stability.
Evaluate UV disinfection alternatives to replace the existing gas chlorine and sulfur dioxide
systems.
g CDPHE permit effluent.
2FWREHU LL
The WWTP Evaluation project was completed in October 2009. The evaluation included
recommendations at various plant processes including the following:
A new UV (ultraviolet) Disinfection system to replace the gaseous chlorine and sulfur
dioxide systems.
New digester mixing to replace the existing gas mixing system.
Headworks improvements including bar screen replacement, grit conveyance, and screenings
and grit removal.
The City is in the process of selecting an engineering consultant to provide the design services.
The design is scheduled for 2010, with an anticipated construction bid in late 2010 or early
2011. The construction is estimated at $8,000,000 to $9,000,000.
Future WWTP Modifications
Discharge permit limits are revisited every five years, and it is anticipated that some level of TIN
and phosphorus removal may be required by future discharge permits. Additionally, the Boulder
WWTP may be required to remove microconstituents. Microconstituents include very small
particles such as endocrine disrupting compounds and disinfection byproducts. Other future
projects identified in the CIP include modifications to, or the replacement of the Headworks
facility.
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
The WWCSMP is a comprehensive planning document that assesses the conveyance capacity of
B
estimates to resolve conveyance capacity deficiencies.
Collection System Analysis
The purposes of the conveyance system analysis were to 1) document the analysis of the
existing collection system during dry weather and wet weather flows and 2) to identify and
characterize hydraulic capacity issues. By analyzing the existing collection system under existing
and buildout flow conditions, problem areas were identified for both land use scenarios.
The primary source of data that was used for the collection system hydraulic model and analysis
sewer pipes. The collection system pipes with identified capacity limitations, established from
2FWREHU LLL
the model results, were examined to identify likely hydraulic issues under the various flow
scenarios. There are a total of 138 pipes in the analyzed collection system with hydraulic
deficiencies identified. A detailed problem identification and characterization process was
completed to better understand the nature and extent of these problems. The hydraulic
problems were separated into two categories: Type A and Type B. Type A problems consisted
of a series of under capacity pipes that were hydraulically connected to one another. Type B
problems are isolated hydraulic restrictions that are not hydraulically connected to other
problem locations or series of problem pipes.
Recommended Collection System Improvements
The recommended system improvements were developed to resolve the existing and future
capacity issues are shown on the following figure. This figure includes both improvements that
address Type A and Type B problems.
The recommended improvements were grouped in three tiers to establish implementation
priority:
Tier 1 projects address Type A problems and have the highest priority;
Tier 2 projects also address Type A problems but have lower priority compared to Tier 1;
Tier 3 projects address Type B problems which have the lowest priority.
The improvement priorities were assigned based on a number of qualitative factors including
the flow conditions in which they occur (existing versus future), extent of the problem, potential
for sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and service lateral backups, ease of constructability, and
relative benefit over other improvement projects. The resulting implementation priorities and
associated estimates of capital construction cost are shown in the following table.
Improvement Priority Capital Construction Cost
Tier I $4,977,000
Tier II $22,664,000
Tier III $2,296,000
$29,937,000
Collection System Operations and Maintenance
The WWCSMP project team reviewed the collection system operations and maintenance
(O&M) procedures. The purpose of this O&M procedure was to review the current state of
collection system O&M practices and evaluate potential increases in service levels due to trends
2FWREHU LY
in the regulatory environment in the western United States. In addition, the 2008 QualServe
peer review program and self assessment survey evaluated the overall performance,
efficiency and customer service as well as maintaining industry best management practices.
Both the QualServ program and the WWCSMP O&M review
Maintenance group operates and maintains the collection system such that it continues to
provide a high level of service to its existing customers.
Collection System Rehabilitation Budgeting
Boulder developed a methodology for determining the mileage and cost of the 20-year CIP for
rehabilitating wastewater pipes and manholes. This methodology was based on spreadsheet
model that characterized pipe failure as a function of time to assist in forecasting long-term
budgetary needs for rehabilitation of sanitary sewer pipe. This analysis resulted in a
recommendation for an annual manhole and sewer pipe rehabilitation budget of $850,000. This
methodology was given an independent review which recommended that an annual sewer
rehabilitation budget of $500,000 would be adequate for the 20-year planning period.
Water Quality Strategic Plan
The Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) has been developed, and will be implemented by the
Group within the city of Boulder
Public Works, Utilities Division. The Industrial Pretreatment (IPT) and Laboratory Services
programs are included in this WQSP as they are directly related to the wastewater utility
planning effort.
The purpose of the WQSP is to develop clear and concise water quality goals, develop
recommendations and performance measures to achieve these goals, and provide a process to
address current and future water quality challenges. The WQES Group is funded through the
Wastewater, and Stormwater enterprise funds and supports the Utilities Division
water services with seven programs.
