HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.20.15 Complete WRAB Packet
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
MEETING DATE: Monday, 20 July 2015
MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Municipal Services Center, 5050 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
Agenda Highlights:
1.Call to Order (7:00 p.m.)
2.Approval of 27 April, 18 May and 22 June Meeting Minutes (7:01 p.m.)
3.*Public comment (7:05 p.m.)
4.Information Item Pre and Post Fire Watershed Planning (7:15 p.m.)
5.Information Item Wastewater Treatment Update (7:45 p.m.)
6.Matters From Board (8:10 p.m.)
7.Matters From Staff (8:15 p.m.)
Flood Mitigation Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology
8.Future Schedule (8:40 p.m.)
9.Adjournment (8:45 p.m.)
* Public Comment Item
Agenda item times are approximate.
Information:
Please contact the WRAB Secretary email group at:
WRABSecretary@bouldercolorado.gov
Packets are available on-line at: http://www.bouldercolorado.govA to ZWater
,
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Next Water Resources Advisory Board Meeting
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission:
Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting:
27 April 2015
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes:
Andrea Flanagan 303.413.7372
Board Members Present:
Vicki Scharnhorst, Dan Johnson, Ed Clancy, Mark Squillace
Board Members Absent:
Lesley Smith
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Annie Noble, Flood and Greenways Engineering Program Coordinator
Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager
Kristin Dean, Utilities Planner
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Douglas Sullivan, Acting Principal Engineer for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Tom Settle, Water Treatment Manager
Ward Bauscher, Engineering Project Manager
Kevin Clark, Utilities Project Manager, Sourcewater Infrastructure
Steve Buckbee, Engineering Project Manager
Christin Shepherd, Civil Engineer
Milford John-Williams, Budget Analyst
Andrea Flanagan, Board Secretary
Cooperating Agencies Present:
Alan Turner, Senior Project Manager, CH2M HILL
Shea Thomas, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1 Call to Order [7:00 p.m.]
Agenda Item 2 Approval of the 16 March 2015 Meeting Minutes [7:00 p.m.]
Motion to approve minutes from March 16 as presented.
Moved by: Seconded by:
Squillace; Johnson
Vote: 4:0 (Lesley Smithabsent)
Agenda Item 3 Swearing In/ Election of Officers [7:03 p.m.]
Ed Clancy was sworn in for his term on the WRAB.
Motion by: Johnson; Seconded by: Squillace
Move to postpone election of officers until such a time as all five board members are present to
vote. Current arrangement of officers would continue until that time.
Vote: 4:0 (Lesley Smithabsent)
Agenda Item 4 Public Participation and Comment [7:04 p.m.]
Public Comment:
Karl Anuta, Crif Crawford, Bruce Thompson (each speaker took a portion of the pooled time)
Karl Anuta spoke on behalf of residents of Frasier Meadows Retirement Community and presented a
petition with signatures to the Board to ask for their support in the construction of a flood control
facility, south of highway US 36. Citizens are concerned about the South Boulder Creek area, which the
city has studied for many years. Over 300 homes of the total homes damaged by the flood event were
on the west side of Foothills. This is not a flood that came up through basements, or caused by an over-
taxed sewer system. This flood damage was caused strictly by surface water flowing over the turnpike
severely damaged, including several major buildings. Asking for Board support for construction of this
area.
Crif Crawford:
Showed videos of flooding at: Table Mesa and US 36, Frasier Meadows (from Thunderbird),
Underground Garage to illustrate the flows and seriousness of the flood waters in their community.
WRAB Minutes
27 April 2015
Page No. 1
Bruce Thompson
Asking for Board support to further prevent water from South Boulder Creek Basin from topping over
US 36 and overflowing into residential areas, west of Foothills Parkway. Highest priority is saving
lives. If anyone had been in the Frasier Meadows parking garage, they might not have survived. It took
less than 15 minutes to take 88 cars. Residents had to be carried across 3 feet of water to safety, which
is a miracle that no one was lost. 43 residents of Frasier Meadows are present today and instead of
speaking individually, they signed a sheet agreeing to these comments.
Al LeBlang
Concurs with the aforementioned statements.
Clinton Heiple
This was not a gently rising flood; this was water that came on very quickly and if anyone had been
sleeping in their basement they could have died. Primary responsibility of government is to protect the
lives and safety of its citizens. Hopes for Board to move forward.
Laura Tyler
Member of the South Boulder Creek Steering Committee, shared update about what the group is doing.
Concerned that safety piece was not addressed at earlier study session. Group has reached out to City
Council members, as well as University of Colorado (CU) staff. Reactions have been overwhelmingly
positive. Council sees this as an opportunity to cooperate with CU. CU representatives are very
positive and both groups clearly see the seriousness of this situation. There is a feeling of momentum.
Shared a clip from Daily Camera about annexation and shared quote about for South
Boulder Creek Mitigation Project and Southeast Boulder section and wanted to include this as part of the
conversation. This conversation is happening and it is very positive.
Payson Sheets
Spoke about a possible future hazard that he would like to have avoided, with regard to expansion of
cooperatively
with residents, but they are now unwilling to listen to residents. Sediment load is going into Peterson
Lake and they would like to build additional trails, which would cause greater sediment issues. The ski
area has been granted an expansion in both directions. EPA in Denver looked at their plans and found
that the environmental impact statement was incomplete, and they were unable to assess the
environmental impacts. Feels that this needs to be reassessed by the City. Nederland Advisory Board is
preparing objections and he urges Board to file a firm objection to the expansion. Read from a key
statement by Bret Linenfelser from April, 2014. Appreciates anything the Board can do to protect
Boulder Creek.
Jim Johnson
Represents Southeast Boulder Neighborhood Association, which includes surrounding neighborhoods.
, which is that they want to work together with the City,
County and FEMA to prevent water from further flooding these neighborhoods. Held up a map to show
the Board. Hopes group can plan ahead with University of Colorado and would appreciate anything the
Board can do to work with these entities to help protect residents. Mitigation is needed badly.
Agenda Item 5 [7:28 p.m.]
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Gregory
Creek Mitigation Study
Katie Knapp and Utilities staff presented the item to the board.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the Gregory Canyon Creek Draft Flood Mitigation Plan
(Attachment A)
The city has retained CH2MHill to evaluate potential alternatives to help alleviate future flooding along
s included as
WRAB Minutes
27 April 2015
Page No. 2
Appendix A of the Draft Flood Mitigation Plan (Attachment A).This Analysis contains a detailed
description of the data and models used to determine the improvements which would help flood
conveyance along Gregory Canyon Creek. The intent of the Analysis was to identify various types of
improvements which could be constructed along the creek corridor, assess the costs and benefits
Staff reviewed the Analysis and developed a staff recommended plan based on the engineering
recommendation, input from the public and observations from the 2013 flood event. The staff
recommended plan is illustrated graphically in Section 6 of the Draft Flood Mitigation Plan
(Attachment A)
which also includes additional information about the Gregory Canyon Creek
watershed, the planning process and the alternatives considered. Please note that not all sections of the
document have been completed. Pending consideration and input from WRAB, conceptual drawings
will be developed and the mitigation plan will be finalized and presented to City Council for acceptance.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Question about four private culverts and asked if property owners agree to dedicate easements
in order for city to install
Question if residents support installing a pedestrian bridge.
Stated that it is likely that we will exceed a ten-year flood and questioned if infrastructure will
support anything greater than a 10-year flood.
Asked about the cost-to-benefit analysis and questioned the numbers presented because they
did not match what is in the report.
