HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Parks and Recreation Drought PlanDO NOT REMOVE -
PRAB F~le Matenal
,~-• CITYOF BOULDER
~ PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE:
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: U21/03)
AGENDA TITLE: Parks and Recreation Drought Plan
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreadon
Kate Bernhardt, Acting Superintendent, Parks Planning and Development
Maureen Spitzer, Landscape Designer
FISCAL IMPACT: None
PURPOSE: The fust three sections of the Parks and Recreation Drought Plan (see
attactunent A) aze provided at tlus ume for the Boazd's informatron. In developing tlus plan, it
was recogmzed that there is a need to address a broad spectrum of issues related to drought
`' conditrons. However, ttus document is not mtended to duplicate information addressed in the
City of Boulder Drought Plan (prepared by the Pubhc Works Department and mcluded in ttus
document as Appendix A-2).
The Parks and Recreation Drought Plan is organized into the followmg sectrons:
• Overview
• Facility Status Report
• Water Allocation Plan
• Recovery Plan
• Pazk Maintenance Standazds and Landscape Design
BACKGROUND: In response to extraordinary drought conditrons m 2002, City Council
instatuted a"trme-controlled" water restnction program. In non-drought yeazs, the Department
manages irriganon systems at 75% of hortrcultural standazds for landscaped pazk azeas Dunng
the 2002 drought, pazk properties received less than half the water they would have received m a
non-droughtyear
ANALYSIS: The second section of this report, tided `Facility Status Report', provides detailed
informat~on on the conditron of Pazks and Recreauon lands and facilitres based on an evaluadon
conducted m fall of 2002. Ttus infortnataon and analysis will be of use to parks and recreation
,.~ staff workuig with drought issues and may be of interest to those individuals desinng more
~,~ detazled knowledge of the affect of the 2002 drought.
AGENDA ITEM # VII-A : PAGE 1
PUBLIC CObiNIENT AND PROCESS: ~""`~
• The Parks and Recreation Department has been a participant in ongoing public awareness 3nd "`"'
drought educat~on meehngs hosted by the City of Boulder.
• Parks and Recreation hosted a public meetmg m June 2002 on the affects of the drought on
Pleasant View soccer fields.
• This item is bemg heard at Uus public meeung as advertised m the Dady Caznera.
STAFF RECOMbIENDATION:
The third secuon of this report, 6fled `Water Alloca6on Plan', provides recommended pnontres
for use of imgauon water in 2003.
ATTACHNIENTS:
A. Parks and Recreahon Drought Plan
.~.+'
e"*+,
AGENDA ITEM # Y'II-A : PAGE 2
Attachment A
~,°~
`~
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
PARKS & RECREATION DROUGHT PLAN
DRAFT
January 21, 2003
~
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
~
~...-
DRAFI' - C~ry of Bwlder
Parks & Rureatlon Drought Plan
January 2l, 2003
Page 1
~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
~.~
OVERVIEW ........ .. . .. . ... . ........... ................. ........ .................................~
3
Background .. .. ... .. .. ..... ..... ..... .. .. ..... .. ............. ..... ...... ... ..... .. ......... ...... ..
4
2002 water supply and drought mformauon .. .. ...... ............. ................. ...... .. ......
Pazks & Recreadon Drought Plan goals . . . 4
FACILITY STATUS REPORT .... ..... ..... .. .. .. ... ... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ...... ..... ... .. . 5
Health Status of Park Turf .. .. .. . .. . .. . ...... ... .. . ... .. ... ...... ..... ..... ... . .. . .. 5
Background . .. .... ..... ... .... ......... ........... ..... ..... ...... ..... ............ ....5
Facihties .. .. . . .. .. .... . .. .. .. . .... ..... ...... ...... . ... . ... ... .. ..... ... .. .. ...... . .5
Evaluation procedure .... ..... ..... ..... .... ...... .. ... .. ... .. .. . .. ... ...... .. ... ..... ... .. ... .6
Health status evaluahon results .. ... ..... .. ... ............... .... .. ...... .... .. ... ... ... ......... ..6
General observations for the 15 sites evaluated .... ...... .. .. .... ... ....... ....... ...... .. ..... 7
Health Status of Park Trees . ..... ..... .... .... ...... ..... .. ... .. ............ ... .. ... . ... ...... .8
8
. . . ... ...... ..... ..
... .
Overview ... ....... .. .. .... ..... .. .. ..
.
. . ..... .. . .. .. .. . . .. 8
Tree watenng .... .. ... . .. .. ... .. .. . .... ...... ...... ..... .... . ...... .... ....... ...... ... ..... ..
8
Pazk tree inventory totals .. . .. .. ..... .... ..... .. ... .. ... .. ...... .... ....... ... ..... .. .. .....
Potable water source/small sized trees . .. .. . ...... ..... . ... . .... ... ...... ... .. ... ..... ....8
Drtch source method/medmm sized trees ..... ...... .. .. .... . ...... .... .. ... ... .. ... . ... ..9
9
Tree watenng day/all stressed uees .. .. ..... ..... ... .. ..... .. ... ....... ... ...... ... .. ... .. ...
'"'~~ ~~
General observataons ttuoughout the summer ... ....... ..... . ..... .... ....... ...... ...... .
.•••
`"` 10
Tree health status assessment results ... .... .. ...... ..... ....... ...... .... ...... .. ........... ......
11
Pazk site uee analysis . .. . . . .. . ..... ..... . .... ...... .. . .... .... ....... ....... ..... .. .. ..
Environmental Resources Drought Response .. ...... ...... ... .. ...... .... ....... ... . .. .....12
Pleasant View Sports Complex . . .. . .... .. .. . ............. ..... ...... ... .. ... ..... .........13
. . ... .. ..... .. ...... ...... ..... ...... ........ .. .. .... .. .. ... . 1
Background ..:. . .......... .
Fmdmgs as of January 16, 2003 .. ..... ........ ..... ....... .. ............. .................. ..... .....15
Status Report and Recommendations on Scott Carpenter Pool ... .... .. ...... .. .. ..... 16
Background . .. . .. . ... . . ... .. ..... ..... ......... ............ . ........ .... ...... ... .. ..... ..16
Pool water use ... . . .. . . . . .. .. .. ..... .. ...... .. ....... ... ...... .. .... ....... ...... ...... ... 16
2002 pool status ..... ... ... .. .. .. ...... . ..... ..... . ... .. ... .. ..... ....... ... ... ...... ... .......16
Recommendahons ..... .. .. .. .. . .. . ..... .. ..... .. ... . .. ... ..... ..... . .... ...... ...... ......17
WATER ALLOCATION PLAN .. ........ ..... ...... .. ...... ...... ..... .. . .. ..... ... .. ...... ...18
18
Drought Stage Alert I - Moderate Drought ... ...... ... ...... ... .. ....... ... .. ...... ..... .....