Water quality goals were developed using an inventory of existing water quality goal statements
and regulations, starting with the BVCP. From this
exercise, five goal statements were developed and include:
Provide safe and high quality drinking water.
Manage pollutants from wastewater and other point-sources.
2FWREHU Y
Manage pollutants from stormwater and other non-point sources.
Protect, preserve and restore natural water systems.
Conserve water resources.
WQSP Recommendations
The recommendations developed for the WQSP are based primarily on the objective of
adopting citywide water quality goals, and integrating these goals into planning and policy
instruments. In addition, the recommendations address strategies to meet an unprecedented
number of new or proposed federal and state water quality regulations. The recommendations
include:
Evaluate and update policies in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to incorporate water
quality goals. WQES staff will review and recommend updates to the BVCP to ensure
incorporation of water quality goals. The BVCP is scheduled to be updated in 2010.
Perform analyses on City plans, policies and projects to identify gaps in meeting water
quality goals. WQES staff will review relevant plans, policies, and projects, such as master
plans, design and construction standards, and the Boulder Revised Code to: 1) ensure that
the City complies with all state and federal laws and regulations on water quality and
environmental protections; and, 2) meet water quality goals.
Develop annual work plans and water quality reports. Annual work plans and reports will be
developed for each of the seven WQES Group programs. These programs include:
Stormwater Quality, Water Quality Education, Water Conservation, Industrial Pretreatment,
Drinking Water Quality, Water Quality Planning and Laboratory Services. Staff will use the
work plans to direct program activities specific to the WQSP goals.
Prepare for future water quality regulations. WQES staff will prepare for future water
quality regulations, ensure regulatory compliance, and incorporate capital improvement
requirements needed to meet reg
Industrial Pretreatment Program
WQES Group serves as an in-house technical resource for Utilities and other City departments
to help maintain compliance with various levels of regulations. The current, primary purpose of
the city of Boulder IPT program is to control or limit the discharge of toxic or hazardous waste
WWTP. The primary objectives of the
IPT program are described as follows:
To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the city of Boulder wastewater collection and
treatment system that could interfere with plant operation.
2FWREHU YL
To prevent the pass-through of untreated pollutants into Boulder Creek.
To improve recycling capabilities of sludge.
To protect the general health and safety of wastewater treatment plant workers and
downstream users.
To encourage pollution prevention as a feasible alternative to treatment and disposal.
IPT Gaps, Deficiencies and Recommendations
In addition to the ongoing responsibilities of the IPT Program, special studies and/or additional
programs are necessary to further characterize industrial and commercial discharges to the ci
sanitary sewer system sources, support compliance with WWTP discharge permit requirements
and collect data and information in preparation for future regulatory requirements. The
following programs or studies should be evaluated and modified or initiated as necessary.
Fats, Oil and Grease Program
Evaluate potential modifications to the existing FOG program and regulations.
R
Industrial Waste Survey
Consider initiating a comprehensive industrial waste surveys.
R
Business Inventory Mailing
Send out business questionnaires to determine if targeted businesses continue to be non-significant or
R
move into a significant industrial user category.
Wastewater and Environmental Laboratory Program
The WEL Program currently provides broader support for the WWTP including biosolids
analysis, field services including water quality monitoring and management of the laboratory
information management system (LIMS) and database system. WEL program responsibilities
will continue to expand as increasingly complex and interrelated water quality regulations
develop.
WEL Program Gaps, Deficiencies and Recommendations
In addition to the ongoing responsibilities of the WEL Program, special studies and/or
additional programs are necessary to further characterize WWTP performance, characterize
water quality conditions in Boulder Creek and provide compliance support for State and Federal
regulations. It is recommended that the following programs or studies should be evaluated and
modified or initiated as necessary.
Evaluate Laboratory Size and Function
Perform Business Case Evaluation on the Wastewater and Environmental Laboratory Program
R
Staffing Analysis
2FWREHU YLL
Review staffing levels compared to other municipalities.
R
Laboratory Maintenance
Ongoing funding for equipment replacement and laboratory upgrades
R
Wastewater Utility CIP
The Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUMP) includes a comprehensive list of Wastewater
Utility projects to be completed during the 20-year planning period. These include wastewater
treatment plant capital and maintenance related projects, as well as wastewater collection system
capital and maintenance related projects. The 2010-2030 Wastewater Utility Fund CIP has
numerous line items identifying various projects for the WWTP and the sanitary sewer
collection system. The significant CIP expenditures and Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP)
funding fall into the following categories:
WWTP Capital Projects
WWTP Rehabilitation Projects
WWCS Rehabilitation Projects
WQSP Funding
WWTP Capital Projects
There are five (5) significant WWTP capital projects currently identified in the 20-yr CIP. The
total cost of these projects (in 2008 dollars) is estimated at $40,000,000. These projects, their
estimated escalated cost, and their projected timing are listed below:
UV Disinfection $4,400,000 2010
Digester Modifications $4,000,000 2010
Headworks Improvements $15,600,000 2016
Phase 2 Improvements (Denitrification & Phosphorus removal) $15,000,000 2020
$19,000,000 2030
Utilities staff is currently completing a WWTP Evaluation project which is an analysis of the UV
Disinfection, Digester Modifications, and Headworks Improvements projects. This analysis will
present several process alternatives for the various facilities, their respective estimated costs, and
will provide a recommendation regarding their overall priority.