Commented that a 7% discount rate is not realistic. Concerned that if the discount rate is
changed, the numbers will be skewed.
Suggests the calculations be made under different discount rates. Numbers seem speculative.
Stated that the culvert replacement over the ten-year event does make sense.
Asked for further clarification on method used for property acquisition.
Stated that it is odd that city would agree to pay for the easements and suggested further
discussion of this topic.
Asked if there is a consideration at this time for what would come first as a priority, so that
larger problems are not created and requested further clarification of the overall timeline
approach.
Questioned how the benefits get assessed in this situation.
Requested further clarification on road improvements and property acquisition and whether
these aspects could not be made part of the recommendation and instead, be a part of another
program?
Stated that this project affects neighborhoods directly and recommends a more adaptive
approach that allows adjustments as more information is found out and suggests adding this to
recommendation.
Requested clarification on whether there is a reason that street improvements need to be
included in the recommendation.
Stated that Board has been discussing Gregory Creek since 2008 and something needs to
happen.
Requested whether it is normal practice for landscaping to be replaced, if damaged.
Recommended that residents be asked to grant easements without compensation, as to allow
funding to be stretched.
Stated that if property value increases, it seems odd that the city would pay for easements.
Public Comment:
Holly Pearen
Stated that staff and Board have been very open and solicitous to the neighborhood concerns. As the
plan has developed, the landowners have some concerns, both on macro and micro scales.
Inconsistencies lead to deep concern. Glad that benefit-cost analysis has been addressed. The value of
the damages presented in the documents are inconsistent. Has to be some sort of calibration to what
actually happened. Understands that the damages are estimated, but this cannot be accurate. No realistic
assumptions about the value can be made based on these numbers. Open to hearing explanation as to
WRAB Minutes
27 April 2015
Page No. 3
how these numbers were arrived at from CH2M Hill.Landowners would appreciateif city and CH2M
Hill could be more transparent about the cost to landowners. If in fact properties gain or lose value, tell
them how much and reflect this in the budget. If easements will be given to the city for free, this may
not be realistic, especially based on her experience throughout this process.
Stewart Machle
Would like to thank city for all the help given to him since the flood. Rock walls have been rebuilt.
Question about intersection of Anderson Ditch and Gregory Creek. Heard comment about an overhead
culvert or culvert separate from Gregory Creek and agrees they should be separated. Asks if a decision
has been made about what is going to be done with this location, as this is a critical area.
Laz Nemeth
Asked why everyone is in favor with box culverts. They are ugly. Preference is for keeping Anderson
Ditch open so children can play there. Running water is aesthetically pleasing. Based on personal
experience, Anderson Ditch was actually shut off during the flood. There was no more flow in Gregory
Creek afterwards. Something needs to be done. Asks if there is a reason for always having two box
culverts and if it is more cost-effective.
Rebecca Roser
Part of her property is Anderson Ditch, which goes to the edge of her property. Flows stopped in
Anderson Ditch, because it was filled to the top with silt during the flood. Agrees that the area where
t the edge of her property.
Appreciates that neighbors have been solicited and looking forward to working with city with regard to
easements.
Motion by: ; Seconded:
Squillace Johnson
Vote: 4:0 (Lesley Smithabsent)
Motion Passes
Staff requests Water Resources Advisory Board consideration of this matter and action in the form of
the following motion:
Motion to recommend the Gregory Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan be finalized based on the
Staff Recommended Plan and presented to City Council for acceptance.
Agenda Item 6 [8:40 p.m.]
Information Item Preliminary Draft 2016 Utilities Budget (Water, Wastewater and Stormwater/
Flood Management) including the 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Douglas Sullivan, Ken Baird, Annie Noble, Kevin Clark, Steve Buckbee, and other Utilities staff
presented the information item to the board.
process, Utilities develops a six-year planning budget, this year for
the time period of 2016 through 2021. The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) role in this
ts and
initial revenue and expenditure projections for each of the three utility funds through the year 2021.
Within the budget process, City Council approves and appropriates funds only for the first year, 2016.
In addition to the six year CIP described above, Utilities staff develops a 20-yr CIP. The purpose of the
20-yr CIP is to look at long range needs for all three utilities. The 20-yr CIP is a valuable mechanism to
look at upcoming regulatory requirements, asset management needs for aging facilities, and the
associated debt service for existing bonds.
CIP.
Input from WRAB will guide staff in preparation of a draft CIP for discussion by WRAB at the May
meeting. WRAB will be asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the 2016-2021 CIP
at its June meeting. The Planning Board will review the complete city CIP, including utilities, in July.
City Council generally plans for two study sessions in September, prior to adopting the 2016 budget.
WRAB Minutes
27 April 2015
Page No. 4
WRAB Discussion Included:
Stated that there is some concern that the rate increases may be a bit heavy, considering they
have been flat for so long. Concerned This could largely impact
commercial users.
Stated that perhaps we should exercise more thoughtfulness on how we conserve water and
consider the possibility of selling our product (water) while we have it. If we continue to
conserve, what are we losing in revenue?
eed to acquire new
water supplies.
Stated that these changes could be more significant than the public may even understand.
Expressed concern that we may be on a track that is not aligned with inflation.
Stated that what some local communities want that is in the best interest of protecting their
properties, may not actually be w
Commented that we do need to play catch-up on sewage updates, as we saw what happened
during the flood event in 2013.
Stated that CII was never completed and suggest revisiting.
Asked whether there is any potential to sell any of our resources to generate additional revenue.
Questioned whether our plant investment fee is high enough and whether or not it is fair for
people who buy in later.
Questioned if there was any conclusion that came from the inspection of sewer lines that were
inspected by a pipeline
Agenda Item 7 Matters from the Board: [10:12 p.m.]
Board Member Clancy brought up the below matter(s):
Requested clarification on dates for future open houses.
Requested to find out if PowerPoint presentations will be posted following meetings.
Board Member Johnson brought up the below matter(s):
Requested more information on Eldora expansion, with regard to public comment.
Agenda Item 8 Matters from Staff: [10:15p.m.]
Kim Hutton provided an update on water supply for 2015. There is no need to implement
water restrictions at this time, based on current snow pack conditions.
Department of Health and Human Services has recently released a fluoride recommendation.
City is determining next steps and will follow up at future meeting.
Agenda Item 9 Future Schedule [10:24p.m.]
May:
South Boulder Creek Mitigation
Skunk Creek Mapping Update
Update on Wastewater and Stormwater Collection System Master Plans
Preliminary Capital Improvements Program update
Boulder Civic Area Update
Boulder Creek Mitigation Plan Update
Adjournment [10:31 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
10:31
meeting was adjourned at p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: ; Seconded by:
JohnsonSquillace
Motion Passes 4:0 (Lesley Smith absent)
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
Monday, 18 May 20157:00 p.m.,City's Municipal
The next WRAB meeting will be at at the
Services Center, 5050 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY:
_______________________________ __________________________________
WRAB Minutes
27 April 2015
Page No. 5
Board Chair Board Secretary
_____________________________ ___________________________________
Date Date
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commissions/water-resources-advisory-board-next-meeting-agenda-and-packet
WRAB Minutes
27 April 2015
Page No. 6
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission:
Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting:
18 May 2015
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes:
Andrea Flanagan 303.413.7372
Board Members Present:
Vicki Scharnhorst, Dan Johnson, Lesley Smith
Board Members Absent:
Ed Clancy, Mark Squillace
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Manager
Bob Harberg, Principal Engineer
Douglas Sullivan, Acting Principal Engineer for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Russ Sands, Watershed Sustainability & Outreach Supervisor
Kurt Bauer, Engineering Project Manager
Annie Noble, Flood and Greenways Engineering Program Coordinator
Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager
Kristin Dean, Utilities Planner
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Andrea Flanagan, Board Secretary
Cooperating Agencies Present:
Craig Jacobson, Consultant with ICON Engineering, Inc.