18
Drought Stage Alert II - Serious Drought .. . ..... .......... ..... ...... .... .. ...... ...... ..... ...
19
Programmed pnmazy athletic fields ..... ..... .. ...... ..... .. .. .. ... ....... ...... ..... .. . .
Trees, stuvbs and other pnonty landscapes ............................ ... ... .. . .. .. . .. . . 19
~ Ma~or pazk azeas, flower beds, satellite fields and Peazl Street Mall ............... ..... .. 19
DRAFT - C~ty of Boulder
Pazks & Recresnon DrougM Plan
January 2I. 2003
Page 2
Neighborhood Pazks, Pocket Pazks and other azeas .. .. .. ...... ... ..... .. . .. . .. .. . 19
Drought Stage Alert III - Severe Drought .. . . .. .. ..... .. . .... .... .. . .. .. .. .. .20
Prograauned athleac fields ....... ... ....... .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. . . .. . .... ... . ..... .. ..20
Newly planted landscapes or landscapes showmg signs of stress .. ...... .. ...... .. ... . 20
Ma~or park areas and Pearl Street Mall .. .. ... .. .. ... . .. .. .. . .. ...... .. .. ..... . .20
Neighborhood Pazks, Pocket Pazks and other azeas .. .. . .. .. . ...... .... ..... ..... . 20
Drought Stage Alert IV - Extreme Drought .. .. . .... .. .. .. .. . . .. .. ... .. . .. . ....20
RECOVERY PLAN
Ttus future section will prov~de recommendations for healmg the damage caused by the
cuneni drought. Inihal formauon of these recommendauons wfll begin m Spnng 2003 and
can be implemented when the drought has reduced to Stage Alert I
PARK MAINTENANCE STANDARDS and LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Tlus future secaon will provide recommendations for ongomg water conservation goals and
efforts to "drought proof' the system
APPENDICES
A. Drought Information (provided by the City of Boulder Public Works
Department/Utilities Division)
A-1. Water for Boulder's Future
A-2 City of Boulder Drought Plan (Volume 1)
A-3 City of Boulder Water Use by Customer Category
B. Criteria Used to Evaluate Park Turf
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 East Boulder Commumry Park - Imgated Turf Status
Figure 2. Footlulls Commumty Park - Imgated Turf Status
Figure 3. Greenleaf Pazk - Imgated Turf Status
Figure 4 Hazlow Platts Commumty Pazk - Imgated Turf Status
Figure 5. Scott Carpenter Pazk and Ball field - Imgated Turf Status
Figure 6 Health Status Report of Pazk Turf for 15 sample sites
Figure 7 Photos of Trees showmg wilhng, curling and scorclvng
Figure 8. Report from "Soil Honzons" on condiuon of Pleasant View fields
Figure 9 Pleasant View Fields - Imga[ton with reallocated water
Figure 10 Pleasant View Fields Photographs
,•~~,
~
~
,""~
DRAFT - C~ty of Boulder
Parks & Recreanon Drough[ Plan
lanuary 21. 2003
Page 3
~„ OVERVIEW
~,..
Back¢round
Although the seventy of the 2002 drought has remforced Cuy Council's emphasis on water
conservahon, the implementation of water conservauon measures is not new to Boulder In
1990, City Council conceptually approved the implementation of a water conservahon program
as recommended m the "Treated Water Master Plan" A ma~or thrust belund Council's decision
to adopt ttus program was to defer the costs of expandmg the Boulder Reservoir Water
Treatment Plant. The program consisted of
• Public awareness and mformation campazgn
• Water conservahon ordinance and development recommendaUOns
• Techmcal assistance program
• Mumcipal water conservahon
• Water conservaUOn rate structure/metenng
• Tesung and calibrauon
• Water conservauon reseazch and data development
One component of the plan approved by Council m 1992 wluch predoixunately impacts Parks
and RecreaUOn and Transportation Departments, is the Mumcipal Water Conservation Program.
The program was designed to mventory and reduce the amount of water used for imgation
,~ purposes. Only treated potable City water was tazgeted far reduction by tkus program, not ditch
.,,_ or other water used for unganon purposes. (F1at~rons Golf Course and Watson Pazk aze imgated
with dttch water, as well as poruons of Foottulls Commumty Park and Valmont Pazk. The
developed south shore of Boulder Reservoir is imgated from Left Hand water, wtuch the City
pays to use.)
The Program developed a method for equ~tably deternumng the fixed amount of water that each
city department should reasonably use m an imgahon season. Each department would be
expected to pay Block 2 rates for excessive water use above the allocarion The water allocation
method used under this program takes the number of gallons per squaze foot that Kentucky
bluegrass turf uses m a 20-week season (esumated to be 18 gallons) multiphed by the number of
landscaped square feet the department ungates. There were no adjustments to the allocation
base made for new landscapmg versus estabhshed turf, nor ad~ustments for turf soil type (e.g
Pleasant View sand based soccer fields) The water allocahon for each department was
gradually reduced from 100% m 1992 to 75% allocauon levels m 1996 (to encourage
documented conservation of water use through mazntenance practices). In 2001, a non-drought
year, Pazks and Recreahon met and exceeded the tazgeted 75% allocation level.
In May 2002, City Council mstituted a mandatory "t~me-controlled" water restnchon program.
As of November 2002, these water restnctions have resulted m less than half of the 75%
allocation bemg used to imgate pazk propemes.
~
`~...
DRAFT - C~ry of Boulder
Pazks & Recteanon Drou~t Plan
lanuary 21, 2003
Page 4
~.
2002 water sunnlv and drouaht information ~
Any mformed conversauon about Pazks and Recreahon use of water dunng either drought or
non-drought condiuons must be based on a thorough understandmg of the City of Boulder's
capacity to provide water. Please refer to Appendix A-1 (Water for Boulder's Future) and A-2
(City of Boulder Drought Plan Volume 1) provided by the City of Boulder Public Works
DepartmenU[Jtihries Division
A response to frequendy asked quesUOns about the drought and water restnctions is prov~ded by
the Publ~c Works Department at the website: www.boulderdroueht.net.
Parks and Recreation Drouaht Plan aoals
The followmg goals support the preservation of public park landscape assets and restoratton of
drought related damage All design recommendanons will honor and mcorporate City of
Boulder adopted sustaznabihty goals and standazds.
