HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRAB Complete Packet 2016-11-21WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
MEETING DATE: Monday, 21 November 2016
MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Municipal Services Center, 5050 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
Agenda Highlights:
Agenda
1. Call to Order (6:00 p.m.)
2. Approval of Minutes (6:01 p.m.)
3. *Public Comment (6:05 p.m.)
4. Information Item – Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek, and King’s Gulch Floodplain Mapping
Study (6:15 p.m.)
5. Information Item – Agricultural Water Leasing Program (7 p.m.)
6. Matters from the Board (7:45 p.m.)
7. Matters from Staff (7:55 p.m.)
8. Discussion of Future Schedule (8:05 p.m.)
9. Adjourn (8:15 p.m.)
Information Packet
Information Packet Memorandum – FEMA Community Rating System Update (Stafford)
* 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.gov – A to Z, Water
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Next Water Resources Advisory Board Meeting
WRAB Minutes
17 October 2016
Page No. 1
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: 17 October 2016
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Rene Lopez 303-413-7149
Board Members Present: Lesley Smith, Kirk Vincent, Mark Squillace, Kate Ryan, Dan Johnson
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Eric Ameigh, Project Coordinator for Public Works
Christin Shepherd, Civil Engineer
Annie Noble, Principle Engineer
Russ Sands, Water Sustainability and Outreach
Rene Lopez, Board Secretary
Consultants Present: Jeff Brislawn, Amec Foster Wheeler
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order [6:30 p.m.]
Agenda Item 2 – Approval of the 19 September 2016 Meeting Minutes [6:30 p.m.]
Motion to approve minutes from 19 September 2016 as written.
Moved by: Squillace Seconded by: Vincent
Vote: 5:0
Agenda Item 3– Public Participation and Comment [6:31 p.m.]
Public Comment: None
Agenda Item 4– Public Hearing and Consideration of a [6:32 p.m.]
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Bear Canyon Creek
Flood Mitigation Study
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the final Bear Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan
(Attachment A) for the WRAB’s consideration, input and recommendation to City Council.
In 2014, the city retained Amec Foster Wheeler to evaluate potential improvements along Bear Canyon
Creek. Over time, flood improvements have been made at various locations along the drainageway, but
the September 2013 flood highlighted areas of hydraulic limitation that prompted the public to request
additional flood mitigation. Recommendations were developed, analyzed and presented to the public and
the WRAB throughout this study. Feedback and comments were collected and incorporated into the
final flood mitigation plan where feasible.
The final recommended plan includes a combination of maintenance and capital improvements that
yield the greatest reduction in flood risk. In general, the recommended improvements include increased
capacity in 13 culverts, channel grading and widening, channel maintenance including sediment and
debris removal, and reconfiguring three stormwater outfalls. The recommended improvements are
detailed in the table in the Analysis section of this memo and shown on maps in Appendix G of
Attachment A. A Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) was also performed on the recommended improvements
and a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 0.02 was calculated. Although the BCR was low, the recommended
improvements result in other benefits including: decreased property damage, increased emergency
access during major storm events, and improved safety for multi-use path users.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Questions regarding the FEMA Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) methodology and grant funding
Discussions around a BCR analysis for just maintenance work as an alternative
Comments requesting more information to proceed in recommending the motion
Comments around how well written the plan was
WRAB Minutes
17 October 2016
Page No. 2
Public Comment:
Carl Norby – One problem with the study, funding. Wastewater backups during the flood are impacts
that are not discussed in the plan, but the plan will still provide benefit to residents. If the creek does not
flow into the sanitary sewer, then the sanitary sewer would not be as much of an issue, please put things
in the proper order.
Ned Williams – The driveway culverts at St. Andrew Church are a pinch point.. In support of increasing
channel capacity, so long as mature trees are protected. Asphalt scouring during the flood, no sewage
backups.
Jane Brooks – Urge City to follow the recommendation. Boulder is an incredible place to live, think of
the human element involved with this plan not the BCR. Let the whole public process play out on the
individual pieces of the project after its been recommended to council.
Motion: The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends a motion to recommend the Bear
Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan be recommended to City Council for acceptance with the
understanding that further refinement and alternative analysis may be warranted through the
CEAP process to address the low Benefit Cost Ratio (0.02).
Moved by: Smith Seconded by: Ryan
Vote: 5:0
Agenda Item 5 – Information Item – Update on Rate Study Next Step [7:52 p.m.]
Ken Baird and Eric Ameigh presented this item.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
The purpose of this item is to follow up on the August and September 2016 WRAB discussions
related to the Utility Rate Study Phase 1 analysis and confirm support for the proposed water rate
structure alternatives to be studied in Phase 2.
Through the August and September discussions, WRAB provided feedback related to Phase 1 findings.
This included generally affirming the key findings related to each of the three utility rate structures.
Areas of discussion included Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (CII) water budgets, the residential
indoor water budget allocation, the fixed-service charge in the wastewater fee, and alternative
calculations for the stormwater/flood management fee.
In September, WRAB expressed support for studying rate structure alternatives in the wastewater and
stormwater/flood management utilities. Staff also sought and received additional feedback related to
issues in the water rate structure which assisted in the development of alternatives for study. Those
water rate structure alternatives are described in this memo.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Comments regarding the Historical Monthly Users (HMU)
Discussions around the Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (CII) budgets being broken into
several classes to suit their diversity
Discussions regarding Behavioral Economics professors coming to a future board meeting
Comments regarding staff recommendations moving forward
Agenda Item 7 - Matters from Board: [8:29 p.m.]
Smith – CU South meeting
Johnson - BVCP meeting
Agenda Item 8 – Matters from Staff: [8:35 p.m.]
Sullivan – Betasso Construction Update
Budget to Council
Water Efficiency Plan Information Item
Civic Area Project
Agenda Item 9 – Future Schedule [8:46 p.m.]
Retreat
November & December Meetings – Holiday Schedules
WRAB Minutes
17 October 2016
Page No. 3
January & February Meetings – move to fourth Monday of the month
Skunk/Bluebell/Kings Gulch for November
Agriculture Leasing program update
Flood studies
Adjournment [8:41p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, t he
meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: Squillace Seconded by: Smith
Motion Passes 4:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, November 21th 2016 at 6:00 p.m., at the City's Municipal
Services Center, 5050 East 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
AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE 1
C I T Y OF B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 21, 2016
AGENDA TITLE: Information Item - Skunk Creek, Bluebell Creek and King’s
Gulch Floodplain Mapping Update
PRESENTER/S:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Annie Noble, Acting Principal Engineer for Flood and Greenways
Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a general summary of the history and
preliminary results of the Skunk Creek Floodplain Mapping Update.
The Skunk Creek Floodplain Mapping Update includes the King’s Gulch, Skunk and
Bluebell Canyon Creek floodplains between the western city limits to east of Foothills
Parkway where Skunk Creek confluences into Bear Canyon Creek as shown below.