WWTP Rehabilitation Projects
In addition to the WWTP capital projects listed above, there are numerous WWTP
rehabilitation projects identified in
projects are listed in the CIP in years 2016 through 2030, and have a combined cost (in 2008
2FWREHU YLLL
dollars) of $8,500,000. Utilities staff will continue to review the WWTP Rehabilitation analysis
annually to identify the estimated timing for the various rehabilitation projects within the 6-year
CIP.
WWCS Rehabilitation Projects
Lastly, there are numerous wastewater collection system improvement projects currently
identified in the 20-yr CIP. These projects were identified in the Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan which was accepted by the WRAB in December 2008. The CIP currently lists four
(4) Tier 1 projects (highest priority) and seven (7) Tier 2 projects (second highest priority). The
total cost (in 2008 dollars) for these eleven projects is estimated at $28,000,000. The Tier 1 and
Tier 2 project groups are listed below with their estimated cost and projecting timing:
Tier 1 Projects $5,000,000 2016 through 2021
Tier 2 Projects $23,000,000 2021 through 2030
WQSP Funding
The Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) is implemented by the Water Quality and
Environmental Services (WQES) Group. This include recommendations associated with the
Water Quality Strategic Plan, Industrial Pretreatment Program and Wastewater and
Environmental Laboratory Program. These recommendations provide a strategy that focuses
on maintaining and operating existing programs and planning for future regulations and their
implications on City regulatory requirements.
The WQSP elements, including Industrial Pretreatment, Wastewater Environmental Laboratory
and associated capital projects, are currently being approached in the following funding manor.
It should be noted that this element of the WWUMP plan is more of an opportunistic program
such that if funds are available, some recommendations can be moved forward as described in
the Action Plan recommendations within the WQSP document.
WQSP Recommendations
Requires a $50,000 one-time investment, a $94,000 on-going adjustment to base,
R
and an additional 1.0 FTE.
Industrial Pretreatment Program
Requires a $30,000 one-time investment.
R
Wastewater and Environmental Laboratory Program
Requires a $30,000 one-time investment and $30,000 ongoing adjustment to base
R
plus 0.5 FTE
Near Term Capital Improvements
2FWREHU L[
Requires a $196,000 one-time investment plus an ongoing $124,000 adjustment to
R
base and an additional 1.5 FTE
Investment Program Options
through monthly payments
. The Wastewater Utility addresses projects both at the WWTP and
also in the wastewater collection system. The funding is allocated to a variety of projects and
programs eds. City staff prioritizes the various projects in
planning level studies and evaluations, and then identifies the projects and their associated
schedule and fee in the CIP.
The WWUMP presents three Utility investment programs based on different levels of funding
including the following:
Fiscally Constrained Plan
Action Plan
Vision Plan
These programs implement the policy direction of the WWUMP at the three funding levels.
Fiscally Constrained Plan
The Fiscally Constrained Program reflects an investment strategy which assumes a Wastewater
Utility Fund rate increase of two percent (2%) in 2010, and a three percent (3%) annual increase
in years 2011 through 2030. Under the Fiscally Constrained program, there are numerous
programs and projects which would be either eliminated or have reduced funding. These
include the following:
Either the UV Disinfection or the Digester Modifications project (both scheduled for
construction in 2010) would need to be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
The 2016 Headworks Improvements project would be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
The 2020 Phase 2 Improvements project (Nutrient Removal) would be eliminated from the
20-year CIP
This project would likely be required to address CDPHE permit issues
R
The 2030 Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC) removal project would be eliminated
from the 20-year CIP
This project would likely be required to address CDPHE permit issues
R
The WWTP Rehabilitation funding would be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
The Wastewater Collection System Replacement projects (Tier 1 and Tier 2) would be
eliminated from the 20-year CIP
2FWREHU [
The Sanitary Sewer System Rehabilitation funding would be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
Future budget supplementals would be eliminated from the 20-year CIP
Action Plan
The Action Program reflects an investment strategy which assumes an annual Wastewater
Utility Fund rate increase of four percent (4%) in years 2016 through 2030, with the following
exceptions. The Action Plan will follow the recommended 6-year (2010-2015) CIP which
includes the following rate increases: 2010=2%, 2011-2012=3%, 2013=4%, and 2014-
1015=6%. There is one period of increased funding which is necessary to maintain a positive
fund balance in 2030. Two consecutive years (2019 and 2020) of nine percent (9%) rate
increases would be required to fund the Nutrient Removal project. Under the Action Plan,
there are a few programs and projects which would be either eliminated or have reduced
funding. These include the following:
The 2030 Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC) removal project would be eliminated
from the 20-year CIP
This project would likely be required to address CDPHE permit issues
R
The Wastewater Collection System Replacement projects (Tier 2) would be eliminated from
the 20-year CIP
Vision Plan
The Vision Program reflects an investment strategy which assumes an annual Wastewater Utility
Fund rate increase of four percent (4%) in years 2010 through 2030 with the following
exceptions. There are three periods of increased funding necessary to maintain a positive fund
balance in 2030. Two consecutive years (2014 and 2015) of eight percent (8%) rate increases
would be required to fund the Headworks Improvements project. Two consecutive years (2019
and 2020) of eight percent (8%) rate increases would be required to fund the Nutrient removal
Improvements project. Two consecutive years (2029 and 2030) of eight percent (8%) rate
increases would be required to fund the EDC removal project. Under the Vision Plan, there are
no programs that would have reduced funding.