• Prionhze assets and develop a water allocahon pnonty plan for future years
• Opnr.•.~ze ;.he use cf ditch water to reduce use of mumcipal water ~
• Systematically upgrade imgation systems to maacimize water use efficiency
• Develop a landscape desygn ptulosophy that incorporates zones of low water use
• Incorporate the recommendations of the Pazks and Recreauon Drought Plan mto the
Pazks and Recreahon Master Plan
• Commumcate with staff, boazds, elected officials and public regazding drought related ~
issues that affect Pazks and Recreahon
In addition to these goals, City of Boulder ordinances, standazds and pohc~es that apply to Pazks
and Recreanon pro~ects and mamtenance regimes, mciude:
• City of Boulder Design and ConstrucUon Standazds
• Title 9 Land Use Regulation
• City of Boulder Greenways Design Guidehnes and Master Plan
• Wedands Protection Program Best Management Prachce Re-vegetahon Rules
• Landscape Requ~rements for Streetscapes, Parlung Lots and All Other Developments
• C~ty of Boulder Integrated Pest Management Pohcy
• Histonc Preservahon Distnct Documents
~•*-
DRAFf - Gty of Boulder
Pazks & Recreshon Drough[ Plan
January 21. 2003
Page 5
~°°°
~
FACILITY STATUS REPORT
HEALTH STATUS OF PARK TURF
Backaround
According to horticultural standards, the amount of imgahon needed to maintazn bluegrass sod is
1.5 mches per week (wtuch converts to 18 gallons/squaze foot/season). The 1 5 mches per week
requuement is based on a very broad average for lazge turf azeas. The water conservataon plan
that was approved by Crty Council m 1992 gradually reduced the 100% allocat~on of 1.5 mches
per week to a 75% allocauon of 1125 mches per week. In 2001, a non-drought yeaz, bluegrass
sod was watered 1 125 mches per week, or shghfly less, and was mazntained m acceptable
condiuon. The water restncnons imposed in response to the 2002 drought reduced the actual
amount of irrigauon that bluegrass sod recerved to 25 -.33 mches per week.
Pazk Operanons and Recreation staff did an assessment of 15 city pazks and athleuc fields m
September 20A2 rn ~1etPrm,nr_ the !mpact of ttus extreme reduction m the amount of water
apphed to pazk turf. Sites were chosen based on several cntena to provide good representahon
of watenng regimes, soil condidons, size and usage, and older parks versus newly developed
pazks. The water allocated for three sites (Hazlow Platts, North Boulder Pazk, and Scott
Carpenter Pazk) was reduced and diverted to athlenc fields. Two of the athleuc fields surveyed
(Stazio and East Mapleton) received supplemental water from these diversions.
It is important to note that tlus evaluation is a one nme "snapshot" of the condiuon of the
parks/athleric facihhes m September 2002. In some cases the cooler weather and precipitauon
we received tlus fall has improved the condit~on of these azeas.
Facilities
The Pazks and Recreation Department manages approximately 1,882 acres of land and two
outdoor pacls. Par.k sites :a:l mtc the followmg classificat~ons
Classificauon
Crty Pazk
Commumty Pazk
Neighborhood Park
Pocket Pazk
Natural Areas/Other
Athleuc Complex
Pubhc Pools
Size Ranee Acres
100 + acres 323
50-100 acres 173
6-50 acres 266
< 5 acres 72
Vanes 962
Varies g6
2 outdoor NA
Note• City Parks are Valmont and Area 3 Natural Areas/Other include Flatirons Golf Course
and Boulder Reservo~r Regeonal Park
~
DRAET - C~ty of Boulder
Pazks & Recreaaon Dmught Plan
January 21, 2003
Page C7
Evaluation nrocedure
Refer to Appendix B(Cntena Used to Evaluate Pazk Tur~ for cntena used m evaluaUng Pazk
Turf. Trees were evaluated by a sepazate mventory and reportmg method. The turf areas rated
as excellent, satisfactory or unsahsfactory were then drawn on the aenal photos and digitized.
The turf azeas were then compared to the total pazk acres and total imgated acres for the 15 sites
evaluated. Totals for the 15 sites are as follows
Descnphon Total Pazk System 15 S~te Samole
Total Acres 1882 281
Imgated Acres 307 131
Unsatisfactory Turf Acres NA 70
Sat~sfactory Turf Acres NA 61
The sample (15 sites) represents 15% of the total pazk acres in the system and 43% of the total
ungated acres m the system. The sites sampled had somewhat less satisfactory turf (61 acres)
than unsatisfactory turf (70 acres). Refer to Figure 6(Health Status Report of Park Turf for 15
S3IRp~~ S:!P5~ f0: ^:.^.:~ :^.f.^.:f.:?...C:S
~~
Health status evaluation results
Plans illusuatmg the condihon of pazk turf were generated for 5 of the 15 pazk sites/athlehc
fields that were evaluated These plans can be seen as Figures 1- 5 These five srtes were East
Boulder Commumty Pazk, Foothills Commumty Pazk, Greenleaf Pazk, Hazlow Platts ~
Commumty Pazk and Scott Carpenter Park. The followmg wmments aze specific to these sites ~
East Boulder Community Park (Figure 1)
Tlus is a nud-age park that receives very heavy use m the soccer fields and moderate use around
the RecreaUon Centec The Recreation Center azea imgarion and associated turf are rated as
sahsfactory. The soccer field imgation is rated as excellent and the turf is rated as unsatisfactory
(tlus is a good example of the combmahon of very little water and heavy use resulung m poor
turf couditionj Tl~c area au~ae,ent lo the lake has goose damage m addition to foot traffic.
Foothills Community Park (Figure 2)
Tlus is a new park with an excellent imgat~on system. The park receives some moderate use,
with mostly high use throughout the muln-use sports turf azea and moderate to lugh use m the
northeast corner of the pazk, which is programmed heavily by sports camp groups Most of the
tmgated turf at tlvs s~te was rated as satisfactory
Greenleaf Park (Figure 3)
Th~s is a new park with a sausfactory imgat~on system However, the combmahon of extremely
poor soils and heavy use m the open play field have resulted m unsausfactory turf In the south
part of the park where foot traffic is moderate the turf was rated as sahsfactory.
Harlow Platts Community Park (Figure 4)
Tlus is an older pazk that receives very heavy use tn the soccer fields acid disc golf course azeas.
Areas azound Viele Lake suffer from goose damage. The soils aze poor and the imgauon system ^+
DRAFf -City of Boulder
Parks & Recreanon Drought Plan
January 21. 2003
Page 7
~
was rated as unsatrsfactory The majonty of the turf m tlus park was rated as unsatisfactory
However, azeas of turf wluch received aummal foot traffic ad~acent to the RecreaUon Center and
at the south end of the pazk were rated as sarisfactory.