Engineering consultants provided hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to update the
floodplain mapping and predicted water surface elevations. The existing and proposed
floodplain mapping is illustrated in Attachment A.
Flood mapping provides the basis for FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
flood insurance requirements and is also used to regulate development. Flooding areas
with less than 1-foot depths (shallow, 100-year floodplain areas) are generally mapped as
AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE 2
500-year floodplain areas, which have limited regulatory restrictions and no flood
insurance requirements. The City has the option of mapping these areas as a 100-year
floodplain for regulatory purposes, but maintaining the Zone X (shaded) designation on
FEMA’s map therefore not triggering the requirement for flood insurance. WRAB
feedback is requested on this option.
Following input from the public and the WRAB, the mapping study will be finalized and
presented at a future WRAB meeting with a request for a motion. The WRAB review of
the floodplain mapping update does not require board members to verify the analysis and
calculations, but accepts the overall mapping study process and that results are reasonable
and acceptable.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
The Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and King’s Gulch floodplain mapping study
was first presented to the WRAB as an information item on August 18, 2014. The board
requested that staff continue to work with the public to inform them about the proposed
floodplain mapping and address comments and concerns. It was also requested that
information about FEMA’s Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) process be made
available on the city’s website. Staff continued to work with the public and will continue
to send out notification letters and postcards for the mapping update. Information about
FEMA’s LOMA process was also included on the project website and on the city’s
general website about floodplain mapping.
Revised floodplain mapping was then presented to the WRAB on September 15, 2014. At
the time of the WRAB meeting, additional refinements were being done to the mapping
because some of the mapping results did not correlate well with observations from the
September 2013 flood event. WRAB recommended that an additional peer review be
conducted for the work that was completed by ICON Engineering.
A second peer review was completed in January, 2015 by a third party consultant,
Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. The peer review highlighted some spill areas to
study in more detail. Revised floodplain mapping was presented to the WRAB on May
18, 2015. There were still unresolved questions about some of the mapping results.
Further analysis resulted in identifying errors in the hydrology used for the study.
Therefore, the mapping study was revised starting with a new hydrologic analysis.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
Public notification post cards about the mapping update have been sent to all property
owners in the study area and a project web site has been developed to provide
information (https://bouldercolorado.gov/water/skunk-creek-floodplain-mapping-update).
An open house was held on August 18, 2014 immediately prior to the WRAB meeting to
inform the public about the mapping update and hear comments and concerns about the
study. Public comments were also received at the September 15, 2014 and May 18, 2015
WRAB meetings. Staff has met with residents in person and responded to phone calls and
emails. In general, most of the comments and questions have been about impacts to
AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE 3
specific properties and requests for more detailed information such as proposed base
flood water elevations. There were also concerns about the high hazard zone delineations
and the distribution of the Bluebell Canyon Creek split flow paths downstream of 15th
Street. A summary of past public feedback is provided in Attachment C.
An open house meeting is being held immediately prior to this WRAB meeting to inform
the public about the revisions to the mapping update. A summary of public input gathered
at the open house will be provided at a future WRAB meeting.
BACKGROUND
The city has a comprehensive floodplain management program designed to identify flood
risks, mitigate the risks of flooding, and support community recovery following a major
flood. For additional information about the city’s floodplain management program,
floodplain regulations and flood insurance, read the Flood Management Program
Overview.
Floodplain mapping provides the basis for flood management by identifying the areas
subject to the greatest 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 (NFIP). The city’s
floodplain maps need to be periodically updated to reflect changes in the floodplain
resulting from land development, flood mitigation improvements, new topographic
mapping information and new mapping study technologies.
The city delineates four flood zones:
500-year floodplain: The 500-year floodplain delineates the flood limits resulting
from a storm that has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year.
100-year floodplain: The 100-year floodplain delineates the flood limits resulting
from a storm that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year.
Conveyance zone: The conveyance zone is defined as the areas in the floodplain
that are reserved for the main passage of the entire 100-year flood flow when the
100-year floodplain is artificially narrowed until a maximum six-inch increase in
flood water depth is created. This zone is delineated to allow development to
occur up to the narrowed floodplain and still provide passage of 100-year storm
flows.
High hazard zone: The high hazard zone defines the area of the floodplain where
water depth and velocity pose the greatest threat to life and safety. This area is
delineated for areas in the floodplain where water depths are four feet or greater
or where the water velocity (feet per second) multiplied by water depth (feet)
equals or exceeds the number four.
Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek, and Kings Gulch were first studied in 1987 by the
consulting firm Greenhorne & O'Mara and the resulting Flood Hazard Area Delineation
AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE 4
(FHAD) report included the delineation of the 100-year floodplain along these creeks.
The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) approved for
these creeks were originally based on the 1987 FHAD and included a federally-regulated
one foot rise floodway. Since that time, both the City of Boulder and the State of
Colorado have adopted a ½ foot rise floodway, which the City refers to as the
Conveyance Zone.
In 1989, Love and Associates delineated the High Hazard Zone and City of Boulder
Conveyance Zone (½ foot rise floodway). The delineations were based on the hydraulic
models used in the 1987 FHAD.
On May 6, 1991, FEMA issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for Skunk Creek to
incorporate the results of a channel improvement project. The limit of the LOMR was in
the University of Colorado’s Research Park, downstream of Colorado Avenue to just
upstream of the confluence of Boulder Creek.
Several road-crossing structures for Skunk Creek have been improved since 1991:
culverts at Broadway and at 27th Way, crossings at Anderson Ditch and the cemetery
maintenance road, and the low water crossing upstream of 27th Way. These
improvements are being incorporated into the current mapping study.
The City initially contracted with Belt Collins to develop the updated floodplain maps but
they closed their Boulder office in 2013. ICON Engineering provided a peer review of
Belt Collin’s 2011 initial study and was selected to complete the project, using the
floodplain models developed by Belt Collins, which used 2003 aerial topography and
supplemental ground survey.
In 2013, the city acquired state-of-the-art Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
technology to produce high-resolution topographic mapping. The new LiDAR mapping
was compared to the 2003 topographic base mapping and areas showing substantial
differences were updated in the hydraulic models.
In September 2013, major flooding occurred within the study area. The flood resulted in
creeks overtopping and spill flows. A 2-dimensional (2D) hydraulic model was
completed to assess the differences between the draft floodplain mapping and the 2013
flood observations. This 2D analysis was used to refine primary flow paths and split flow
areas used in the conventional 1-dimensional hydraulic model. In December, 2014,
Anderson Consulting Engineers was selected to complete a peer review of the draft
floodplain mapping study completed by ICON Engineering. The additional peer review
was completed and among other things, recommended that the spill flows north across
Baseline Road from Bluebell Canyon Creek, and spill flows north east across US
Highway 36 from Skunk Creek be explored further and documented with the floodplain
mapping update. Additional review and analysis resulted in questions about the
hydrology of the watershed, so a new hydrologic evaluation was initiated.
AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE 5
ANALYSIS
This mapping study updates the hydrologic and hydraulic models and flood hazard
mapping for the 500-year floodplain, 100-year floodplain, Conveyance and High Hazard
Zones for Skunk Creek, including the King’s Gulch, and Bluebell Canyon Creek
tributaries.
The revised mapping presented in this memorandum includes several spill flows and is
different than the mapping presented in 2014 as it is now based on a new hydrologic
model, a 2D analysis developed from LiDAR topographic mapping data, and information
collected before and after the September 2013 flood event.
The hydrologic model for the watershed was developed through an iterative process using
CUHP, FLO-2D and SWMM computer programs. First, CUHP was used to determine
sub-basin runoff hydrographs for the full range of effective discharges at various design
points. Second, sub-basin hydrographs were converted to a steady state condition and
routed though the project area using FLO-2D to identify watershed flow patterns and
areas of split flows diverting to and from the major flow paths. This FLO-2D model was
used to develop diversion rating curves for the major split flow locations which were then
numerically incorporated into SWMM to establish peak flows along major tributaries.
Finally, the resulting flows from SWMM were incorporated into the FLO-2D model to
establish main channel and split flow discharges for the reaches that were selected for
detailed floodplain modeling. The hydrologic analysis was peer reviewed by the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) prior to the development of the detailed
hydraulic models.
Utilizing the FLO-2D model results, flow paths were selected for detailed hydraulic
modeling based on flow concentration locations with depths, on average, of greater than
1-foot for the 100-year floodplain. Discharges for detailed study reaches were taken
directly from applicable cross sections in the FLO-2D model. This modeling was also
submitted to the UDFCD for a peer review. The peer review comments have all been
addressed and the mapping will be resubmitted for concurrence after incorporating
comments received from the public and the WRAB.
Attachments A includes figures showing a comparison between existing and proposed
floodplain mapping. A summary of how these changes impact existing structures is
included in Attachment B.
Flooding areas with less than 1-foot depths (shallow, 100-year floodplain areas) are
generally mapped to be consistent with the FEMA, non-regulatory Zone X (shaded)
mapping zones and are therefore mapped as 500-year floodplain areas on the city’s maps.
For this study, these areas have been highlighted for further consideration, since shallow
flooding can cause significant damage to basements and those damages are not typically
covered by flood insurance. The City has the option of mapping these shallow flooding
areas as 100-year floodplain for regulatory purposes and is requesting WRAB feedback
on this option. If the shallow100-year areas are included in the 100-year floodplain for
regulatory purposes, future improvements would be required to be elevated or
floodproofed and basements would not be permitted in residential structures, reducing the
AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE 6
flood risk of newly built structures in these areas. The FEMA flood zone would be Zone
X (shaded) for either option, so flood insurance would not be mandatory for these areas,
and would be available at a reduced rate (preferred risk policy). A total of 43 parcels, 51
structures and 70 dwelling units are included in these areas. The two options are outlined
in the following table:
Shallow 100-Year Floodplain Areas
Option 1 Option 2
City Flood Zone 500-Year 100-Year
City Regulations Flood protection and
emergency management
plans required for Critical
Facilities only
100-year Floodplain
regulations apply:
- No new residential
basements (elevate to flood
protection elevation)
- Floodproofing/Elevation
required for non-residential
structures
- Sewer back-flow
prevention required
Structures within
the new 100-Year
Floodplain
143 194
FEMA Flood Zone Zone X (shaded) Zone X (shaded)
Mandatory Flood
Insurance
No No
NEXT STEPS:
Following input from the public and the WRAB, the mapping will be finalized and
presented to the WRAB with a request for a motion to recommend approval of the new
floodplain mapping.
The WRAB review of the floodplain mapping update does not require board members to
verify analysis and calculations, but indicates the overall mapping study process and
results are reasonable and acceptable.
Following a recommendation from the WRAB, the mapping revisions will be considered
by City Council. If City Council approves the map revisions, the city will submit a
request to FEMA for review. During the FEMA review and approval process it is
recommended that the new mapping be used for regulatory purposes by regulating to the
more restrictive of the existing and proposed mapping. This would mean that
development within the newly identified flood zones would be subject to the city
floodplain regulations. In order to comply with FEMA requirements, development within
the areas that are being removed from the floodplain would still be subject to the city’s
floodplain regulations until FEMA officially adopts the new floodplain mapping.
Following formal adoption by FEMA, the city would regulate solely based on the new
mapping.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Existing and Proposed Floodplain Mapping
B. Summary of Impacts to Existing Structures
C. Summary of Public Comments
AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE 7
Bluebell Canyon CreekKings Gulch Skunk CreekBaseline Rd
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y27th Wy9th StMo
o
r
h
e
a
d
A
v28th StUS
H
w
y
3
6
Baseline Rd
´
Utilities Division
Skunk Creek AE Zone
Skunk Creek AO Zone 1-ft
Skunk Creek AO Zone 2-ft
Skunk Creek Zone X 100-Year
Structure Added
Structure Unchanged
Structure Removed
Zone X (100Year) *see note
Effective 100 Year Floodplain Creek
City Limits
^LOMC
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet Rev: 11/10/2016LegendSkunk Creek Proposed 100 Year FloodplainCompared to FEMA EffectiveMap 1 of 2
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty,expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon.
*Zone X 100-Year designation is shallow flooding in the100-year floodplain. Structures in this designation maybe mapped as City 100-year floodplain for regulatory purposes and Zone X Shaded for FEMA flood insurance purposes.
Attachment A. Existing and Proposed Floodplain Mapping
Boulder Creek
Skunk Creek
Bear Canyon Creek
Skunk Cree
k
30th StColorado Av28th StBa
s
e
l
i
n
e
R
dBroadwayUS Hwy 36Moorhead Av27th WyAr
a
p
a
h
o
e
A
v
Foothills PyBa
s
e
l
i
n
e
R
d
´Utilities Division
Skunk Creek AE Zone
Skunk Creek AO Zone 1-ft
Skunk Creek AO Zone 2-ft
Skunk Creek Zone X 100-Year
Structure Added
Structure Unchanged
Structure Removed
Zone X (100Year) *see note
Effective 100 Year Floodplain Creek
City Limits
^LOMC
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet Rev: 11/10/2016LegendSkunk Creek Proposed 100 Year FloodplainCompared to FEMA EffectiveMap 2 of 2
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty,expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon.
*Zone X 100-Year designation is shallow flooding in the 100-year floodplain. Structures in this designation may be mapped as City 100-year floodplain for regulatory purposes and Zone X Shaded for FEMA flood insurance purposes.