Alan Turner, Senior Project Manager, CH2M HILL
Shea Thomas, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1 Call to Order [7:00 p.m.]
Agenda Item 2 Approval of the 27 April 2015 Meeting Minutes [7:01 p.m.]
Motion to approve minutes from April 27 as presented.
Vote: Tabled until a quorum is met (Ed Clancy & Mark Squillace absent; Leslie Smith absent at April 27
meeting.)
Agenda Item 3 Public Participation and Comment [7:02 p.m.]
Public Comment: None
Agenda Item 4 [7:04 p.m.]
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Skunk
Katie Knapp and Utilities staff presented the item to the board.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
Agenda Item 4 [7:04 p.m.]
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Skunk
Floodplain Mapping Update
Katie Knapp and Utilities staff presented the item to the board.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
Floodplain mapping provides the basis for flood management by identifying the areas at the highest risk of
flooding. This information is essential for determining areas where life safety is threatened and property
damage is likely and is the basis for floodplain regulations and the National Flood Insurance Program
y updated to reflect changes in the floodplain
resulting from land development, flood mitigation improvements, new topographic mapping information
and new mapping study technologies.
unk and Bluebell Canyon
Creek floodplains between the city limits to east of Foothills Parkway where Skunk Creek confluences into
Bear Canyon Creek.
WRAB Minutes
18 May 2015
Page No. 1
Engineering consultants provided hydraulic modeling to update the existing Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and City of Boulder floodplains, water
surface elevations, conveyance and high hazard zones.
Engineering consultants provided hydraulic modeling to update the existing Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and City of Boulder floodplains, water
surface elevations, conveyance and high hazard zones.
The proposed mapping of the Skunk Creek Floodplain would result in a net:
Increase of 38 structures identified in the 100-year floodplain;
Decrease of 22 structures identified in the conveyance zone and;
Decrease of 19 structures identified in the high hazard zone.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Question about ICON report. Stated there seems that there were a lot of comments about
inconsistencies in the report.
Request for further clarification regarding Anderson report, not quite understood what
Question regarding additional hydraulic modeling regarding software for culvert analysis program.
Question regarding the difference in the number of structures that were in the floodplain.
Question regarding adjustments done by ICON and if there were differences in the information
after the peer review.
Question about grade change comments about
how much the flood event actually moved.
Question about whether the peer-reviewed comments made by ICON have been reviewed by
Anderson in order to help answer questions proposed by community?
Public Comment:
Christina Jurgens
Concerned that too much of the water from Bluebell Canyon Creek is mapped that it flowed down
Columbine, rather than where it was actually observed during flood. Concern that there are errors in
proposed flood map that misrepresent the risk to her property and possibly other properties. Regarding
item 53, which points out in the peer review that flood maps need to follow topography, question of
syntheses of two kinds of mapping and worried about errors in representation of potential risk. Worried that
proposed map represents inaccuracies that present risk. Residents have not heard of any structures that
were flooded in this particular section. Asks why the proposed floods from Bluebell Canyon Creek to
Mariposa, from 16 th to 17 th smaller than the northward flows at 18 th and 19 th? Seems by looking at it, they
should be more similar to each other. Feels this is a mistake. What method was used to determine the split
th
at 20 and Columbine?
Beth Robinson
Noticed big difference this time in the conveyance zone on her block. Several people are constructing
drainage pipes from the back conveyance zones to the front of the street from the easement at the back of
the property. This will impact at least one property owner on the block, who is not able to rebuild without
extensive regrading.
Kris Miller
Home has been in 100-year flood zone since moved in 2006 and has contacted the city multiple times to
state that they should not be. Was told by city that all studies were approximate at that time and no official
mn April 2013, was
informed by city that they were going to be taken out of the flood zone with this study, but it is a long
process. She and neighbor were not flooded during the 2013 event. Lives on the corner and the flood
jumped the banks and flooded south on Mariposa instead and f
she called again, she was told that she was still in the floodplain. Concerned about the study. The flood
actually occurred south of her property. Would like to know what happened and why she is still in the
fl
WRAB Minutes
18 May 2015
Page No. 2
R. Chris Roark
Asked whether it was taken into account that there is a bridge at lower McClintock that significantly
diverted water during the flood event, which washed out and ended up on his property. Bridge is no longer
there and is not going to be replaced. Will this be considered in the flood mapping?
Ali Yager
thth
Lives at the corner of 20 and Mariposa. All the water at 15 came down Mariposa and wants to know
what the city can or should do to deal with the water that jumps onto Mariposa? Maintenance of Bluebell
Creek between Mariposa and Columbine, which theoretically is where the water should go. Question is
about maintenance of the systems that should be carrying water, which are not working properly.
Motion by: Seconded by
Scharnhorst; : Johnson
Vote: 3:0 (Ed Clancy, Mark Squillace absent)
Motion Passes as amended
Staff requests Water Resources Advisory Board consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Based upon concurrence from Anderson regarding ICs responses to the peer review, we move to
recommend that City Council adopt the Skunk
floodplain mapping update.
Agenda Item 5 - [7:42 p.m.]
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council Regarding the South
Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation Plan
Kristin Dean, Kurt Bauer and Utilities staff presented the item to the board.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
A Recommended Plan for flood mitigation along South Boulder Creek was presented to the public, Water
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and City Council at a Study
Session in 2014. The Recommended Plan was comprised of three phases:
Phase I: Regional detention facility at US 36;
Phase II: West Valley improvements; and,
Phase III: Arapahoe Avenue detention.
In 2014, the WRAB and City Council were generally supportive of the mitigation proposed under Phases II
and III. The OSBT also indicated their support for Phases II and III as it was not seen to have effects on
city open space properties. However, significant concern was voiced by both boards and by City Council
regarding potential environmental impacts, including those to Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
lands from the proposed US 36 regional stormwater detention facility (Phase I). As a result, staff was
directed to evaluate other options, including potential use of a larger portion of the University of
Since then, six additional options were developed for US 36 detention, all designed to prevent the
overtopping of US 36 during a 100-year design storm and reduce flooding impacts downstream and each
with fewer impacts to OSMP than the original proposal. This memorandum presents the US 36 regional
detention options, a comparison of potential impacts to OSMP and CU lands and a summary of potential
next steps. Staff is recommending that the Phases II and III concepts remain unchanged in the mitigation
master plan and that Phase I be accomplished using Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Right
of Way (ROW) and CU Campus South (Option D) for construction of a regional stormwater detention
facility at US 36. In this alternative, the berm would be located within the existing CDOT right of way,
and, with the exception of potential temporary impacts from construction of the berm, OSMP lands would
only be affected when stormwaters are retained. Each of the additional options have a greater impact on
while CU prefers the 2014 plan, they have
also indicated they are willing to discuss use of their land to facilitate the implementation of Option D for
regional detention.
WRAB Minutes
18 May 2015
Page No. 3
WRAB Discussion Included:
Question about cost estimates of property acquisition and property access rights and if they are
included in the study?
Statement that this seems to be a lot of embankment, which probably makes for significant cost
relative to storage.