Scott Carpenter Park/Ball tield (Figure 5)
This is an older park that receives very heavy use. A pomon of the water allocation for the pazk
was diverted to other uses so the park received even less than 25 -.33 mches of water per week.
The ball field azea water was not diverted The imgahon system was rated as sat~sfactory. The
soils aze very poor as much of the park is built over an old landfill. Virtually all of the turf m
tlus park was rated as unsahsfactory
General observations for the 15 sites evaluated
Shghtly more than one-half of the bluegrass turf evaluated was m unsaasfactory
condiAon. Although there is no benchmark evaluahon of a non-drought year, the general
observation is that the health of the turf has shown mazked detenorahon as a result of the
drought (i`3ote. E~zm m ~on-drought yeazs heavily used turf azeas will show some
detenoranon by September ) In particular, the combmation of heavy foot traffic and
extremely low levels of imgation have caused almost complete eradication of some turf
azeas.
• Staff has observed that bluegrass sod has shown surpnsmg resihency m drought
.- condirions Based on prehnunary assessment m September 2002, the bluegrass turf
responded better than other imgated turf types (notably turf type fescue). Bluegrass turf
~ on some sites wtuch were completely brown or tan (classified as unsahsfactory m late
summer) appeaz to have parhally revrved m response to the cooler weather and natural
precipitahon received en Fa112002 Overall the bluegrass turf m low to moderate use
azeas that received some shade was m sansfactory to good conditron despite the extreme
droughtconditrons.
• Bluegrass turf is srill the mdustry standazd for act~ve use turf azeas. The Northern
Colorado V~Vater Conservancy Distnct and others witlun the mdustry (who aze actively
reseazchmg alternatrve turf options) contmue to mazntam that bluegrass turf is the best
avazlable turf for achve use cond~uons
• There is a strong correlation between the condition of park ~mgation systems and the
conditron of the turf About one-quarter of the imgat~on systems evaluated were m
unsatisfactory condition.
• Turf on steep slopes was generally m unsausfactory condiUOn
• The athletic facilihes that aze restncted to team play (con[rolled public access by fencmg
and locked gates) and received supplemental water were generally m sahsfactory
condition Even with supplemental water there were some areas of poor turf condiuon.
,r~"~
va..
,~ ~ ;~,:
2002 Drought Situation
.~ast Boulder Communitv Park
Year 2000 Reference Photo
. . . r-- ~, r. . ~
l F
5
~
~ ~ ~ . i, ~' ~ .
t ~
~ ~ . . .. . _ ,
m~,.~: -'
_
u
,~, ~ ,.
~ ~ ~~
; ~ r ~~ ~;~, ~E
, *
~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ g~ Y #~.
~~ . f m ?".~~~~~..
ar ~ . .. ., ~..~.,..~.. :
.
e
f
`
_
- ~ri / ~ ._ yl y~i
~I a ~
~~ ~ , , ~ ~
r
, "~
.
~,stwz'1bm!
1G
~4~E a '
' '
;
~ ~. a„~ a ~a ',, f i'~.
r
~ ~
~'
~ ~
_ ~ K 1 i f
~ ~
7 `4 rf~ s
~ ` ~ ~ ~, F~
~~
p~~
' . , . .
" ' '
r
A
•
~ ,
~
~ :4`3 a~ }
..
~.
~a"Rk
~k n
~ ~
.
,
'°+ -~
y~
~
a~ % a- ~ ~'
~
w
' t
, ~
:
'
'
~~ ~
,~
„
:
M~-
- '-
~
'
~
. _ 1~~~, ~ ~T
~ ~.a ~ ~
~ i~ 1.7'
~~ . ~
. , . . e
a`
..'.,^ ~' ;
{ ~
`
~
#~
,~
~
~ .',~y +
z~ .y~~,
~' ,a
,~.,E~ r
`
~~.'
..."~eo:~°` r ~'SyM'yif4~~~{T 'k, ~ ~„S„~~ :;yE+r°'t.
"W,`.r~'^~t-' Y~ ~
~~'
~
~~~
~
r
~
'r .._ .
~ •~il~~ ~l ~2
~
'~
'j
;}'., - ? S,' A_
.. ,
.
{~
;,s~,. k
~~ ~:~'+'~
..?!a._ ~ .~G.~.'
~jil~-'., .;.~`~'.A~'-~~
~ ~ ~'~ . .~' .,~ ~ ~ ~ `'~ Total Park Acres = 52.8
~ ~ ,: ~;; ._ ; ~ ~ . .
~,_; ,~:s ,~ y ~~~~ ~: Irrigated Acres = 10.9
: ~. ` ' ~ Irrigated Acres Rated
~~,
~ .~ ~~ ~•, -
~~4,~ ;;~... "~ . ~,~; ,~,r;, asUnsatisfactory - S.5
~ . , . '~:'`' ~, - ,~_ .-~
w.y~,~{¢, ~~;
~tn. xL,,. r.A,~ . ~ . .`. ~ . . '~ r~• ~°'M~ ~
~ ~ ~.: I~~
n -: -
Le~end
Irrigated Turf Status
~ Satisfactory
~ Unsatisfactory
ber 2002
Assessment
~~
~
~
R~
~li
~ ' /
' '".
~~
~ r,.iE o,,.,
_ ~ ': S ,r~
~ ,,
. c
.
. ` ~ ,n .~ JQ
. ~..~:`~~ }V( ~n
G
ti
~ ~
~
~ '~' `~.~
~
uG~
~
-,
~
N
~
2002 Drought Situation
Greenleaf Park
Year 2000 Reference
::~~
~
~
~ ~~,,,,,.~:,w .. ~
.~~~"-' :+i:'~ " .
.
Total Park Acres = 1.5
Irrigated Acres = 1.2
Irrigated Acres rated as
Unsatisfactory = 0.5
Legend
Irrigated Turf Status
- Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
2002
~
~
s ~ ~~~
'~t >
~
~
-+ x
.~ + :~
.
` s
. r
~.
_~
#
~ ,~
~~~ ~
A
AL
~t
~ ~
~
~
~
~ p~
.
~
°,,
~.,r.~ ~ '~'.~~~ i
~ -
- ~n
~
~ .
•~ .
:~t'~;aYii~+„ .~_ .~
~~ . -~M U~
H
N
W
~ ~
2002 Drought Situa
Harlow Platts Community Park
I Year 2000
7^~ :r,- 4S.• .'~ wV;.:,.i.:
~y : .~Y ~.'r:~l ~ B^ "
~F T• ~ r
F ~j. ~
.~'S -:.~.._.s.`"~~'aF~:`i.-~.- - ~
~~ ~~ ~~i ' ,, : ~ ~' Total Park Acres = 51
~ „~: ~ ~ ` ~-s ~*
'~~ ~~~~~ ~~ r ~~ Irrigated Acres = 22.2
~r
~.