2FWREHU [L
ͳͲǡʹͲͳ͵
INTRODUCTION
ʹͲͳ͵ǡ that
ǯ
ȋƬȌǤ
Ƭ
andǤ
Ƭ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ ǣ
(ͳȌ ǡ ǡǡ
ƬǢ(ʹȌ Ƭ
ǡ ǡ
Ǣ(͵Ȍa
ƬǤ
ǡ
Ƭǡ
ƬǤ ǣ(ͳȌ Ǣ
(ʹȌ Ǣ(͵Ȍǡ
Ǣ(4Ȍ Ǣ(5Ȍ
ƬǢ(6Ȍ Ǣ(7ȌsƬ(ͺȌ
ƬǤ
Packet Page 130
ȋ Ȍǡ
ǡ ǡǤƬ
ȋǤǤǡ Ȍǡ
ȋǤǤǡ
BȌ
ȋǤǤǡ
ȌǤƬ- ȋǤǤǡ
HȌ
ȋǤǤǡ
BoardȌǤǯ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ƭ
Ƭ
Ǥ Ƭǡge ǡ
ǤƬ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǣ
Ȁǡǡ
ǡ Ȁ
Ȁ ǫ
Ȁ
ǫ
ǡ Ǥ
Ȁǡ
ȀǤ
Ȁ
Ȁǫ
ȀȀǤ
Packet Page 131
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ƭ ǡ
re Ǥ
ǡ17peopleǣͶƬandͺstaff
ǡ
staff. ͻƬͺǤ
Ǥ
Ƭǡ Ƭ
ͳ͵Ͳ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǤMiscellaneous
Ǥ
A.Recruitme
1. ǫͺǢ
media.
2.ͺƬ
Ǥ
3. artmenǤ Dzdz
Ǥ
4.Ƭ
community.
Packet Page 132
5. ͷǤ
pool?
6.̵ Ǥ
7.Ƭ community.
8.
ƬDatabase— ǡ
Ȁ ȋȌ
recruitment.
9.IncreaseƬ Ǥ
B. es
1.Consider Ǣ ȋ
ȌǤ
2.C ȋȌ
Ǥ
3.
Ǥ
4.
ǡ Ǥ
5. Ǥ
6.Ǥ
7. Ǥ
C.Orientation
1.ͳͲͳ— Ǥ
2. —Ǥ
3.— orientation.
Packet Page 133
4.Ǥ
5.Ǥ
6.O
Ǥ
7.Ǥ
8.ƬǤ Ǥ
9. Ǥ
10.ʹͲͲͶ
Ǥ
11. ǣ
Ǥ
12. —Ǥ
13. DzdzƬ
Ǥ
14. ǡ Ǥ
15. Ǥ
16.Dz dz ƬǤ
17. Ǥ
D.Roles/Responsibilities
1. Ƭ
Ǥ
2. -ǡ
Ǥ
3.Ƭ Ǥ
4.Ǥ
5. Ǥ
Packet Page 134
6. Ǥ
7. - -ǤȋǤǤ
PlaȌǤ
8. ǡǤ
9. Ǥ
10.“
E.Ȁ Ȁ
1.ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
2.Ǥ
3. Ǥ
4. -of-meȋǤǤǡǡǡ
etc.ȌǤ
5. Ǥ
6.
Ǥ
7. ǤǤ
Ǥ
8. elpful.
9. ǡǤ
10. Ǥ
11.Ƭ
ǡǤ
Packet Page 135
F.ȀƬ
ouncil
1.—
Ƭ Ǥ
responsibilities.