Attachment A. Existing and Proposed Floodplain Mapping
Bluebell Canyon CreekKings Gulch Skunk CreekBaseline Rd
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y27th Wy9th StMo
o
r
h
e
a
d
A
v28th StUS
H
w
y
3
6
Baseline Rd
´
Utilities Division
Proposed Conveyance ZoneCompared to FEMA EffectiveMap 1 of 2
Effective Conveyance Zone
Proposed Skunk CreekConveyance Zone
Structure Added
Structure Unchanged
Structure Removed
Creek
City Limits
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet Rev: 11/10/2016LegendSkunk Creek
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty,expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon.
Attachment A. Existing and Proposed Floodplain Mapping
Boulder Creek
Skunk Creek
Bear Canyon Creek
Skunk Cree
k
30th StColorado Av28th StBa
s
e
l
i
n
e
R
dBroadwayUS Hwy 36Moorhead Av27th WyAr
a
p
a
h
o
e
A
v
Foothills PyBa
s
e
l
i
n
e
R
d
´Utilities Division
Proposed Conveyance ZoneCompared to FEMA EffectiveMap 2 of 2
Effective Conveyance Zone
Proposed Skunk CreekConveyance Zone
Structure Added
Structure Unchanged
Structure Removed
Creek
City Limits
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet Rev: 11/10/2016LegendSkunk Creek
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty,expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon.
Attachment A. Existing and Proposed Floodplain Mapping
Bluebell Canyon CreekKings Gulch Skunk CreekBaseline Rd
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y27th Wy9th StMo
o
r
h
e
a
d
A
v28th StUS
H
w
y
3
6
Baseline Rd
´
Utilities Division
Effective High Hazard Zone
Proposed Skunk Creek High Hazard Zone
Structure Added
Structure Unchanged
Structure Removed
Creek
City Limits
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet Rev: 11/10/2016LegendSkunk Creek Proposed High Hazard ZoneCompared to FEMA EffectiveMap 1 of 2
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty,expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon.
Attachment A. Existing and Proposed Floodplain Mapping
Boulder Creek
Skunk Creek
Bear Canyon Creek
Skunk Cree
k
30th StColorado Av28th StBa
s
e
l
i
n
e
R
dBroadwayUS Hwy 36Moorhead Av27th WyAr
a
p
a
h
o
e
A
v
Foothills PyBa
s
e
l
i
n
e
R
d
´Utilities Division
Effective High Hazard Zone
Proposed Skunk Creek High Hazard Zone
Structure Added
Structure Unchanged
Structure Removed
Creek
City Limits
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet Rev: 11/10/2016LegendSkunk Creek Proposed High Hazard ZoneCompared to FEMA EffectiveMap 2 of 2
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty,expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon.
Attachment A. Existing and Proposed Floodplain Mapping
Summary of Impacts to Structures
Number of Structures
100-Year Floodplain
NOT including
Shallow Flooding
100-Year Floodplain
including
Shallow Flooding Conveyance Zone High Hazard Zone
Existing Floodplain 165 175 82 29
Proposed Floodplain 143 194 10 7
Change
No Longer Affected 62 62 76 24
Newly Affected 40 81 4 2
No Change 103 113 6 5
There are 10 LOMRs
5 No Change (LOMC in existing mapping and are not included in the new mapping)
5 Added to 100 year (LOMC in existing mapping and are included in the new mapping)
Skunk Creek
Attachment B: Summary of Impacts to structures
Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek
and King’s Gulch Remapping Study
Public Comment Summary
Open House Date: Aug. 18, 2014
Open House Meeting Location: Municipal Building Lobby
Number of attendees that signed-in: 23
Staff in Attendance:
Robert Harberg Katie Knapp Kristin Dean
Laurel Olsen-Horen Douglas Sullivan
Public Comments:
1. Location: 2042 Baseline
Commenter: Property owner (Ben Chancellor; Christina Jurgens)
Comment: Did not see flooding in September 2013 and do not feel that the high hazard
designation is warranted; question split values for Mariposa vs. Columbine
2. Location: Area south of Baseline Road between 20th and Broadway
Commenter: Several property owners
Comment: Flooding in September 2013 was confined to streets; no flow behind homes;
water did not appear to be originating from Bluebell Canyon Creek proper.
3. Location: 22nd and Mariposa Avenue
Commenter: Several property owners
Comment: Flows traveling east on Mariposa turned north on 22nd Street and continued to
Columbine Avenue; this is not shown as 100-year flooding.
4. Location: 19th and Mariposa Avenue
Commenter: Property owner
Comment: structure at south east corner is shown in the 100-year floodplain but did not
experience damage during the September 2013 event; please review assumptions here.
5. Location: 955 Quinn Street
Commenter: Property owner (Lee Payne)
Comment: Structure does not show as impacted on floodplain maps (tree cover issue?);
how was floodplain delineated at corner of Denton Avenue and Quinn Street.
Attachment C: Public Input Summary
6. Location: 3130 Aurora
Commenter: Property Owner
Comment: It seems like the HHZ could be the result of a small depression that we may not
want to include
in the mapping.
7. Location: 1700 Bluebell
Commenter: Property Owner (Bill Mooz)
Comment: Structure is shown as in proposed floodplain but was not impacted by
September 2013 event; wants to know why actual data was disregarded.
8. Location: 1849 Mariposa Ave,
Commenter: Property Owner (Steve Brown, Guen Simons)
Comment: Water from Bluebell creek did not flow to Mariposa. It flowed down the Bluebell
drainage but primarily to the north along 19th Street and down Columbine.
9. Location: 2100 Baseline
Commenter: Property Owner (Jamie Karpohl)
Comment: a) There were no eastbound flows observed on Columbine west of 20th Street.
b) The flooding at 20th and Columbine originated from the Anderson ditch on the north side
of Columbine. This water flowed through properties to the north-east and down the
Columbine North alley towards 21st. At 21st the flows split - continuing down the alley and
heading north towards Baseline. c) During the flood, there was no flow observed coming
down Columbine west of 20th. The only flows observed in Columbine were from Anderson
ditch on the north side of the street. When I visited the location of Bluebell Canyon Creek at
15th St. on the morning of September 14th, I observed all of the flow heading down
Mariposa. I did not observe any man-made diversions at this location.
Attachment C: Public Input Summary
Public Hearing: WRAB Meeting, Aug. 18, 2014
Meeting Location: Council Chambers
Public Comments:
1. Steve Brown, Guen Simons - Water from Bluebell creek did not flow to Mariposa. It flowed
down the Bluebell drainage but primarily to the north along 19th Street and down
Columbine.
2. Lee Payne - My home does not show up as either added, removed or remaining in the 100
year floodplain on the “structures affected proposed 100 year floodplain”. I believe this is
due to the dense tree cover on my lot. The buildings on this lot look to be un-included in the
100 year flood zone, but it is unclear. The grading and slopes on my lot are high from the
street and I believe the new mapping to be close to reality in that the homes are excluded.