' ~ y~"y~~ Irrigated Acres Rated
~ -l ~/// ,-yy,-- as Unsatisfactor~1 = 18.9
•V r h 'b. A~.'~ ~'!.~!__~~ ~ .~ /
~~+ r
- ~
." ~ .;..- _ " ~ , " ~~ . •,',
,
~
~
~~.t'~ ~9~-~'{'~ry~ ~ ~
:~ a u~e . f
~ ~
~ ~:~~
..~-~.., w .
.
~r ..;~ ,..~;.~: :, , r-~~~~
.~ ,r,~ ~,~~-+~
~:~.~ ~5~.~ < ~~~
3 :;~,~~ ` ,
~^w' Y-;~
- ` +" ~~`~,~ ~
_...;,. Xs, . .., i.r.' . ..:`.. _ _. ~.._.~...::4:r
Le e~rd
Irrigated Turf Status
~ Satisfactory
~ Unsatisfactory
r;
~
~
Year 2000
~
2042 Drought Situation
Scott Carpenter Park and BallField
Sentei
.~ , ~'~_" c-~ -_ -..,,'.~°'~
: ~
~ ` '..: ~' ~,..~,. ' "
~..~-..~:;..
,,
R~F ~ . ,~`. ~~'~ - ~~ :
, ~~ ,~ ..
~~ :. ,~ R,,y~
1 1 11.~~~~
~;~~, ~ i ,
~ '' 1 tN 1 ~ t t~ ~ 1 ~ i M I ~ ~ ~
yl ~
i ~_. _~._ .-~.
tl'
~ ~ : ' ~~.p . !~
,"~ ~~-.~;,~~ Total Park Acres = 21
°~~~ ~f~ '"~~
~;,.~ ~~~ Irrigated Acres = 13
~~~, ~.,~~ ~~~~ ~.~ Irrigated Acres Rated
~ ~f"4 ` ~ ' as Unsatisfactory = 13
~~,; ~~~ '.~:
~ ~ry
- ~ r :,,-- ~,~
~~; ~ ~~
~~
~'~~~t:' ,~ ;~,r~
~
, ~ ,~ L~
~<
~~i; ~ Irrlgated Turt Status
~ ~. ,
~~~
Unsatisfadory
rir_~c . ._~..~~._.~._
ber 20~2
Assessment
,~
,
, .I~~•f~-
~G,~
~
V~
Figure 6
~
A ~ e I C I o I E I F I ~ I H I ~ I ~ I K I ~ I M
I I ~ ~
3
6
5
8
~I
e
9
11
21
Heafth Status Report of Park Turf for 15 Sample Sites in September 2002 ' Updated vi 5/os
~
I ~iTotelPark~TOtaIlMgated ~Turf Unsatlsfaaory Turt Satisfactory Irrigatlon:Ovarali ~'NOn- SuPP~~ntal
FaciliryNama Atltlress FaciliryTypa Aeres A crea iAeres ~Acres Conditlon Diverted ~Diverted Water INotes:
auRORq 7
' 3sm e n.,reo
I I v«a~~a~d ~ ~ i 15 ~ t.B ~ 5 7 I~ Satlsfaetory ~ ~ X ~ ~ I~ludes porNOn of achool grountls through Jotnt uae agreemenL
CANYDN
ilrtr ~ c n~n
i
rrKt~.
i~
7 9 ~
l
~
2t
~ 21
, 0
~ Unsatls(actory
~i 1
I X
I ~
~' ~~ Small diserepanry between mtal park aeres dam a~W irrigateA acres dafa
i
ICNAUTAUQUA
iWhhBa~rGne
NxBpburMxtl i
i 76
fA.Y I
I 6.38
l i
~ 78Z
IS8B5(2CIqy
I, X
I
CHR[STEN$EN
~JI/MI Kuigr R1des BM1d
I NnghDwhmd
~ 5.7 ~
12 i
2.2
I
I 0
~S8t16}8C[Ory i
' ~ X I
~
I ~
I
I
I i
I ~ I Includes setwol mutti-purpose field through pint use agreemeM. Evaluatlon of tuM is for 4.4
I COLUMBlNE ~~ztro e ctrn.wd r,Ktn 0.4 7 e 2A 5 2 I~~B~kM ' X
ii I ~ aere parK area only
~EASTBOULDER
I
~'
~
I
I
ISatlatae[pry/ i
i I
I COMMUN(TY PARK ~s6eo sw.~r nr c~~.u.u~~ I 5y.g ~o e I
8 5 2 4 F~ece11eM ~, X I Recreatlon Center ~rrigation satlsfaaory Soccer fkld irrigadon excellent
I
~
EASTMAPLETON I I i ~ , i
I
BALLF[EIDS
.tiM~ 6 Mapkrw
~I Rrc FaeWry
e i
SS
2
3.$
I
EXC811sM I
X
I EBEN FfNE
IJ,a s A~hne i
I v,Kka
I Ia i
4 4
I 3.7
', 0.7
~I I X
~~ ISTeII diaerepaney between tofal park eeres tletea end Imgeted aCrea data
I £OOTHILLS COMMUNlN '
~ ~ ,
~ ~
PARR IdlpChers~Ave Cumm~nu~ ~ p ~ 121 ~ 1.2 ~ 11 S ~
X I
~G&RAfD STAZlO BALL ~I
I ~ ~ ~ I i
IP/EIDS IyaSSm~ xK samry a25 , i5a 3 , 123 ._... I, ~ X I~phaae t irrigaBon fs unaetlsfaMOry Phase 21rrlgatlon is excelbM.