2.—ƬǡǡǤ
-Ǥ
3.ƬǤ
ƬǤ
4.
Ǥ
5.Ǥ
6.ƬǫǤ
7. ȀǡǤ
G.
1.Ǥ
Ǥ
H.Ƭ
1. Ǥ
2.Ǥ
3.
Ǥ
4. Ǥ
5. Ƭ
Ǥ
6.O ǡ
͵ͷǡǤ
Packet Page 136
7.
Ǥ
8. ǡ
etc.
I.Miscellaneous
1.Ƭ ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
2. Ǣ
ƬȀ
want?
Packet Page 137
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ǥ
Ƭ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
believe ǡ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
A.Ƭ
1. ƬǤ
C
1
description.
2.
Ȁ Ǧ
B&CsǤ
3.Ƭ ȋǤǤǡ
Ƭ
ǡ ǡƬǡ ǤȌ
4.
view.
ǡ
1
ǡǤ
Ǥ Ǥ
ƬǤ
Packet Page 138
5. Ƭ
-Ǥ
B.Recruitment
1. Ǥǡͺ
ǣƬǡ(ǤǤǡ Ƭ
membersȌǤ
2. Ǥ
3. Ƭ
recruitǤ
C.
1. ǡ
problem-ǡ
Ǥ
2. -ʹͲͳͷ Ǣ
upgradetechnologyǤ
3. Ǥ
4.
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
5. Ǥ
6.ǡ
Staff
ȋ
Packet Page 139
Ƭ Ǣ ǡ
ƬǤ
D.Orientation
1.DzͳͲͳǡdz
ǢǤ
2.
Ǥ
3.
Ǥ
4. ȀƬ
orientationǤ
5.DzdzƬ
experiencesǤ
E. Ƭ
1. ȀƬ
Ƭ ͵Ǥ
2. Ƭ
Ǥ
3.Ƭ
ǡǡ Ȁ
raisedǤ
Packet Page 140
F.
1.Ƭproced
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
2.Ƭ
ǡ Ǥ
3.
ƬǤ
4.Ǥ
5. -ǡǤǤǡ
Ǥ
6. Ƭ
Ǥ
G.
1.-Ƭ
Ƭǡ Ǥ
2.ƬǤ
3. Ȁ
DzǤdz
4.
Ƭǡ Ȁ
Ǥ
Packet Page 141
5. ΨȀ
ȋ ͵ͷȌǤ
H.
1. when authorityȀ
Ǣ Ƭ
ȋ ͳ͵ͲȌǤ
2.
ƬSS
to Ƭ
issuesǤ
3.Discus Ƭ
Ǥ
I.
1. Ƭ ǡǤǤǡ ǡ
ǡ ǤǢ Ƭ
ƬǤ
2. ƬǢ
Ƭ
Ǥ
ƬǤ
Ǥ
Packet Page 142
ǡ
Ƭǫ
ǫ
ǫ
ǫ
sǡ
interest?
ǣ –
–
Packet Page 143
Ȃ
ȂCommission
Packet Page 144
ȋ͓ Ȍ
Short-TermMediumLong
A.Ƭ#5#2-#4#1
Responsibilities
B.Recruitment#3͓ͳ͓ʹ
C. Ƭ #5͓͵͓Ͷ͓ͳǡ͓ʹ
#6
D.Orientation#5͓ʹ͓͵͓ͳ͓Ͷ
E. Ƭ#1-#3
Interaction
F.Ƭ#3-#5͓ͳ͓#2
F.͓ʹ͓Ͷ͓͵͓ͷ#1
G. #2͓ͳ͓͵
H.Miscellaneous#2#1
Packet Page 145
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCESADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2013
AGENDA TITLE:
Discussion of Future Schedule: Impacts of September 2013 Flood on
Upcoming WRAB Meeting Agendas
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur,Director of Public Works for Utilities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The responsibilities of the Water Resources Advisory Board include reviewing capital
improvements proposed by the Utilities Division and reviewing, monitoring, and proposing
changes to the division’s master plans. WRAB’s recommendations are considered by City
Council in approving the Capital Improvements Program and accepting master plans. The
significant flood event that occurred in September has resulted in the acquisition of information
that will influence both master planning and capital projects. This memorandum providesan
overview of key projects and policies that WRAB may be asked to consider in 2014and beyond.
This information is intended to support WRAB’s monthly discussion of future schedule.
BACKGROUND
The WRAB reviews and makes a recommendation to City Council on the Utilities CIP each
year. Typically, the CIP is discussed at the April, May, and June meetings. A final
recommendation is voted on at the June meeting, prior to the CIP being forwarded forPlanning
Board and City Council consideration. Master plans and floodplainmapping studies are updated
periodically and are reviewed by the WRAB prior to consideration by City Council.