Questioned how many acre feet is the storage for the proposed alternative and what are differences
between the options?
Stated that most of the concerns were about open space and possibly may hit a brick wall. Stated
that pleased with the many options that came forward and that the resources were protected.
Questioned if counts were taken of population of prebble mice in open space?
Questioned how option D compares to the flood event in 2013?
Commented that pleased with the engagement between CU and the city to discuss this topic.
Stated that option D will require working with CU and CDOT. Asks what next steps are after
voting on this item.
Asked about timeline for CEAP projects?
Asked for more information about liability concerns presented by public comment.
Questioned level of confidence by staff that option D can be successful in the environmental
planning process.
Public Comment:
Pete Palmer
Retired professor of geology and has lived in Boulder for almost 35 years. As an earth scientist, he
recognizes global warming and the associated increase in the frequency of extreme weather events. As
global temperatures rise, so does probability of these extreme weather events. Entering El Nino period,
where warming is a known consequence. Likelihood of repeat of 2013 flood event is significantly higher
than the 100-year to 500-year events anticipated in earlier planning. Supports South Boulder Creek Action
Group and urges that we speed up Highway 36 flood mitigation efforts.
Karl Anuta
Map is disarming, appears that Cherryvale area is really bad, but what is really bad is Foothills Parkway.
Represents Frasier Meadows residents and again asks that Board support some kind of flood retention
system south of US 36. Option D appears to be really good. Lives must be considered. Very concerned
about the process taking 5 years, which will worry residents for another 5 years. Urges that we move ahead
as fast as possible and please ask City Council to do the same.
Dick Leupold
President of Resident Council for Frasier Meadows Retirement Community. Supports efforts to add berm
to south side of US 36 to keep flood waters out of neighborhood. Wife was pushed through 2 feet of mud
in her wheelchair during flood event. If miraculous events that night, there might
not have been such positive outcome. People would have drowned in parking garage. Fortunate that no
fatalities occurred. Encourages
a structure to prevent this from occurring in the future. Asks residents of Frasier Meadows to stand in
support of his message (which they did).
Bob Ritzen
Director of Care at Frasier Meadows. Series of miraculous events happened that day. Flooding happened
in the afternoon and staff stayed to assist. Evacuated skilled nursing area, which housed memory care
residents, many of whom have low beds. Water rose quickly in this area and residents were evacuated very
quickly. Staff and others pulled together to move residents to safety, without injuries. Residents move
there thinking they are secure. Recent visitor from disaster relief visited and asked how many residents
died after the event. Encourages as much haste as possible from the Board to make a decision for flood
mitigation. Does not want to worry about the safety of residents every time it rains.
Peter Baston
Company runs programs for large insurance companies that insure projects like this. Spoke with CDOT
and asked what mitigation upgrades are being proposed for US 36, without which Boulder cannot be a
resilient city? Was told that it was going to be left up to the City of Boulder on the South Boulder Creek
WRAB Minutes
18 May 2015
Page No. 4
Project, which means that CDOT has dumped liabilityon the city. If anything happens with any flood
mitigation, the city will be held liable. Encourages as part of due diligence to understand the liabilities
involved in
Jeff McWhirter
President of Southeast Boulder Neighborhood Association. Ironic that his community did not get hit as
badly as Frasier Meadows. Lucky in that respect. South Boulder Creek did not overtop, just many sewage
back-up issues. Should be noted that this is not even the big 100-year flood. This was unique because there
were 36 hours of notice. Also concerned with long-term impacts. Supports overall mitigation efforts.
Continues to bring up questions about west valley improvements. What is going to happen with the piping
of dry creek ditch and detention pond? Under impression that specific details of the plan will be considered
during this EAP. Wants to make sure that everyone is on the same plan as we move into the future.
Tim Johnson
Prebble (mice) lives were lost. Can speak to lives
that were not lost at Frasier. Speaks to importance of human life, which he would love for the Board to talk
about, along with the mice and plant life. Appreciates the Board listening to this community. Makes an
emotional plea that any consideration be made be done so on an expedited time frame. Residents are living
in fear of a repeat flood. Residents are concerned with recent rain events. Staff have been checking around
the clock and have begun planning for evacuation, should the need arise. The thought of doing this for the
next five years is beyond comprehension. For the sake and safety of Frasier and nearby residents, please
act with dispatch.
Rick Mahon
Represents South Boulder Creek Action Group. Thanks staff for responding to 99% of these issues. States
that the berm height is a non-issue. Life-safety factor is beyond measurable. CU is interested in alternatives.
Please speed this along.
Kathie Joyner
With South Boulder Creek Action Group. Weather makes everyone very, very nervous. Everyone is on
edge and worried that a future rain events are going to overtop US 36. Needs to know that the city is
responsible for providing relief. Encourages Board to recommend to Council that we move forward as
quickly as possible to ensure safety of all residents in the South Boulder Creek floodplain. Asks for a show
of hands from all people in audience who concur with this type of reccomendation.
Steve Karakitsios
The plan has been studied for so long and asks that a recommendation be made.
over and need to just move forward with a reccomendation. Option D looks like the best resolution with
CU and CDOT. Encourages Board to expedite as much as possible.
David McGuire
Impact potential for construction, encourages staff to compare scope and duration of impacts with some of
the other impacts on Open Space. Not a very big difference. No one bought into the area knowing they
were going to be flooded when
Water goes over US 36 and we need to figure out how to stop it as quickly as possible.
Peter Ornstein
Everyone on street experienced sanitary sewer backups. System was overcharged, mostly from water that
was building up because of so much rain. The new proposal does deal with stormwater overflow
predictions and does address the floodplain issues, but does not know if it addresses sanitary sewer system
back-up issues that residents actually experienced. All systems were overcharged. Recommends that we
move forward and take a hard look at sanitary system.
Bob Matthias
Echoes all comments from tonight. Based on meeting attended four years ago, he understood that the
reason for flooding is due to the overtopping of US 36, which is caused by the fact that the cross section of
the bridge is too small to retain flood waters. In the process of rebuilding US 36, why was the cross section
of that bridge not increased? If they had done this, a lot of the damages could have been avoided during
WRAB Minutes
18 May 2015
Page No. 5
this event.
Kathleen Motylenski
Speaks on behalf of South Boulder Creek Action Group. Videos and photos are available to show the level
th
of damages. On September 13, it went from a lot of rain to about 4 feet of water in 20 minutes. Flood
twice. Appreciates all the studies and alternatives, but timing is critical. This can happen again in the
coming months. Residents are scared. Encourages Board to forge ahead as soon as possible.
Terri Walters
Thanks Board and staff for working really hard with all the competing issues. This situation is terrifying.
Lives with family in a home that is dead in the way of the flood path. Lost everything in 2013. River of
rock went through home and ruined antique furniture. This was a 50-year event. Could only afford to
rebuild a structure about half the size. Please hurry.
Motion by: Seconded by
Smith; : Scharnhorst
Vote: 3:0 ()
Ed Clancy, Mark Squillace absent
Motion Passes as presented
Staff requests Water Resources Advisory Board consideration of this matter and recommends action in the
form of the following motion:
Motion to recommend that City Council accept the South Boulder Creek Major Drainageway Flood
Mitigation Plan including Option D (single berm using Colorado Department of Transportation
tream Improvements
as the recommended comprehensive alternative to mitigate flood risks associated with South Boulder
Creek.
Agenda Item 6 [9:00 p.m.]