i
~GREENLEA£ IFnvwnaPM iPxRx r is I 12 I OS O7 1SatisFar.Mrv ~ I X ' 4
27 iIIARLOWPIATTS IIJ6NCJlnspuc.weu ~Icuwwwdr i 51 YlR i 1&9 3.3 ,Uneetl8faGtory ~i X ~ ~
~ ~ I I
29 I MEADOWGLEN IlPSnnrylrwoAx E ISSMSr Ynrku I 25 II 15 ~I 038 112 'EXCllbflt I~ li X
30 I ~ , ~
~ ~
31 iNORTHBOU7DERPARK I9d6DN/wrrod IlNnqhd~M,wd I 126 I 109 il 0.4 65 ExCe118M ~i X I I
ffi
I ~
33 ~'~SCO7'TCARPP.NTER I3~MMdnmpelwe ~xe~6w~~hmd I' 27 I 13 I 123 0.7 SaNS}ectory ~ X ~ I
34 ~ ~ i ~ ~
~ I 'i ~ i ~ i i ,
as I Total I ' ~ 281.2 ; 130.9 I 6976 61.14 ~ ~~ i
a~ i ~
i i
~ i ~ ~ ~ I '~ I ~
' II
ae ~ City of Boulder Parks and Recreation - Drouqht Response Plan: 2002-2007' I '
aa
<, ' Note• There are some parks where the total imqated acres exceeds the total park acres In the case of Aurora 7 and Columbme Park, this is because Parks and Recreat~on has ~omt use
az , agreements wdh Boulder Valley Schools for these propertes and P8R is maintairnng a pordon of the school property in addRion to the park properties In the case of Canyon Park and
na Eben Fine Park, there is a d~screpancy between the two databases used in this study The souroe for the total park acres is the Parks and Recreation 2002 Inventory Database
aa The source for the total vngated park acres is the 2002 Park Summary developed by Aquacraft (Water Engineenng and Management) for the City of 6ouider Public Works Department.
as There are minor discrepancies between area calcufation ftom these data sources that need to be resolved over time However, for the purposes of this qwck study, the discrepancies
~a ~ do not appear to be statisUcally siqrnficant i ~
r0~!
DRAFI'-C~ty of Boulder
Parks & Rec1eanon Drought Plan
January 2l, 2003
Page 8
~ HEALTH STATUS OF PARK TREES
.,.
Overview
This section of the report discusses the methods used to save trees throughout the summer and
the status of pazk trees under drought wnditions It also identifies the numbers and types of trees
watered from additional sources throughout the summer.
It ~s important to note that the true impacts of tree health and survival will not be known unhl
several years after the drought has ended Trees that appeaz to be survivmg can slowly dechne,
expenence branch dieback, become wlnerable to insect and disease, or simply die. Due to
drought stress, trees routinely will have mcreased prumng and removal needs, and tnsect and
disease treatments.
Tree waterine
Urban Forestry and Pazks staff began hand watenng small and newly planted pazk trees at the
begmmng of the resmchons knowmg that these trees would be the most vulnerable.
Dunng the record lugh temperatures of the month of July and with no addit~onal precipitation,
staff began to see medmm sized trees showmg signs of stress. In late July, staff adjusted
watenng efforts to mclude the medmm sized trees usmg ditch water smce it had become
avazlable This water source allowed staff to water throughout the day, two to three trmes a
week, and without hme restncttons
Two methods were used tlus summer to hand water trees. Potable water was used through a hose
and quick coupler method wittun park sites before 9 a.m (as one method), and ditch water
pumped mto 350 to 450 gallon tanks and dnven to individual pazk sites was the second method
used.
The votable water method allowed staff to water the sost number of trees with the least amount
of staff, ume, and equipment, therefore staff chose tlus method for the lazger number of trees
exisung witkun our system (3,598 trees m the 1 to 7 mch diameter range) Staff have, m general,
tazgeted ditch watenng efforts for the medmm sized trees (1,883 trees m the 8 to 15 mch
diameter range). Of course both opUOns get crossed over dependmg on type of trees m a
pazUcular locauon and what is the most efficient way to get a site completely watered
Park tree inventorv totals
3,598 trees m the 1 to 7 mch diameter size Watenng should occur once per week
1,883 trees m the 8[0 15 mch diameter size. Watenng should occur twice per month.
Potable water source/small sized trees (1 to 7 inch diameter)
The water source used to provide supplemental water for small sized trees came via potable
dnnkmg water from quick couplers and hose attachments wittun each pazk site. Tlus method has
~, allowed one staff person to water approximately 10 trees in one hour. However, the trees were
~
DRAFT - Ciry of Boulder
Parks & Recmanon Drought Plan
January 2l. 2003
Page 9
'~~1
only getung approximately 10 to 15 gallons of water each depending on set-up hme Ideally „
they should get 10 gallons per mch tree d~ameter for opumal health.
• Total number of trees watered was approxima[ely 480 trees per week (7 - 9 a m, 2 Umes
per week Umes 12 people).
• Wittun a month penod staff watered approximately 1,920 (1 to 7 mch diameter) trees.
• Staff should be watenng 14,392 trees witlun a month penod once per week for optimal
health (3,598 ex~sung trees witlun our pazks times 4, for a once per week watenng
schedule). Actuevmg this tazget was not practical due to the lazge numbers of trees
withm pazks sites spread throughout our city and due to the hmitaaons of watenng four
hours a week.
• Trees bemg watered represents 13% of what should be getring watered
Ditch source method - medium sized trees (8 to 15 inch diameterl
The two ditch sources used to provide supplemental watenng of inedmm sized trees came from
Wtute Rock Ditch (Diagonal Highway and 63~ Street) and Anderson Ditch (Columbia
Cemeiery j. Tfie 'vi%hite Rock Ditch stopped flowmg m rrud August and Anderson Ditch stopped
flowing at the end of October
Total number of gallons taken by Parks/Forestry staff from both d~tch sources from cmd July to
the end of September was 145,685 gallons.
~
• Total number of [rees watered is approximately 180 to 300 trees per week dependmg on ~
source/dnve Ume/staff/wa[enng 2 or 3 Umes per week
• Wrthm a month penod staff watered approximately 1,200 (8 to 15 mch diameter) trees
usmg a local source, Anderson Drtch, and usmg the figure of 300 trees per week.
• Staff should be watenng 3,766 trees witkun a month penod twice per month for ophmal
health (1,883 existmg trees wittun our pazks times 2, for a twice per month watenng
schedule)
• Trees being watered represents 32% of what should be getting watered.
Tree waterina dav/all stressed trees
The second Monday of September and October, staff deep root watered all stressed trees with
particulaz focus on lazger specimen trees. Tlus tree watenng day allowed staff to hand water
ttuoughout the day with potable water and hose attachments. After October, irrigation systems
m pazks were turned off for the season and hand watenng had to be supplemented by usmg
watenng tanks
2002-2003 wmter watenng is ongomg m accordance with the City of Boulder watenng
restnct~ons. Refer to the Boulder Pubhc Works Drought Response Web site
www ci.boulder co.us/publicwotks/dents/unhhes/drouehdfaa html for further informaaon.
Wmter watenng has always been importanC m ttus part of the region and will be even more
cnucal dunng the 2002-2003 wmter unless we have a consistendy cold and wet season The
Pazks and Recreation Urban Foresuy websrte has specific mformation on "Tree Care Dunng ,.,,,~
DRAFC - C~ty of Boulder
Parks & Recreauon Drou~t Plan
January 21, 2003
Page 1~
~ Drought" and on "Winter Tree Watenng". This mformahon can be found at.