Can you please contact me to clarify if the structures are excluded and what the base flood
elevation is in this area? There is also no information on sections or elevations for this lot on
the city’s website. Thank you!
Public Hearing: WRAB Meeting, Sept. 15, 2014
Meeting Location: Council Chambers
Public Comments:
1. Christina Jurgens – Concerns are with the Bluebell and that there were no diversions, which
isn’t reflected accurately in the mapping presented. Question is if a lot of water falls in the
area, water will not flow uphill to 19th street and over Columbine if it’s natural direction is
downhill. She would like for this to be considered when moving forward with the
amendment.
2. Bryan Boots – Owns a home at 20th and Columbine, which is in a newly designated hazard
zone. He was completely unaware of the changes in zoning and is feeling like he is coming
to the conversation late. Questions the assumptions that are going into this decision
making and having a hard time reconciling the recent studies with what he actually
experienced last September. He would like to better understand the next steps in the
process regarding what is decided. It doesn’t seem reasonable to put the burde n on
residents. He is requesting better, more effective outreach to citizens.
3. Tim Fuller-Rowell – Lives on Columbine Avenue, which is affected by the new floodplain,
which now makes up half of his property. Increase in the water table flooded the basement.
Flow down Mariposa didn’t affect us. Rock dam broke causing a flash flood and persistent
rainfall and wonders if that was factored into the analysis, but didn’t see any major flow on
Attachment C: Public Input Summary
Columbine. Wants to understand the actual impact of flood to his property and physical
reasons why it is now included on the floodplain. What is the process for deciding how the
new boundaries are drawn and decided? Premature to start approving a new floodplain
before the previous event is fully understood and would like the city to have more
interaction with the people who are actually affected.
4. Jamie Krapohl – Property owner affected by the proposed flow split changes at 15th is his
major concern. He didn’t observe what is being shown on the maps and feels there is a lack
of correlation in how the split affects these three blocks. On the Saturday of the flood, he
was at 15th and Mariposa and didn’t observe any diversions that were put into place by
residents. The flooding on his corner was due to the Anderson Ditch overflowing, which is
not represented in the changes. Since the open house, he has reached out to neighbors,
but there are many renters around his property. He contacted three other property owners
and informed them of the recent flood mapping changes. Feels that neighbors were not
aware of these new changes. Concerned with the accuracy of the models, based on
observations from walking around the neighborhood and what is being reflected in the
updated maps. He feels this just doesn’t make sense.
Public Hearing: WRAB Meeting, May 18, 2015
Meeting Location: Municipal Service Center
Public Comments:
1. 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 16th to 17th smaller than the northward flows at
18th and 19th? 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 at 20 th and Columbine?
2. 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.
Attachment C: Public Input Summary
3. 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 mapping was done. Was told in 2012 that a
“real study” would be conducted and in 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 flood didn’t even go near her
property. When 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 flood zone when the flood didn’t affect
her property?
4. R. Chris Roark – Asked whether it was taken into account that there is a bridge at lowe r
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?
5. Ali Yager – Lives at the corner of 20th and Mariposa. All the water at 15th 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.
Attachment C: Public Input Summary
Agenda Item V Page 1
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 21, 2016
AGENDA TITLE: Information Item – Utilities Annual Water Leasing Program
PRESENTER/S:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Manager
Kim Hutton, Water Resources Engineer
Doug Dunn, Water Resources Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is to summarize Utilities’ annual raw water leasing program, including
how it is integrated into municipal water supply operations, considerations that go into setting
lease prices and revenue resulting from the program. This information is being provided in
response to WRAB questions about opportunities to generate additional revenue through sale or
lease of raw water supplies.
Utilities leasing program primarily serves agricultural lessees and is managed by the Water
Resources work group. The majority of leased water is from Utilities’ Northern Water
(“Northern”), Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) allotment but also includes shares in private
irrigation ditch companies. Over the past 16 years, Utilities has leased roughly 59,000 acre-feet
of water resulting in $1.7 million in revenue.
BACKGROUND:
Utilities’ annual water leasing program is one of many current practices resulting from well over
100 years of strategic water supply planning. The City of Boulder began operating a municipal
water supply system in 1875, which included development of municipal direct flow and storage
rights along Boulder Creek. In order to support growing municipal water demands in the early
1900s, the city began acquiring senior water rights associated with shares in irrigation ditch
companies1. The city’s early water supply development efforts eventually led to establishment
of the North Boulder Creek source water system, including the Silver Lake Watershed.
In the 1940s and 1950s, additional municipal water supplies were sought due to population
growth following World War II. As a result, the city decided to purchase CBT units and joined
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (also known as “Northern Water or
“Northern”) in 1953. This water supply addition turned out to be timely with a severe drought
occurring in 1954.
1 From 1995-2015, approximately 30% of the city’s annual water supply was associated with water rights
attributable to irrigation ditch shares, many of which date back to the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Agenda Item V Page 2
In 1989, City Council adopted the Raw Water Master Plan, which resulted in the city’s
acquisition of the Barker system in 2001 and establishment of the water supply “reliability
criteria”. The Barker system improved system reliability by increasing the storage volume
available to the city from the Middle Boulder Creek source and by adding Barker infrastructure
(reservoirs and pipelines) to the city’s source water system. The reliability criteria established
important policy guidance for the city’s source water supply by defining the acceptable
frequency of water restrictions for droughts of varying severity. The reliability criteria are
central to the city’s water supply philosophy2 and are used to test the adequacy of the city’s
water supply by computer modeling.
The city’s ability to manage year-to-year variation in water supply is possible due to past efforts
to establish the physical supply through its North and Middle Boulder Creek and Northern Water
sources and due to the reliability criteria, which describes the water supply level of service. The
leasing program provides a mechanism to share surplus supply available to the city in wet years,
and in dry years, the reliability criteria provide a framework for measures needed to manage
limited water supply. Such measures include water restrictions for water utility customers and
curtailing the leasing program. In 2002, a significant drought occurred due to low winter
snowpack. To manage supply, the City of Boulder imposed water restrictions and did not lease
any CBT water to others.
The City of Boulder’s integration of water leasing into its water supply management strategy is
not unique. Many front-range municipalities similarly have leasing programs that make water
available to other users in most years while managing annual water supply variation. For many
communities located north of metro Denver, Northern’s CBT system makes up a significant
component of water available for lease and Northern plays a significant role3 in administration of
CBT leases.
ANALYSIS:
Utilities’ leasing program involves a number of pricing considerations that affect water utility
revenue either directly from the leasing program or at times from Northern’s Regional Pool
program. Both the pricing considerations and leasing program revenue are summarized below.
Lease Pricing Considerations - Utilities current leasing program is based on the following:
1) Policy guidance in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan encourages support of local
agriculture. Local agriculture is a primary use of Utilities leased water. In setting lease rates,
Utilities’ charges a modest 10% administrative fee on top of Boulder’s per-acre-foot
assessment so that the leased water is affordable for agricultural users. This approach has
resulted in lease rates comparable to other front range municipalities who lease water.