The September 2013 flooding caused extensive damage to both private property and city
infrastructure. Significant damage and operational issues occurred in all utility systems
including water, wastewater, stormwater, and major drainageways. Efforts to restore critical
infrastructure are ongoing and will take at least several years. Knowledge gained from the flood
will serve to inform changes to master plans, floodplain mapping studies, and capital projects.
The impacts experienced by the public are likely to create interest in or advocacy for new
projects, reprioritization of existing projects, and expedited schedules. On October 15, 2013,
Agenda VIII Page 1
City Council adopted “Key Objectives for Near-Term and Long-term Resiliency” which are
included as Attachment A to the memorandum.
It is anticipated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will reimburse the city for
75% of eligible costs to restoreflooddamaged,publicly maintainedinfrastructure to pre-flood
conditions. The State of Colorado has indicated that it will provide an additional 12.5% toward
eligible expenses. While this reimbursement will be a tremendous benefit to the city, not all
costs are eligible and the city will still need to provide a 12.5% contribution even on eligible
projects. Funding to restore facilities to better than pre-flood conditions is limited and generally
administered through competitive grant funding. The city is currently investigating grant
funding opportunities for mitigation projects. FEMA willnot provide the city with funding to
addressdamageon any private properties or infrastructure not maintained by the city prior to the
flood. For example, most areas of Gregory Creek are on private property without easements for
city maintenance. FEMA will not allow the city to accept easements and maintenance
responsibility after the fact as a means to obtain funding.
In addition to direct costs associated with flood emergency response and recovery, it anticipated
that there will broader impacts to the financial health of the utilities funds. Shortly after the
flood,the city was contacted by bond rating agencies concerned about the city’s potential
inability to make payments in the wake of the disaster. While we do not expect any issues with
meeting existing debt obligations, we do anticipated that reduced reserves and increased market
awareness of flood risk could impact the city’s ability to obtain favorable bond rates at least in
the near future. We are also already beginning to see cost escalation and shortages in
construction materials and labor due to the regional nature of the flood disaster. This will impact
flood related work as well as unrelated CIP work that relies on similar resources.
It will be important for the WRAB to have a clear understanding of existing master plans,
studies, projects, and funding when considering potential changes. The June 2014 deadline for a
2015 CIP recommendation provides a very limited timeframe to perform analysis and schedule
agenda items to help inform the WRAB recommendation. It is also important to note that the
existing CIP and rates are based on meeting existing regulatory and replacement needs for the
Utility’s approximately $2B in assets. Any additional proposed or expedited projects would
likelyrequire additional revenue or deferral of other high priority projects.
ANALYSIS
Water
Flood Impacts
The city’s domestic water system was significantly impacted by the flood, but remained
operationalthroughout the event. Key impactsincluded loss of use thecanal from Carter Lake
to Boulder Reservoir, loss of ability to treat water from Boulder Reservoir due to high turbidity,
loss of power to both the Betasso and Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facilities, loss of
vehicular access to Betasso Water Treatment Facility, damage to transmission facilities in
Boulder Canyon, loss of access to treated water storage facilities, and other related issues.
Agenda VIII Page 2
Potential CIP Considerations
Some examples of projects that could be considered in theCIP include –
Expedited construction of a pipeline from Carter Lake to Boulder Reservoir. Left Hand
Water District, a partner in the proposed project, was severely impacted, is supportive of
an expedited schedule,and is investigating potential flood related grant funding options.
Generator installation at Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility. The facility
current has a single electric feed,no backup power supply, and no infrastructure in place
to connect a trailer mounted generator. This would be a significant investment since the
Boulder Reservoir Treatment Facility pumps untreated water uphill from the reservoir
and treated water into the distribution system.
Investment in distribution system evaluation and upgrade that would allow the city to be
served exclusively from the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility during an
emergency.
Hardening of critical infrastructure such as water transmission facilities.
Key Policy Issues
City code requires that WRAB not involve itself in any review under the land useregulations
unless requested by City Council. Work is currently underway to evaluate the feasibility of
annexing residential properties located in county enclaves. Many of these properties have
identified issues with their wells and septic systems and are seeking to connect to city utilities.
The Utilities Division may be asked to support annexations through infrastructure construction,
financing, or fee waivers. This may impact funding available for other projects.
Financial Considerations
The 2014 budget for the water fund includes approximately $14M (54%) for operating costs and
$12M (46%) for capital/debt service.Major projects currently in the CIP include rehabilitation
of the Betasso Water Treatment Facility ($16M in 2016), Barker Dam rehabilitation ($8M in
2018), and Carter Lake Pipeline ($28.5M in 2017/18). A 1% rate increase in the water fund
generates approximately $215,000 in annual revenue. $1M in bond funding requires
approximately $100k/year for 20-years.