~ www ci boulder co us/pazks-recreat~on/Qazks facihhes/gazks/forestry/trees droueht htm
General observations throuehout the summer
Trees in parks wrth poor soil looked worse overall. Drought tolerant species looked better
overall even m pazks wrth water bemg diverted to athleuc fields Trees on slopes m most pazks
looked worse than did those m flat areas Small and medmm sized cottonwoods m turf azeas
were starting to tum yellow m early August and had nuld defohatton. Almost all Crabapples and
lazge Silver Maple trees were showmg some signs of stress. Kentucky Coffee trees,
Honeylocust, and Peaz trees looked good overall. Most Norway maples and medium sized
Amencan Lmdens began to scorch m August. Refer to Figure 7- photos of trees showmg
wilnng, curhng and scorctung.
Tree health status assessment results
Forestry staff assessed 15 pazk sites as a samplmg of the pazk system. Pazk sites were chosen for
several cntena and offenng good representarion of. diverse tree species, size classes, watering
reg~ses (c~?verted vc nnn lI/VP?'~PII rinin,~ sntnrg etC„ SOll CCndltl0[1S, pazk size and usage, older
parks / newly developed parks, and the effecuveness of hand watenng efforts.
The followmg is a summary of these park sites as of late September 2002
• Overall about 1/3 of the trees evaluated m the 15 park sites showed no symptoms of
'"'"~ drought stress, 1/3 of the trees evaluated showed symptoms of cmld drought stress and
`"' 1/3 of the trees showed symptoms of moderate to severe drought stress (see hst below).
Most of the pazks with trees that showed either no drought suess or mild drought stress
aze receivmg supplemental hand watenng or have good soils. Those with trees showmg
moderate to severe stress have poorer soIls or, m the case of the Cemetery, aze receiving
no additional watenng through the ungatron system. The large trees at Columbia
Cemetery aze now showmg moderate and m some cases severe stress. Lazge trees at
r~iost other park s~tes are showmg no drought stress ur rnulu drought stress except at
Central Pazk where symptoms aze moderate.
• Several large trees m Central Pazk are now showmg symptoms of drought sh~ess (wilring,
scorclung, leaf drop). Central Pazk is one of Boulder's showcase park sites with its
stately and diverse tree species and the lazgest groupmg of ma[ure red oaks. There are
three trees regstered wrth the State of Colorado as "State Champion Trees", the lazgest
specimen of its species m the state of Colorado Due to a ma~or and ongomg construction
pro~ect that started m eazly spnng, compachon and root damage to many of these trees is
a senous issue Forestry staff is concemed about the future health of these magmficent
trees due to the combination of drought condiuons, water restnctions, heavy public use,
and construcuon pro~ects. Staff is determmmg what special treattnents will be beneficial
and implemented throughout the wmter and 2003 season to help these uees survive.
• Overall, the results of the supplemental watenng of small trees has been effecrive At
some pazk sites (such as East Boulder Commuruty Park) small trees look good but the
older trees that were not receivmg water aze begmmng to show moderate stress.
~/"`
w
.r..
DRAS'f -C~ty of Boulde:
Parks & Recreanon Dmught Plan
January 21, 2003
Page 11
Due to drought conditions tree mortality observed throughout the entire pazk system is 17 trees
to date This does not mclude trees m natural azeas.
Park site tree analvsis (Note: These examples aze broad generahzations as there were sdll
several trees w~ttun these pazks that showed one or more symptoms of drought suess.)
Examples of Park trees that es nerally showed no svm~toms of droueht stress
Greenleaf (due to supplemental watenng) N. Boulder
Pmeview Chautauqua (good soils)
Keewaydm (mostly species related) Marhn (good supplemental watenng)
Exam~les of Pazk trees that generallv showed s~mptoms of ctvld drought stress
Salberg Parkside
Footlulls (due to hand watenng) Hazlow Platts
EBCC (ma~onty of trees not fully estabLshed)
Examples of pazk trPes thatgenerally showed sypmtoms of moderate to severe drought stress•
Central Pazk (due to construction) Scott Carpenter (poor soil)
Wonderland (poor soils) Columbia Cemetery
Trees species that appeaz to have handled the drou hg t we11:
Honeylocust Kentucky Coffeetree
Bur oak
Goldenram tree
Swamp white oak/spp Evergreen (all pmes, spruce, fir)
Peaz Elm (Amencan and Sibenan)
Trees sQecies that apuear to have handled the drought moderatel~
Norway maple Green ash
Crabapple
Hors~chestnut
Buckeye
Trees s~ecies Ihat apneaz to have handled the drought poorly
Silver maple Red maple
Catalpa Lmden
WFute ash
Bald cypress
Hackberry
.~a.
~
..,,.
,""'~
Fi~ure 7
PHOTOS
The trees in the photos below are trees that were in fair to good health prior to "the drought".
Due to droughVwater restrictions, these trees are now showing symptoms such as wilting,
~ scorching/browning, curling, leaf drop, chlorosis, etc.
Wilting
Curling
~`~x
~
' . ~1: ..
- r_-~.. _ _--. -~
. __ -- . - r'.
~ .. ^:i:;~ "~,c'_' ' ...' . ` -~ . ~„-~..Yw~ti:
_ •b,'- ~ u:r,+~'~ A ~
Scorching
f ,,,,~,~ ~='
`6J5, '{~
yn ~\
~'•~' ~}' ' ,'y~
, ~~r,~'~ y~~~; i.
~~~ f y '~ }^ ~
S ~y~ }
_:c~~_~',' ti 'J!~
DRAFC - C~ty of Boulder
Parks & Recreauon DroughtPlan
January 21. 2003
Page 12
w-
~,~, . ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DROUGHT RESPONSE
The drought m natural areas has multiple impacts, pnmanly m sVess to natural areas, species,
and dependent spec~es. Invasive weeds generally respond well to drought condit~ons, and much
of the natural or nat~ve vegetauon is pretty stressed. T6e possibihhes for restorauon pro~ects,
either for past damage or current impacts, aze very hnuted due to lack of watering capability.
Extensive nauve grass seedmg wluch was planted ttus past wmter and spnng have produced
almost no yteld m new seedlings. Off trail damage along shorelines and wetlands has been much
more sigmficant as grasses and forbs aze unable to recover from tramphng. Ttus has led to
kughly impacted soils, lazge exposed dirt areas, exposure to mvasive weeds and general poor
habitat. This is particularly true where heavy recreahonal use occurs (Coot Lake, shorehne of
Boulder Reservoir) As the visitor use contmues, drought condihons increase degradat~on of the
natural azeas.