2) During wet years when water availability is high, lease demand is generally lower. During
dry years, lease demand is high but water availability is lower. It has not been Utilities’
practice to adjust lease rates based on water availability, and staff is not aware of any
municipalities who make such pricing adjustments.
2 The reliability criteria are included in the city’s current Drought Plan (Volume I-2010 and Volume II-2003) and
most recent Source Water Master Plan (2009).
3 Northern has an online process for administration of water transfers associated with leases and has the
infrastructure and operations staff required to deliver the water to lessees.
Agenda Item V Page 3
3) One distinction in Utilities’ pricing is the desired use of the leased water. Most of Utilities’
leases are for a single year and involve water used for irrigation purposes. However, the city
receives numerous requests each year for augmentation water4, most of which involve long
term lease commitments. The city’s lease rates for augmentation water, which are also
comparable to regional rates, are generally substantially higher (currently $1,000 per acre-
foot for guaranteed long term leases) than for irrigation water. The higher pricing is because
water rights available for such use are generally in shorter supply and because such leases
generally require use of stored water, are administratively burdensome and usually involve
very small amounts of water (fractions of an acre-foot).
4) One other consideration in lease pricing involves legal and process constraints. Leases
involving ditch shares and Northern supplies need to stay within the historic ditch service
area or Northern district boundaries, respectively, which limits the geographic area available
for most City of Boulder water leasing. The city’s water rights decrees, city code and
Northern rules preclude use of city water for certain applications such as hydraulic fracturing
(fracking) associated with oil and gas extraction. Water leased for fracking can involve lease
rates many times higher than typical municipal or agricultural lease rates, however, most
municipalities have not looked favorably upon making water available for such use.
Leasing Program Revenue - Over the past 16 years, Utilities has leased roughly 59,000 acre-feet
of water resulting in $1.7 million in revenue. Of that 58,400 acre-feet and $1.6 million was
associated with agricultural leases, the majority of which was CBT water as shown in
Attachment 1. From 2000 to 2016, agricultural lease rates have ranged from $11 per acre foot to
$150 per acre foot depending on the year and water source5. The agricultural leasing program
has had nearly 100 different lessees (individuals and organizations) since 2000, some of whom
have leased water annually from the city since at least 1991.
Another related revenue component is Northern Water’s Regional Pool program. With this
program any CBT water that is not leased or otherwise goes unused by the city may be auctioned
off annually by Northern Water to other water users within the Northern District. The city
receives any funds generated from its water sold in this auction, less an administrative fee. The
first year of Northern’s implementation of the regional pool program was 2010. Since that time,
Northern has auctioned off 76,000 acre feet of water and Utilities has received roughly $300,000
in payments for its pro rata share in the auctions.
NEXT STEPS:
The city’s current water supply approach, including the agricultural leasing program is largely
defined by the Boulder Revised Code, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and adopted master
plans. If the WRAB was interested in pursuing substantive changes to the leasing program or the
city’s water supply approach, it would likely require City Council direction to add this to their
annual work program. WRAB will have the opportunity to discuss recommendations regarding
the City Council work program priorities at its annual retreat on Dec. 10.
4 Water decreed for augmentation purposes may be used to replace water that was diverted from a creek or pumped
from a well at a time when the water right for those diversions was not in priority.
5 For comparison, one acre-foot of treated water at the city’s Block 1 rate ($2.76 per 1,000 gallons) would cost $899.
Agenda Item V Page 4
Attachment 1 – Annual CBT Water Leases
(1,000)
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Acre -FeetCBT Leased by Year (2000-2016)
2012 – 2015 Average Annual Demand = 18,200 acre feet
(from the 2016 Water Efficiency Plan)
During the 2002 drought, 135 acre feet
of CBT water was leased from other
entities for the city’s municipal use.
Attachment A: Annual CBT Water Leases
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION PACKET MEMORANDUM
To: Water Resources Advisory Board
From: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Edward Stafford, Development Review Manager - Public Works
Jessica Stevens, Floodplain and Wetland Administrator
Date: November 21, 2016
Subject: Information Item: Community Rating System Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) recognizes
communities that exceed the minimum requirements for participation in the NFIP. Points are
awarded for activities which educate the public on the risks of flooding, map and regulate
development in areas of flooding, reduce the risk of damage due to flooding and demonstrate a
preparedness to respond to flood events.
Property owners in a participating community are eligible for flood insurance premium reductions
based on the number of points awarded to their community. Participating communities are rated
on a class scale with a Class 10 community receiving no discount on insurance premiums and a
Class 1 community receiving up to a 45 percent discount for premiums on properties located in
the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or one hundred-year floodplain.
The CRS manual was updated in 2013 to include more stringent documentation requirements.
Public Works staff completed the City of Boulder’s first CRS cycle verification under the new
manual on October 27, 2015 and have recently received the results from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The city was awarded a total of 2,687 points, maintaining a Class
5 rating. A Class 5 rating provides a flood insurance premium discount of 25 percent to properties
within the floodplain.
ANALYSIS:
In 2015 WRAB asked staff to consider how a lower rating could be achieved for the city. Staff,
with the assistance of a consultant, reviewed the criteria for achieving a Class 4 rating. For a
community to become Class 4 a minimum of 3,000 points are required, along with meeting the
following prerequisites;
1. Meet the Class 6 prerequisites. Boulder is a currently a Class 5 CRS community. This criterion
has been met.
2. Maintain a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Classification (BCEGS) of 4/4 or
better. Boulder received a 3/3 BCEGS Classification in 2015. This criterion has been met.
3. In order to demonstrate that appropriate steps have been taken to eliminate or minimize future
flood losses, the city must receive credit for the following CRS Activities:
a. Activity 430 – Higher Regulatory Standards. Boulder must show that it enforces higher
regulatory standards to manage new development in the floodplain.
i. Receive a minimum of 100 points for Freeboard. Boulder received 168.75
points in 2015. This criterion has been met.
ii. Receive a minimum of 700 points for the remaining sections of Activity 430 -
Higher Regulatory Standards and sections a, e, and f under Activity 420 - Open
Space Preservation. Boulder received 199 points for the remaining sections in
Activity 430 in 2015.
Activity 420 - Open Space Preservation
a. Open Space Preserved. Boulder received 348 points in 2015.
e. Open Space Incentives. Boulder did not apply for credit in 2015.
f. Low Density Zone. Boulder did not apply for credit in 2015.