Wastewater
Flood Impacts
The city’s wastewater treatment facility and wastewater collection system experienced severe
operational issues and damage during and after the flood event. The wastewater treatment
facility is protected by a flood berm and remained operational throughout the event. The facility
suffered damage to anumber of keycomponents including the headworks and an anaerobic
digester cover. Several sections of the wastewater collection system were exposed or destroyed
by floodwaters. The 17.24 inches of rain thatfell in the Boulder area over an eight day period
resulted in infiltration and inflow from numerous sources as well as the entry of significant
sediment and debris into the collection system.
Potential CIP Considerations
Agenda VIII Page 3
The city has separate wastewater collection and stormwater collection systems. The recent flood
event may support additional investment in improvements to reduce the vulnerability of the
wastewater collection system to flood events such as rehabilitation or enhancement of the
collection system.The extensive system inspection being conducted to identify and address
flood related damages may also identify other issues with pipe conditions or hydraulic capacity
that result inreprioritization.
Key Policy Issues
A significant portion of the infiltration/inflow into the wastewater collection system appears to
be related to illicit connections and other inflow and infiltration on private property. Illicit
connections are not easily identified or remedied. The WRAB may be asked to make a
recommendation on measures to attempt to reduce illicit connections in the system.
FinancialConsiderations
The 2014 budget for the wastewater fund includes approximately $10M (63%) for operating and
$6M (37%) for capital/debt service. Many wastewater projects are funded over multiple years
and the average annual wastewater CIP for 2014-2019 is $2.8M. The 2014 CIP includes
approximately $700k for rehabilitation, repair, and replacement of the collection system with
most remaining funding committed to thewastewater treatment facility. Current funding allows
for rehabilitation of about 1% of the city’s approximately 400 miles of wastewater collection
system each year. A 1% rate increase in the wastewater fund generates approximately $135,000.
$1M in bond funding requires approximately $100k/year for 20 years.
Stormwater & Flood Management
Flood Impacts
The series of storms that occurred in September produced significant rainfall both within city
limits and in upstream watersheds. Flooding occurred on Boulder Creek, its 14 tributaries, and
as a result of rainfall in localized areas not directly impacted by creeks. Significant sediment and
debris removal will be required to restore capacity of both local and major drainage systems.
Significant longer term efforts will be required to restore habitat and features such as drop
structures and sediment traps. In general, properties in areas where the city has been able to
complete flood mitigation projects were significantly less impacted than other areas.
Potential CIP Considerations
Floodplain mapping studies to identify hazards and support mitigation efforts generally involve a
multi-year process prior to submittal to FEMA for review and adoption. Building community
consensus on mitigation approaches, securing property interests, and completing construction
can take many more years. Current CIP funding levels and work program are based on a long
term approach with several of the city’s major drainageways in some stage of study or mitigation
at any point in time. As examples, Two Mile Creek/Upper Goose is currently beingrestudied, a
mapping study of Boulder Creek is currently in review by FEMA, mitigation planning for South
Boulder Creekis ongoing, and amitigation project on Wonderland Creek upstream of the Kings
Ridge neighborhood had been designed and slated for construction prior to the flood. The flood
has resulted in significant data that can be used to calibrate floodplain models to better predict
future events. It has also resulted in requests from multiple neighborhoods to add or expedite
Agenda VIII Page 4
flood management related effortsandpublic concerns about the adequacy of local drainage
systems. The extensive inspection required to assess and flood related damage may also identify
other system issues that will need to be addressed through the CIP.
Key Policy Issues
Mapping Studies: Floodplain mapping studies and mitigation planning have historically been
controversial. It hasbeen fairly common for residents and business owners to oppose adoption
of mapping that identifies their properties as within a regulatory floodplain. Recent examples
include Boulder Creek where amendments to the city analysis prepared by property owners were
submitted to FEMA (and subsequently rejected) and the Two Mile /Upper Goose Creek restudy
which was delayed based on requests for additional analysis from impacted property owners.
The WRAB plays an important role in balancing the interest of property owners to avoid being
identified as within a flood prone area with the need to accurately map hazards to prioritize
outreach and mitigation efforts.
Floodplain Regulations: City Council recently approved a “Critical Facilities” ordinance
requiring certain land uses to meet higher regulatory standards for development in floodplains.
This ordinance was the result of a multi-year process that removed numerous requirements
contained in initial drafts to address concerns from potentially regulated businesses. The recent
flooding may result in community interest in changes to regulations and WRAB will play a role
in considering such changes
Property Acquisition: The Utilities Division allocates approximately $500k/year to acquire
private properties at highest risk for flood. Recent events may result in community interest in an
increased level of property acquisition. City property agents are currently in discussion with a
number of property owners in heavily impacted areas. In areas like Gregory Creek, the city does
not have easements that would allow access for restoration or mitigation. Flood mitigation
projects typically require a contiguous city property interest and are not feasible if the city is
unable to obtain easements from all impacted property owners.