Information Item Preliminary Capital Improvements Program
Ken Baird, Joe Taddeucci, Douglas Sullivan and other Utilities staff presented the information item
to the board.
nnual budget process, Utilities develops a six-year planning budget, this year for the
time period of 2016 through 2021. The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) role in this process is
environmental assessments and capital
staff has formulated initial revenue
and expenditure projections for each of the three utility funds through the year 2021. Within the budget
process, City Council approves and appropriates funds only for the first year, 2016.
WRAB will be asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the 2016-2021 CIP at its June
meeting. The Planning Board will review the complete city CIP, including utilities, in
July. City Council will discuss the CIP in August at a study session, and the overall budget is scheduled to
be adopted by City Council in October.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Requested that presentation slides be sent to Board for further review.
Asked about areas that are underserved and if there is a way to add a storm drainage system there,
which would require ripping up streets?
Asked if feedback was provided from open houses regarding rate study increases?
Asked about potential to save revenue based on the fact that we pay $300 an acre foot whether it is
used or not?
Asked for clarification on outcome goal of the rate study and whether or not it would be revenue
neutral, positive, or negative?
Asked if there would be some benefit to having a revenue generating rate structure change?
Requested additional information about financial reserves and how it is programmed.
Asked if staff have received an increased volume of calls by residents since the rate increase
WRAB Minutes
18 May 2015
Page No. 6
proposal?
Agenda Item 8 Matters from the Board: [9:54 p.m.]
Board Member Smith brought up the below matter(s):
Acknowledges that residents are traumatized by the 2013 flood event.
Asks if there is anything further the city can do to reduce the level of anxiety that residents feel
with future weather events?
Board Member Scharnhorst brought up the below matter(s):
Board Member Johnson brought up the below matter(s):
Asked what we are doing as of result of the 2013 flood event? Concerned with rising creeks
during recent rain events.
Requested confirmation about length of interceptor pipe.
Agenda Item 8 Matters from Staff: [10:00 p.m.]
Boulder Civic Area Update
Boulder Creek Mitigation Plan
GAC (Greenways) CIP
Bob Harberg presented a history book to the Board s Wastewater, written by Silvia
Pettem.
Agenda Item 9 Future Schedule [10:15 p.m.]
Recommendation on 2016 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Recommendation on Rate Study Guiding Principles
Adjournment [10:16 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
10:16
meeting was adjourned at p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: ; Seconded by:
SmithJohnson
Motion Passes 3:0 (
Ed Clancy & Mark Squillace absent)
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
Monday, 22 June 20157:00 p.m.,City's Municipal Services
The next WRAB meeting will be at at the
Center, 5050 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY:
_______________________________ __________________________________
Board Chair Board Secretary
_____________________________ ___________________________________
Date Date
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commissions/water-resources-advisory-board-next-meeting-agenda-and-packet
WRAB Minutes
18 May 2015
Page No. 7
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission:
Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting:
22 June 2015
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes:
Laurel Olsen-Horen 303-441-3203
Board Members Present:
Vicki Scharnhorst, Lesley Smith, Ed Clancy
Board Members Absent:
Mark Squillace, Dan Johnson
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Manager
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality & Environmental Services Manager
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Russ Sands, Watershed Sustainability & Outreach Supervisor
Joanna Bloom, Source Water Administrator
Annie Noble, Acting Principal Engineer for Flood and Greenways
Eric M. Ameigh, Public Works Projects Coordinator
Douglas Sullivan, Acting Principal Engineer for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Laurel Olsen-Horen, Board Secretary
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1 Call to Order [7:00 p.m.]
Agenda Item 2 Approval of the 27 April & 18 May 2015 Meeting Minutes [7:01 p.m.]
A motion to approve the minutes from the 27 April & 18 May meetings was tabled as the present board
members do not make a quorum for approval.
Agenda Item 3 Public Participation and Comment [7:02 p.m.]
Public Comment: None
Agenda Item 4 [7:02 p.m.]
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council Regarding 2016 Utilities
(Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater/Flood Management) 6-year Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)
Ken Baird and Utilities staff presented the item to the board.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
-year planning budget, this year
for the time period of 2016 through 2021. The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) role in this
environmental assessments and
capital improvements conducted or proposed by the utilities ted
revenue and expenditure projections for each of the three utility funds through the year 2021. Within the
budget process council approves and appropriates funds only for the first year, 2016.
At the April 27 and May 18, 2015 WRAB meetings, staff presented the preliminary 2016 Utilities
budget including the six-year capital improvement program. Since the May 18 meeting, the following
change within the Water Utility CIP has been incorporated into the Capital budget: $150,000 was added
in 2016 for the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility for replacement of failing filter valve
actuators.
Staff requests a recommendation from the WRAB concerning the 2016 Utilities Budget including the 6
year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and associated Monthly Utility Rates. Staff will submit the
CIP to the Planning Board which will meet to discuss the citywide CIP and make a recommendation to
City Council on August 6. City Council study sessions are scheduled for August 11, 2015 concerning
the proposed city-wide 2016-2021 CIP and on September 8 and September 22 on the preliminary 2016
city wide budget. City Council is scheduled to hold first and second readings on adoption of the budget
on October 6 and October 20 respectively.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that WRAB make the following motion related to the 2016-2021 CIP:
WRAB Minutes
22 June 2015
Page No. 1
The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends approval of the 2016-2021 CIP for the Water,
Wastewater, and Flood/Stormwater Utilities including proposed rate adjustments to support 2016
revenue increases of 8% in the water utility, 5% in the wastewater utility, and 4% in the stormwater and
flood control utility.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Clarifying questions on how line items provided in the memo are planned to be funded with the
proposed rate adjustments.
Public Comment:
None
Motion by: Seconded by
Clancy; : Smith
Vote: 3:0
(Board members Squillace and Johnson absent)
Motion Passes as presented
Agenda Item 5 - [7:22
p.m.]
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion Regarding the Utility Rates Study Guiding
Principles, Issues, and Key Questions
Eric Ameigh, Joanna Bloom and Utilities staff presented the item to the board.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to secure a recommendation from the Water Resources Advisory Board
(WRAB) on the issues, key questions, guiding principles, and work plan for the utility rates study.
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD
1. What questions does WRAB have about the public engagement process?
2. What feedback does WRAB have on the recommended guiding principles?
3. What feedback does WRAB have on the potential areas of study?
BACKGROUND
In late 2014, Utilities staff met with customers to better understand the impacts of utility rate
increases approved by council in the fall of 2014. Many customers indicated they did not
understand utility rate structures and/or had questions and concerns about the calculation of the
charges on their utility bills. It is also best practice to periodically review rate setting
methodology to assure the rates are meeting community goals and are aligned with fee-based
principles. These findings led staff to propose evaluation of the rate structure and associated
calculations for water, wastewater, and stormwater/flood management utilities as part of the
2015 work plan. As a first step, a public engagement process was implemented to solicit
broader feedback across all customer classes.
WRAB Discussion Included:
What are the next steps to get more public engagement? Staff recognizes the need to garner
more public input; but are not clear at this time what that will look like.
Focus Groups have proven to be affective.
Perhaps rephrase using low
impact development language.
Importance of being proactive rather than reactive in our guiding principles.
Necessity to meet regulations efficiently, affordably, and timely, and not pursue unnecessary
research and development. R & D should not have a place in the guiding principles it can be
extremely costly to rate payers. (There is a cost to meeting regulations and there is a cost to
exceeding regulations.)
Balance the above statement with taking pride in some of the studies the city has already done
and received invaluable information from. Boulder is advantageously positioned to gather
information as a first water recipient.