Boulder received a total of 547 points for these activities in 2015. An
additional 153 points must be obtained. This criterion has not been met.
b. Activity 450 – Stormwater Management. Boulder must receive the following credits
for its watershed management plans.
i. A minimum of 90 points for the Watershed Master Plan. Boulder did submit
the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study for review in 2015, but did
not receive any credit. To date no local community has obtained credit under
this activity under the 2013 manual. Public Works staff participate in the CRS
Committee with other local jurisdictions and continue to work toward gaining
a better understanding of the minimum requirements to receive this credit. In
addition, staff is working to prepare language for inclusion in future Watershed
Master Plans and will provide this language to the Insurance Services Office
(ISO) for review prior to our next cycle verification. This criterion has not
been met.
ii. A minimum of 30 points for managing the runoff from all storms up to and
including the 100-year event. Boulder did submit the South Boulder Creek
Flood Mitigation Study for review in 2015, but did not receive any credit. This
criterion has not been met.
iii. A minimum ratio of 0.5 for the area covered by a credited Watershed Master
Plan over the area of all watersheds affecting the community. The calculated
ratio for the 2015 submittal was 0.64. This criterion has been met. However,
this activity only applies if Watershed Master Plan credit is received.
c. Activity 510 – Floodplain Management Planning. Boulder must adopt and implement
a floodplain management plan that received a minimum of 50 percent of the maximum
credit available, 191 points. The credit must include a minimum of 50 percent of the
available points in each of the following planning steps.
Step 2 – Involve the public. Boulder received 41 of the available 120 points
for the 2012 Multi Hazard Mitigation plan in 2015. However, staff believes
that additional documentation in the future will demonstrate that Boulder is
able to meet this requirement. This criterion has not been met.
Step 5 – Asses the problem. Boulder received 47 of the available 52 points
for the 2012 Multi Hazard Mitigation plan in 2015. This criterion has been
met.
Step 8 – Draft an action plan. Boulder received 50 of the available 60 points
for the 2012 Multi Hazard Mitigation plan in 2015. This criterion has been
met.
Boulder received a total of 233 points for the Floodplain Management Planning activity
in 2015. This criterion has been met. However, this activity only applies if 50 percent
of the available points are received for Step 2 – Involve the public.
4. To demonstrate that Boulder is protecting natural floodplain functions, the city must receive a
minimum of 100 points from one or more of the following elements:
a. Activity 420 - Natural Functions Open Space. Section 9-3-9 of the Boulder
Revised Code, 1981 - Stream, Wetland, & Water Body Protection was submitted
in 2015, but did not receive any credit.
b. Activity 420 - Natural Shoreline Protection. Boulder did not apply for credit in
2015.
c. Activity 430 – Prohibition of Fill. Boulder did not apply for credit in 2015.
d. Activity 440 - Mapped Natural Floodplain Function Areas. Boulder received 14
points, the maximum credit points available for this element in 2015.
e. Activity 450 - Stormwater Management Regulations Design Storm. Boulder
received 200.7 points in 2015.
f. Activity 450 - Stormwater Management Regulations Low Impact Development.
Boulder did not apply for credit in 2015.
g. Activity 450 - Watershed Management Plan. Boulder submitted the South Boulder
Creek Flood Mitigation Study for review in 2015. No credit was received because
the Plan did not address future conditions hydrology and focused on solutions to
existing flood issues along the creek.
h. Activity 450 – Erosion and Sediment Control. Boulder received the uniform
minimum credit available for all Colorado communities of 10 points in 2015.
i. Activity 450 – Water Quality. Boulder received 20 points in 2015.
j. Activity 510 – Natural Floodplain Functions Plan. Boulder did not request credit
for this element in 2015.
Boulder received a total of 245 points. This criterion has been met.
5. To document additional life safety measures, Boulder must receive credit for the following
measures:
a. Activity 610 - Flood Warning and Response. Boulder received 222 points in 2015.
This criterion has been met.
b. Activity 620 – Levees. Have a map of all levees and all areas protected by levees,
and an inventory of buildings and critical facilities that would be flooded if the
levees were overtopped. The National Flood Hazard Layer shows that Boulder has
7 levees. An inventory of all the buildings and critical facilities affected if a levee
overtopped would also be necessary. Boulder did not apply for credit in 2015. This
criterion has not been met.
c. Activity 630 – Dams. Have a description of the dam failure threat, including a map
of all areas that would be flooded by the failure of each high-hazard-potential dam
that affects the community, and an inventory of the buildings and critical facilities
that would be flooded. The High Hazard Dam descriptions and inundation maps
for Gross and Barker dams were submitted in 2015. An inventory of affected
buildings was not submitted. Boulder received 45 points. This criterion has not
been met.
CONCLUSION:
A review of the results of the 2015 CRS cycle verification has demonstrated that the City of
Boulder has the potential to achieve a class 4 rating. There are a number of possible alternatives
for the obtaining the additional 313 points necessary. The greatest obstacle to an improved rating
is understanding the criteria required to receive credit under Activity 450 - Watershed Master
Plan. As indicated in Section 3.b.i. above, Public Works staff are working with other local
jurisdictions and the ISO and hope to learn more about this activity prior to the city’s next cycle
verification.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff intends to pursue a Class 4 community rating by focusing on the prerequisite requirements
and maximizing the credit received for the activities that the city is currently completing.
Revisions to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 may be necessary in order to obtain additional
credit under Activity 430 -Higher Regulatory Standards. Public Works staff will need to contract
with a consultant to prepare the inundation mapping required to receive credit under Activities
620 – Levees and 630 – Dams. Additional capital expenditures are not anticipated to be required
in order to pursue a Class 4 community rating at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Community Rating System Verification Report – October 27th, 2015
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20472
November 9, 2016
Ms. Jane S. Brautigam
City Manager, City of Boulder
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
Dear Ms. Brautigam:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the results of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) field verification findings based on your 3-year cycle
application. I am pleased to inform you the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), has
determined that your community will retain its current rating as a CRS Class 5 community in the NFIP
CRS.
The floodplain management activities implemented by your community will continue to qualify flood
insurance policy holders in your community for a 25 percent discount in the premium costs for NFIP
policies issued or renewed in Special Flood Hazard Areas. I am enclosing the field verification report
based on your 3-year cycle application for your records. This savings is a tangible result of the flood
mitigation activities your community implements to protect lives and reduce property damage.
Please note that Preferred Risk Policies, applicable in Zones B, C, and X on your community's NFIP
Flood Insurance Rate Map, are not eligible for the CRS discount. Standard rated flood insurance
policies in Zones B, C, X, D, AR, and A99 are limited to a CRS discount of 10 percent in CRS Class 1–
6 communities and 5 percent in CRS Class 7–9 communities. The rates for these zones already reflect
significant premium reductions.
If your community remains in compliance with NFIP floodplain management regulations actions, the
CRS rating for your community will automatically be renewed annually and a notification letter will not
be sent to your community. This renewal will occur as long as your community continues to implement
the CRS activities you certify each October. If no additional modifications or new CRS activities are
added, the next verification visit for your community will be in accordance with its established 3-year
cycle for Class 5 or better communities. FEMA will periodically send the NFIP/CRS Update newsletter
and other notices to your CRS Coordinator.