Climate Change/Resiliency: Most city infrastructure is designed based on a storm event with a
1% probability of occurring in any given year based on historic data (the 100-year storm). As
reflected in the City Council’s key objectives, thecommunity’s experience with the recent flood
event and the likelihood that similar events or larger events will occur in the future, maytriggera
broader discussion of what scale of event the city should invest in preparing for.As an example,
current design standards for new stormwater collection systems on residential streets are based
on up to 18” of flow depth at the gutter during a 100-year storm event. Design standards could
be modified, but would result in increased costs and could decrease the resources available to
upgrade or construct systems in areas that were built prior to current standards and may have
significantly less capacity.
Education/Outreach: Earlier this year, the WRAB discussed the city’s current flood education
and outreach efforts and provided input. Staff is assessing the success of previous outreach
efforts and opportunities to update approaches based on new information.
Agenda VIII Page 5
Financial Considerations
The 2014 budget for the stormwater and flood management utility fund is approximately $3.7M
(27%) for operating and $10.2M (73%) for capital/debt service. Many capital projects in this
fund are budgeted over multiple years. The currently proposed CIP for 2014-2019 averages
$4.6M/year. Major near term CIP projects include $8M for flood mitigation on Wonderland
Creek and $5.5M for mitigation on South Boulder Creek. A 1% rate increase in the stormwater
and flood management fund generates approximately $50k in additional annual revenue. As
with the other utility funds, $1M in bond funding requires approximately $100k/year for 20
years.
NEXT STEPS
Staff is requesting the WRAB’s input on future agenda items including a schedule to discuss key
issues ahead of a recommendation on the 2015 Capital Improvements Program.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A –“Responding to the 2013 Flood: Key Objectives for Near-term Recovery and
Long-term Resiliency,” Adopted by City CouncilOct. 15 2013
Attachment B-WRAB Upcoming Agenda Items, Nov. 11, 2013
Agenda VIII Page 6
Responding to the 2013 Flood:
Key Objectives for Near-term Recovery and Long-term Resiliency
September 2013 brought unprecedented rainfall to our region, causing significant flooding, loss
of life, and widespread damage. The Boulder community is quickly getting back on its feet. But
while many are back to normal routines, others will be dealing with the floods’ impacts for
months and years to come. As a community, adequate care and support should be ensured for
those most affected, in Boulder and surrounding areas, while focusing on the important work of
reconstruction and other priorities. The flood has caused harm, but has also created an
opportunity: to think critically about our future, and to work together like never before in support
of long-term community sustainability and resiliency.
Our key objectives for the near-term recovery and long-term resiliency are:
Help people get assistance
1.. Facilitate access to individual assistance for affected
homeowners, renters and businesses to support their recovery from flood impacts and
strengthen long-term resilience.
Restore and enhance our infrastructure
2.. Invest in projects to restore services and to
rebuild and enhance infrastructure, as appropriate, in the interests of public health and
safety, community quality of life, and long-term resilience.
Assist business recovery.
3.Work with the Boulder business community and key partners
to connect affected businesses with resources, recover quickly from flood impacts, and
support long-term economic vitality.
Pursue and focus resources to support recovery efforts
4.. Work in partnership with
volunteers, governmental and other agencies to maximize financial resources and
efficiencies for recovery.
Learn together and plan for the future
5.. Engage the Boulder community in assessing
neighborhood impacts, refining and rethinking community design options, prioritizing
actions and opportunities that mitigate hazards before rebuilding and support long-term
community resilience and sustainability. In doing so, we build a city both greater and
more beautiful than we were before.
Adopted by Boulder City Council, October 15, 2013
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Upcoming Agenda Items–All Items Tentative
Revised 11-11-2013
December 16, 2013
Matters Item –Flood Recovery Update
Information Item –Water System Event Detection (Wind/Givler)
Action Item –Recommendation to City Council on 2014 Priorities
January 27, 2014
Matters Item –Flood Recovery Update
Information Item –Review of 2013 Operations
Update on AWWA Benchmarking (Harberg/Baird)
February24, 2014
Matters Item –Flood Recovery Update
Wastewater Treatment Asset Management (Douville)
Matters Item –City Council Retreat Follow Up
March17, 2014
Matters Item –Flood Recovery Update
Information Item Water Supply/Climate Change (Taddeucci)
Pre and Post Fire Watershed Planning (Taddeucci/Linenfelser)
April 21, 2014
Information Item –Overview of Water Supply & Drought Response Triggers
(Taddeucci/Skeie)
Information Item –Overview of 2015 Capital Improvement Program
Upcoming Items/Not Scheduled
Public Works Design and Construction Standards(Schum)
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Water Budgets (Sands)
EcoDistricts Project(Sands)
Water Conservation Futures Study (Sands)