WRAB Minutes
22 June 2015
Page No. 2
are usin on the table for the board is;
should the city pursue gathering more detailed information?
Are there any best practices from peer communities Boulder could look into?
The city should implement a two-meter system; a water budget and a landscaping budget.
Investigate whether water budgets should be reduced to take into account the installation of
more water efficient appliances within the community since water budgets were implemented.
Would flood insu
Public Comment:
Chuck Howe:
There seems to be more opportunities available to CII water customer class than to
single-families. Fraiser Meadows has seven different meters and have found the water budget classes
very useful to help track how water is being used. A water bill is comprised mostly of fixed charges
rather than volumetric charges which seems odd. Conservation is therefore not incentivized. There is no
and therefore the city is under-charging for water.
Motion by: Seconded by
Smith; : Clancy
Vote: 3:0
(Board members Squillace and Johnson absent)
Motion: The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that the Guiding Principles and
Areas of Study, as discussed and organized with the appropriate edits to the documents titled
ummary Table and reas of Study, be utilized for the 2015-2016 Utility
Rates Study
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that WRAB discuss and vote on one or more motions that support:
1. A recommended set of utility rate structure guiding principles; and
2. A recommended draft plan of work for studying key questions and issues.
Agenda Item 6 Matters from Board: [9:12 p.m.]
Timeline for filing WRAB vacancy
How is the Greenways program with June being Bike Month?
What is the flood potential with warm weather in the forecast?
Matters from Staff: [9:15 p.m.]
None
Agenda Item 7 Future Schedule [9:15 p.m.]
Upcoming meetings will consist of information items such as the following:
Pre and Post Fire Watershed Planning
Stormwater Collection System Permit and Regulation Changes
Wastewater Treatment Update
Update on Wastewater and Stormwater Collection System Master Plans
Adjournment [9:20 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:20p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: ; Seconded by:
SmithClancy
Motion Passes 3:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
Monday, 20 July 20157:00 p.m.,City's Municipal Services
The next WRAB meeting will be at at the
Center, 5050 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY:
_______________________________ __________________________________
Board Chair Board Secretary
_____________________________ ___________________________________
Date Date
WRAB Minutes
22 June 2015
Page No. 3
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commissions/water-resources-advisory-board-next-meeting-agenda-and-packet
WRAB Minutes
22 June 2015
Page No. 4
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 20, 2015
AGENDA TITLE:
Information Item Pre- and Post-Fire Watershed Planning Update
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Directory of Public Works for Utilities
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Manager
Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) on
- and post-wildfire planning, specifically related to protecting the
Staff is not requesting any WRAB action at this time.
BACKGROUND:
Creek watersheds and from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project through Boulder Reservoir.
Forest health and fires within these watersheds can significantly impact water quantity and quality.
How wildfire may impact water quality and supply depends on wildfire extent and intensity, post
wildfire precipitation, topography, and local soils and vegetation. Potential effects of wildfire on
reatment facilities and downstream aquatic ecosystems can include
changes in the amount and timing of snowmelt runoff; increased erosion and transport of sediment
and debris; temporary system shutdowns; and increased loading of nutrients, natural organic
m
following a wildfire, the city could experience serious treatment challenges, taste and odor issues,
In addition to fire suppression and impacts to environment and economy, wildfires can have direct
and indirect associated costs to water quality and reliability that may include need for wildfire-
related sediment and pollution controls and mitigation, degradation of municipal and hydropower
supplies, system repairs, administrative costs, increased operation and maintenance, remediation,
and long-term changes in water yield.
Recent Watershed Fire History
damaging forest fire, but fire is still a priority concern due to potential post-fire water supply and
INFORMATION ITEM # 4 PAGE 1
quality impacts. Barker Reservoir and Lakewood Reservoir watersheds have some protection due
to elevation, both above 8,000 feet, with more moisture and lower air temperatures. However, the
2012 Fern Lake fire area that burned approximately 3,500 acres in Rocky Mountain National Park,
at approximately 8,000 to 11,000 feet, was higher than many of the recent fires in Northern
Colorado and that area had not burned in more than 800 years. No damaging forest/wildfires have
occurred within the Barker Reservoir or Lakewood Reservoir water supply watersheds over the
last twenty years
Boulder Reservoir and the Boulder Feeder Canal supplies have mitigating factors of lower
amounts of fire fuel, upstream dilution, settling, distance and limited watershed area below Lake
Estes. The 2009 Olde Stage Fire, 2003 Overland Fire and the 2010 Four Mile Creek wildfires
occurred within the Boulder Reservoir watershed but no water quality impacts were observed in
Boulder Reservoir or the Boulder Feeder Canal. Attachment A includes a map showing the
location of recent major wildland fires in Boulder County.
Initial Wildfire Planning Incorporating Water Supply
The Colorado Front Range experienced major impacts on municipal water supplies in the past 15
to 20 years (e.g., 1996 Buffalo Creek Fire, 2002 Hayman Fire) and subsequent assessments
concluded that climate factors and forest conditions place Front Range water supply watersheds
at high risk from severe wildfires and erosion and flood damage to reservoirs. In 2007, the
Colorado State Forest Service and the U.S. Forest Service hosted a meeting with Front Range
water providers, and the Front Range Watershed Wildfire Protection Working Group was formed
wildfire and other threats by maintaining healthy, resilient watersheds through collaboration,
The city has been participating in this partnership
effort that is still active. The working group developed a fire hazard assessment methodology
and a prioritization process to evaluate mitigation potential for larger scale watersheds critical for
public water supplies.
In 2010 and 2011, the city participated in an application of the assessment methodology for the
Saint Vrain Watershed (i.e., the main streams that come together to form the Saint Vrain before the
confluence with the South Platte RiverSaint Vrain, Left Hand, Boulder, and Coal Creeks)
developed through a stakeholder review process. The stakeholder group included representatives
from water providers; federal, state and local land management agencies; counties; towns and
other interested groups. The Saint Vrain Watershed assessment expanded upon existing wildfire
hazard reduction efforts by including water supply watersheds as a community value. The analysis
included wildfire hazard, flooding/debris flow hazard and soil erodibility, as well as incorporating
opportunities and constraints to assist in determining where to pursue watershed protection/hazard
reduction efforts. Factors for opportunities and constraints included land ownership, access,
slopes, wilderness areas (restrictions), roadless areas, vegetation (fuel), See Attachment B for the
Saint Vrain composite hazard ranking.
INFORMATION ITEM # 4 PAGE 2
ANALYSIS:
In 2013, the city contracted with JW Associates Inc., to refine the prioritization and hazard
supply components, include opportunities and constraints to reducing wildfire hazard to water
supplies, and collaborate with watershed stakeholders to develop a wildfire watershed protection
plan. Goals of the project include facilitating preplanning (e.g., permitting debris/sediment
structures to avoid missing the first season after a fire) and identifying priority areas for
vegetation management before fire or targeted mitigation efforts after fire. This ongoing project
includes the following phases:
Phase 1
(completed in 2014) Small-scale Watershed Hazard Targeting Assessment and
Prioritization
Phase 2
(start in 2015) Develop a Pre- and Post-Wildfire Plan
Establish watershed/forest goals with stakeholders
Identify potential projects
Host public meetings
Results of Phase 1 Small-scale Watershed Hazard Assessment and Prioritization
The small watersheds defined for the analysis included 43 small watersheds with approximately
65,000 acres (Attachment C). The analysis identified zones of concern that areas above surface
water intakes and reservoirs (generally 5 miles upstream) and operational components (e.g.,
Betasso Water Treatment Facility, Boulder Canyon Hydro). The hazard ranking components
included:
Wilfire hazard (flame length, mountain pine beetle activity)
Flooding/debris flow hazard (watershed steepness/ruggedness, road density)
Soil erodibility and land slope
A composite hazard ranking numerically combined the rankings for each small watershed to help
compare relative watershed hazards based solely on environmental factors. The Boulder
Reservoir watershed and the small facility areas in Boulder Canyon ranked low to medium.