I commend you on your community’s actions and your determination to lead your community to be
more disaster resistant. This commitment enhances public safety, protects property, preserves the
natural functions of floodplains, and reduces flood insurance premiums.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the FEMA Region VIII Office,
CRS Coordinator, Matt Buddie, by telephone at (303) 235 - 4730.
Sincerely,
William H. Lesser
CRS Program Coordinator
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
Enclosure
cc: Edward Stafford, P.E., Development Review Manager
Attachment A - Community Rating System Verification Report – October 27th, 2015
COMMUNITY
RATING
SYSTEM
VERIFICATION
REPORT
City of Boulder, CO Verified Class 5
NFIP Number: 080024 Cycle
Date of Verification Visit: October 27, 2015
This Verification Report is provided to explain the recommendations of Insurance
Services Office, Inc. (ISO) to DHS/FEMA concerning credits under the Community
Rating System (CRS) for the above named community.
A total of 2687 credit points are verified which results in a recommendation that the
community remain classified as a CRS Class 5. The community has met the Class 6
prerequisite with a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS)
Classification of 3/3. The following is a summary of our findings with the total CRS
credit points for each activity listed in parenthesis:
Activity 310 – Elevation Certificates: The Planning and Development Services
department maintains elevation certificates for new and substantially improved
buildings. Copies of elevation certificates are made available upon request. (28 points)
Activity 320 – Map Information Service: Credit is provided for furnishing inquirers with
basic flood zone information from the community’s latest Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). Credit is also provided for the community furnishing additional FIRM
information, problems not shown on the FIRM, historical flood information, and natural
floodplain functions. The service is publicized annually and records are maintained.
(90 points)
Activity 330 – Outreach Projects: Credit is provided for outreach projects, such as
flood brochures mailed annually to all residents through the utility bill, flood information
through handouts at city offices, high water markers, door hangers, flood safety booths,
and targeted outreach projects that include a brochure to floodplain residents. These
projects are disseminated annually. (169 points)
Activity 340 – Hazard Disclosure: Credit is provided for state and community
regulations requiring disclosure of flood hazards. (25 points)
Activity 350 – Flood Protection Information: Documents relating to floodplain
management are available in the reference section of the Boulder Pubic Library. Credit
is also provided for floodplain information displayed on the community’s website.
(76 points)
Attachment A - Community Rating System Verification Report – October 27th, 2015
City of Boulder, CO Page 2
NFIP #: 080024
Activity 410 – Floodplain Mapping: Credit is provided for conducting and adopting
flood studies for areas not included on the FIRMs and that exceed minimum mapping
standards. Credit is also provided for a cooperating technical partnership agreement
with FEMA. (284 points)
Activity 420 – Open Space Preservation: Credit is provided for preserving
approximately 24 percent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as open space and
protecting open space with deed restrictions. (372 points)
Activity 430 – Higher Regulatory Standards: Credit is provided for enforcing
regulations that require development limitations, freeboard for new and substantial
improvement construction, cumulative substantial improvement, protection of critical
facilities, and local drainage protection. Credit is also provided for the enforcement of
building codes, a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS)
Classification of 3/3, other higher standards, state mandated regulatory standards, and
regulations administration. (318 points)
Activity 440 – Flood Data Maintenance: Credit is provided for maintaining and using
digitized maps in the day to day management of the floodplain. Credit is also provided
for establishing and maintaining a system of benchmarks and maintaining copies of all
previous FIRMs and Flood Insurance Study Reports. (170 points)
Activity 450 – Stormwater Management: The community enforces regulations for
stormwater management, soil and erosion control, and water quality. (247 points)
Section 502 - Repetitive Loss Category: Based on the updates made to the NFIP
Report of Repetitive Losses as of July 22, 2015, the City of Boulder has 5 repetitive loss
properties and is a Category B community for CRS purposes. All requirements for a
Category B community have been met. (No credit points are applicable to this section)
Activity 510 – Floodplain Management Planning: Credit is provided for the adoption
and implementation of the City of Boulder Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Comprehensive
Update, adopted on April 2, 2013. A progress report must be submitted on an annual
basis. An update to the credited plan will be due by October 1, 2018. (233 points)
Activity 520 – Acquisition and Relocation: Credit is provided for acquiring 21
buildings from the community’s regulatory floodplain. (63 points)
Activity 540 – Drainage System Maintenance: All of the community’s drainage
system is inspected regularly throughout the year and maintenance is performed as
needed. Credit is also provided for listing problem sites that are inspected more
frequently. The community enforces a regulation prohibiting dumping in the drainage
system, and has appropriate signs posted. (345 points)
Attachment A - Community Rating System Verification Report – October 27th, 2015
City of Boulder, CO Page 3
NFIP #: 080024
Activity 610 – Flood Warning and Response: Credit is provided for a program that
provides timely identification of impending flood threats, disseminates warnings to
appropriate floodplain residents, and coordinates flood response activities. Credit is
also provided for the designation as a Storm Ready Community by the National
Weather Service. (222 points)
Activity 630 – Dams: Credit is provided for a State Dam Safety Program. (45 points)
Activity 710 – County Growth Adjustment: All credit in the 400 series is multiplied by
the growth rate of the county to account for growth pressures. The growth rate for
Boulder County, CO is 1.07.
Attached is the Community Calculations Worksheet that lists the verified credit points for
the Community Rating System.
CEO Name / Address:CRS Coordinator Name / Address:
Jane S. Brautigam Edward Stafford, P.E.
City Manager Development Review Manager
1777 Broadway 1739 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado 80302 Boulder, Colorado 80302
303-441-3200
Date Report Prepared: May 9, 2016
Attachment A - Community Rating System Verification Report – October 27th, 2015
Community :Boulder, City of, CO NFIP Number :080024
720 COMMUNITY CREDIT CALCULATIONS (Cycle):
CALCULATION SECTION :
Verified Activity Calculations: Credit
c310 28 28
c320 90 90
c330 169 169
c340 25 25
c350 76 76
c360
c370
c410 265 x CGA 1.07 =284
c420 348 x CGA 1.07 =372
c430 297 x CGA 1.07 =318
c440 159 x CGA 1.07 =170
c450 231 x CGA 1.07 =247
c510 233 233
c520 63 63
c530
c540 345 345
c610 222 222
c620
c630 45 45
Community Classification Calculation:
cT = total of above cT =2687
Community Classification (from Table 110-1):Class =5
CEO Name/Address:CRS Coordinator Name/Address:
Jane S. Brautigam Edward Stafford, P.E.
City Manager Development Review Manager
1777 Broadway 1739 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado 80302 Boulder, Colorado 80302
303-441-3200
Date Report Prepared: May 9, 2016
AW-720
Attachment A - Community Rating System Verification Report – October 27th, 2015