Attachment C includes the composite hazard ranking for the higher elevation watersheds. The
highest ranked composite hazards are:
Upper Middle Boulder Creek North Fork Middle Boulder Outlet
Middle North Boulder Creek Lower North Fork Middle Boulder
Coon Track Creek Lower South Fork Middle Boulder
Hicks GulchLower Middle Boulder Creek
The analysis also included an estimate for sediment transport to indicate areas where sediment is
deposited (red) and where it continues to move downstream (green) (Attachment D).
The highest priority post-wildfire hazard risk for the city water supply is an area above Barker
Reservoir. This area has lodge pole pine and aspen and open area that provide opportunity for
INFORMATION ITEM # 4 PAGE 3
hazard reduction efforts. Though ranked with a lower hazard risk, Como Creek and Lakewood
Reservoir watersheds have significant areas of lodge pole, as well as areas of opportunity to
implement mitigation (e.g., public land, not steeply sloped). The Silver Lake Watershed does
not have significant priority issues related to fire hazard.
Project Stakeholders
Phase 1 also included a meeting of stakeholders to provide an opportunity to discuss the
watershed analysis and identify common interests and issues. Stakeholders include:
City of Boulder (Water Quality, Water Resources, Open Space and Mountain Parks)
Boulder County (Land Use, Sherriff Office, Public Health, Parks and Open Space)
Town of Nederland
Eldora Mountain Resort
Nederland Fire Protection District
Colorado State Forest Service
US Forest Service (Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest, Regional Office)
Other Ongoing Projects
Colorado-Big-Thompson Watershed. Northern Water is working with other agencies to address
forest and watershed health. Activities include the Colorado-Big Thompson Headwaters
Partnership with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado State Forest Service, and U.S. Forest
Service to prioritize and implement forest fuel-related projects, monitoring water quality impacts
from recent fires (e.g., Fern Lake Fire) and baseline monitoring of rainfall and runoff, and
funding post-fire response (e.g., seeding, mulching, debris booms, sediment basins).
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Grant City of Boulder Water Utility Infrastructure. The city
is partnering with Boulder County on a Boulder County Wildfire Mitigation project funded
through a Department of Homeland Security FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant. The project
includes fuel reduction work (e.g., thinning tree stands) around the west side of the Betasso
Water Treatment Facility, Boulder Canyon Hydro, and Kossler Reservoir. The city and county
will cooperate on the work at the Betasso Water Treatment Facility, and the county will perform
the work on its adjacent Betasso property. Work will be conducted in the winter of 2015 and
2016.
Boulder Ranger District South of Nederland and west of Gross Reservoir. The Forsythe project
is part of the Front Range Stewardship Project/Healthy Forest Initiative that has a 10-year
contract for work to reduce forst fuel, and the threat to forest from mountain pine beetle. To date
there have been large patch cuts in several locations south of Nederland and smaller projects in
other areas such as along Sugarloaf Rd. Members of the public raised concerns regarding large
patch cuts, and as a result subsequent patch cuts have been put on hold to resolve issues of public
concern.
INFORMATION ITEM # 4 PAGE 4
NEXT STEPS:
Phase 2 was initiated this year and will begin with a stakeholder watershed tour and more
detailed vegetation mapping, and developing resilient watershed goals. The planning process
will also include collaborative meetings with stakeholders to identify forest management and
road projects, as well as public meetings before finalizing the plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A Boulder Area Major Wildland Fires since 1989
B Saint Vrain Watershed Assessment Priority
C City of Boulder Small Watersheds Analysis
D Phase 1 Small Watershed Sediment Transport Assessment
INFORMATION ITEM # 4 PAGE 5
INFORMATION ITEM # 4 PAGE 6
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF BOULDER SMALL WATERSHEDS ANALYSIS
City of Boulder Small Watershed Analysis Area
Composite Hazard Ranking for High Elevation Boulder Watersheds
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 8
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 20, 2015
AGENDA TITLE:
Information Item Wastewater Treatment Update
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Chris Douville, Wastewater Treatment Manager
Douglas Sullivan, Acting Principal Engineer
I. PURPOSE
This information item provides an update on the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) and
related programs / projects. The memorandum is organized as follows:
1.Summary of facility status and recent performance
2.Nitrogen Upgrades Project
3.Other noteworthy Capital Improvement Project (CIP) efforts
Later in 2015, WRAB will learn of updates associated with two additional wastewater topics.
These items are tentatively scheduled as follows:
Wastewater Treatment Renewable Energy
October 19 . Topics to include
cogeneration, solar PV, and energy management initiatives.
Wastewater Facility Permit Renewal and Regulations Update
November 16 .
Topics to include Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) effluent permit renewal
status, and regulatory updates on important parameters such as copper, arsenic, and
temperature.
II. SUMMARY OF FACILITY STATUS AND RECENT PERFORMANCE
th
The 75 St. wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) is 47 years old yet continues to perform with
a high degree of success due in large part to proper and timely investments over the years to
address capacity, regulations, and aging infrastructure. 2014 was a so-called baseline year of
performance as no construction activities occurred, and no major process or operational
modifications were implemented. It is fair to say that 2014 was the best performance year the
AGENDA ITEM #___IV_____PAGE____1____
WWTF has ever accomplished, based on effluent quality, permit compliance, and resource
utilization.
Facility data from the past 18 months (January 2014 through June 2015) is summarized below in
Table 1. Effluent quality was excellent during this timeframe, including ammonia removal
which was particularly impressive. During this timeframe, there were no effluent concentration
violations of the CDPS permit. However, in May 2015 Boulder experienced significant, steady
precipitation that resulted in elevated levels of infiltration and inflow (I&I) entering the
wastewater collection system. As a result, wastewater flows increased significantly, and a
monthly average flow of 26 MGD occurred, which is above our permitted flow limit of 25 MGD.
Table 1 Effluent quality from January 2014 through June 2015
Parameter Min Ave Max Notes
Flow (MGD) 9.2 15.6 39.9 Max month limit 25 MGD
cBOD (mg/L) 1 3 8 Monthly permit limit 25 mg/L
TSS (mg/L) 2.0 5.8 21 Monthly permit limit 30 mg/L
NH3 (mg/L) <0.1 <0.1 0.9 Future permit low limit 1.9 mg/L
NO3 (mg/L) 6.6 14.2 22.9 Future permit low limit 14.7 mg/L
E-Coli (#/100 ml) 1 33* 365 Monthly permit limit 126 / 100ml
* E-coli geometric mean is lower than arithmetic average.
Source energy use, and the distribution between grid electricity and renewables, is an important
aspect of how treatment goals are achieved. Both reduction of grid energy reliance as well as
conservation and using less energy are of high interest for the wastewater treatment program.
Table 2 below summarizes the distribution between grid electricity, electricity provided by the
city-year-old cogeneration facility, and electricity provided by the 5-year-old Solar PV
facility (owned, operated, and maintained by SunEdison) for the most-recent 12 months.
Table 2 Electrical power distribution summary, June 2014 through May 2015
Source Percent Notes
Solar PV 13 15% during year 1
Cogeneration 18 * Historically 20-25%
Niwot Substation Grid 15
Leggett Substation Grid 54
Grid Subtotal 69
Renewables Subtotal 31
* Cogeneration production has been reduced lately due to multiple mechanical, electrical, and control issues
resulting in higher than normal downtime.
Another ongoing program at the WWTF is analysis and decisions around asset management and
replacement of aging infrastructure. Figure 1 below may provide a useful framework to
understand the evolution and age of the various process areas and buildings / subsystems at the
WWTF, and how much of the infrastructure is newer versus aged and at or beyond its useful life.
AGENDA ITEM #___IV_____PAGE____2____
Figure 1 Age and Status of Process Areas and Buildings
According to the most recent asset management inventory review, which factored into the 2016
CIP budget, the following major capital items budgeted for replacement in the near term:
2016 Pumps - $150,000 repair or replacement of top priority pumps
2019 Digester - $200,000 design services for new gas storage
2020 Digester - $2,000,000 construction of new gas storage facility
2020 Cogeneration - $185,000 mechanical overhaul of engines
III. NITROGEN UPGRADES PROJECT
The Nitrogen Upgrades Project (NUP) is the first of three planned projects to meet nutrient
regulations for nitrogen and phosphorus. The broad plan for regulatory compliance can be found
in the Nutrient Compliance Study, shared with WRAB at the November 2012 meeting as an
agenda item. (https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/fol/58033/Row1.aspx) The
main goal of the NUP project is to achieve full compliance with Regulation 85 nitrogen, as well
as daily maximum ammonia and nitrate limits that were included in the current CDPS permit
(which goes into effect December 1, 2017). It is expected that Regulation 85 limits for nitrogen
and phosphorus will be incorporated into the 2016 permit renewal and will include an associated
compliance deadline in the 2020-2022 timeframe. As such, the city will achieve nitrogen
compliance far in advance of the Regulation 85 effective date. Regulation 85 phosphorus
compliance will be addressed in the second of three projects dedicated to phosphorus removal
facilities. The phosphorus project is identified in year 2020 of the CIP and has an estimated cost
AGENDA ITEM #___IV_____PAGE____3____
of $18,500,000. The final project outlined in the NCS phasing schedule is the project to address
Regulation 31 criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, which are substantially lower / more
stringent than Regulation 85.
Carollo Engineers was hired to perform NUP design services for the city, and the design was
completed and approved by CDPHE in November 2014. The project includes three main
elements, as well as three additional components that help bolster treatment capabilities and
operational flexibility. The six project elements are summarized below. Figure 2 includes a site
layout showing NUP project elements.
External Carbon Storage and Feed Facility
1. uilding to
receive, store, and deliver external carbon to the microbiological process to accomplish
improved nitrogen removal through enhanced denitrification. Two carbon sources will
be utilized acetic acid, and brewery waste (a water high in sugars re
Aeration Basin Modifications
2. structural, mechanical, electrical, and controls upgrades
to the existing aeration basins to convert the process from an MLE process to a 4-stage
Bardenpho process, to more optimally utilize internal carbon and any supplemental
external carbon.
Solids Contact Tank Modifications
3. replacement of existing aeration diffusers inside
the existing solids contact tanks to enhance final nitrification (ammonia removal)
capabilities.
Post Aerobic Digestion Process
4. conversion of an existing pre-dewatering sludge
storage tank to an aerated process downstream of the anaerobic digesters, where the
microbial process will be controlled to encourage nitrification, and potentially
simultaneous denitrification, so that the nitrogen load returned to the liquid stream
process after dewatering is significantly reduced. Some benefits on dewatering (i.e.
reduced polymer requirements) may result as well.
Centrate Control Improvements
5. addition of ammonia probes and associated control
programming to allow for load-based centrate return to reduce variability in ammonia
loading to the main process and enhance
ammonia limits.
Primary Clarifier Bypass
6. a short pipeline to allow for bypassing some of the facility
flow around the primary clarifier process, with the intention of providing more carbon to
the activated sludge process to improve nitrogen removal.
AGENDA ITEM #___IV_____PAGE____4____
Figure 2 Key Elements of Nitrogen Upgrades Project
In April 2015, the NUP project was publically bid and subsequently awarded to Aslan
Construction, for a bid total of $4,524,000 (including all six project elements). Currently, the
project is going through final approvals with Boulder County. It is anticipated that mobilization
and construction will commence in August. The project schedule is projected to be 18 months,
which should allow for construction completion near the end of 2016. Funding for construction
is partially provided by the Nutrient Management Grant, awarded to the city in 2013. $900,000
remains in the grant help fund the construction effort.
IV. OTHER NOTEWORTHY CIP EFFORTS
While the Nitrogen Upgrades Project is the main CIP effort occurring at the WWTF for the next
few years, several other important capital initiatives are underway in a variety of stages.
IBM LS Project
The IBM Lift Station (LS) is 50 years old, and has been modified / upgraded several times,
including the most-recent upgrades project which was completed in 2000. Additionally, CDPHE
is requiring that the IBM LS meet current wastewater lift station design criteria for overflow
protection. The lift station only has limited emergency storage capability in its current
AGENDA ITEM #___IV_____PAGE____5____
configuration. The largest vulnerability to the lift station is a rapid or sustained increase in flow
due to I&I. Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) have occurred at the lift station, and the most
recent event was September 2013. The city plans to address this deficiency and associated SSOs
through I&I reduction efforts (cured-in-place-pipe lining and eliminating cross connections) as
well as upgrading the lift station.
The city hired Frachetti Engineering Inc. (FEI) to perform design services for the IBM LS
project, and the design was completed and approved by CDPHE in early 2015. The project
includes replacement of the three sewage pumps, addition of one standby emergency pump, an
increased wetwell volume for additional storage capacity to address overflow protection, and
station-wide mechanical / electrical / controls upgrades. The city is currently working through
the final construction approval process. The project was bid in June and RN Civil Construction
is the apparently low bidder at $1,564,000. Construction is slated to commence in September.
PAS Improvements Phase 1
In 2013, a Process Automation System (PAS) Strategic Plan was developed to identify and
(SCADA, PLCs, servers, network, and associated componentry). The plan identified 14 projects
organized in priorities of Critical (1 to 2 years), High (3 to 6 years), and Medium (7 to 10 years).
The 20-year CIP includes annual funding of approximately $600,000 for nine of the next 10
years. Several of the critical and high priority projects have been lumped into a single project
plan that is scheduled for design in 2015. Carollo Engineers has been given the go-ahead to
perform the design services, and construction would follow in late 2015 or early 2016. The 2015
CIP includes funding of approximately $1,200,000 (including 2014 rollover funds) for the
current project. City PAS staff are planning to accomplish several of the identified projects in-
house without outside consultant support, and only limited contractor support, to achieve some
budget efficiencies.
Electrical System Upgrades and PAS Phase 2
While many of the electrical load centers (LCs) and motor control centers (MCCs) are relatively
new, some of them are quite old and beyond their useful life. Five (5) LCs and five (5) MCCs
are scheduled to be replaced in year 2017. As such, design for the replacement of this critical
electrical equipment will take place in 2016. A design budget of $120,000 and a construction
budget of $1,200,000 are included in the CIP for 2016 and 2017, respectively.
AGENDA ITEM #___IV_____PAGE____6____