The wildhfe is stressed as well In particular, staff is seemg some signs of suess in prune dog
towns, ar.d :ots a: ::.:b.~tior. mto new areas. Praine dogs aze c:ossmg roads and explonng new
habitat, wluch mcreases mortahty rates on top of the reduced forage and water avazlabihty.
Some of the prazrie dogs appear physically to be very ttun and unkempt. Obviously, prazne dogs
aze a potentaal "canary m the nune", as most species will be expenencmg the same stresses but
are not so visible to us. For mstance, rodent species may have httle vegetatrve protect~on m
wkuch to burrow or lude Predators dependent on these prey species will also be affected -
;v posiuvely in the sense that migratmg prazne dogs and baze ground produce easy prey, and
negahvely m the sense that the prey base may sigmficantly decrease due to mortalrty from
drought conditions.
In Colorado, we have unprecedented poor range conditions m most areas of the state and even
given good moisture, many of the grasses, forbs and shrubs have been compromised. These poor
range condit~ons translate mto lower survival and produchvity for small mammals, avian species
and big game nerds vnce naoi~ac oase is damaged ic can caice a long nme to respond and
mitigat~on efforts can be extremely difficult, long term and costly Tius mformaaon is from
Umted States Fish and Wildhfe (USFW) and Colorado Drvis~on of Wildlife (CDOW).
Staff is watenng the wildhfe habitat plantmg of trees and shrubs at Boulder Reservou and Coot
Lake wrth drafted water from the reservou, and these plants aze survivmg fazrly well. Staff
utrhzes hand-watenng wrth a redesigned fire tanker and small pumps. At Coot Lake, a volunteer
assists with watenng The Valmont wildlife comdor planhng of trees and shrubs is bemg
watered with a gravity-fed dnp imgation system and treated water This dnp imgat~on system
was designed and built to provide cntical water resources to these young uees and shrubs m an
efficient manner, and appears to be workmg well. Unfortunately, non-potable water simply does
not work m the enutters due to cloggmg Large amounts of shredded tree mulch have been
applied to the Valmont site to reduce evaporaaon and capitahze on any natural moisture that
occurs.
~
`...r
DRAFT - C~ty of Boulder
Parks & Recreahon Drough[ Plan
January 21. 2003
Page 13
/~~
PLEASANT VIEW SPORTS COMPLEX -~
Backeround
Pleasant View Sports Complex consists of 24 5 acres of a bluegrass-rye turf on a sand base. The
9-field complex is recogmzed m the soccer commumty as the best soccer facihty m the State.
The use of a sand base was controversial when it was proposed m the eazly 1990's because of the
tugh cost of mstallation However, the benefits of a softer playmg surface that could reduce
tn~unes, as well as the benefits of a drunage system that allowed the facility to be played on
more quickly dunng wet penods convmced City Council to approve the expendrture There aze
9 fields associated with tlus Complex. Field #1 is a Championskup field that is used for
collegiate soccer games by the Umversity of Colorado Refer to Figure 9 for field numbenng
In May 2002, the Pazks and RecreaUOn Department responded to the City's Water Restnctron
Plan. The reduchon plan for imgatrng Park and Recreahon facihhes, mcludmg specialized
athlet~c facihties hke Pleasant View, was the same as for residential and commercial properties
Citywide. : hns, all park and recreatioa iacilities were imgated two umes per week, fifteen
mmutes per zone Ttus created problems for most park and recreahon facihhes, due to the type
of imgation system m place. The results of the reducuons at Pleasant View Fields meant that
less than .25 mches of irngahon water were bemg applied weekly to the fields. Normal
irnga[ion dunng summer weather at Pleasant View is typically 1.5 mches of irrigation water
placed on the fields dependmg on weather and huaudity ~
...~
By aud June, the combmahon of htde natural raznfall, hot temperatures, low relahve humidity
and effects of the imgahon reduchon had taken a toll on most pazk and recreahon turf azeas No
azea saw the direct effects as quickly as at Pleasant View Fields The same sand base that proved
advantageous dunng wetter conditions had a detnmental effect on the root system of the turf
dunng the drought condihons. The root system of the turf at Pleasant View extends 8-12 mches
m the sand The reduced imgauon water only moistened the top 2-3 mches of the root ball, and
did not extend the water mto the Yull medmm of the root zone As a result, eight of the nme
fields had sustazned senous damage. Field #1 was m better condiuon, due to more ungahon
zones in place, shoRer distances between imgauon heads and thus more water was applied to
tkus field Staff had also begun to place more ungation water on the fields pnor to the
mandatory water restricdons.
In late June, the Department obtazned the services of an outside agrononust, Rusty Oetker from
Soil Honzons, Inc. to do an analysis on the turf condiUOns at Pleasant View Mr. Oetker's
findmgs are mcluded m Figure 8. At that pomt, it became obvious that addiGOnal water would
be needed for Pleasant View or the recreaUOn activities would have to be stopped or the turf
would totally die Staff worked with Pubhc Works and the City Manager's office to create an
altemate plan for providmg additional imgation to Pleasant View fields A sepazate field
imgarion allocation plan was approved by Pubhc Works and the City Manager's office on a tnal
basis unnl July 31st, which allowed for 1 mch of imgaaon to be placed on Fields # 1, 4 and 7.
Tlus enabled these three fields to receive two hours of imgahon water per week, mstead of the
30 mmutes under the current reduchon plan. The other 6 fields contmued to be imgated 2 ames ,,,,,~
per week, 15 mmutes per zone. Figure 9 is a map of Pleasant View that identifies wtuch areas ,_
DRAFf - Qty of Boulder
Parks & Recreauon Dmught Plan
January 21, 2003
Page 14
,~
,,,, received additional irrigahon m June. The additional imgahon water came from reallocaung a
poRion or all imgahon from other urban pazks. A decision was made eazly in the water
restncuons not to imgate the 9.4-acre Columbia Cemetery because there was no automated,
underground imgation system. The approa~imate .25 inch of imganon water per week from
Columbia Cemetery was transferred to Pleasant View for the remaznder of the season. The other
.50 mches came from a reallocahon of imgauon water from other urban pazk azeas.
Approximately 36 acres of estabhshed urban pazks received one less day of watermg on an
altemate schedule each week so that water could be allocated to Pleasant View. Photos m Figure
10 show the condinon of Pleasant View fields m nud 7une and eazly July just pnor to enacunent
of the addiaonal water for the three fields. The second page of Figure 10 shows conditaons of
the fields m nud to late July after the three addiUOnal fields received mcreased ungation water.
On June 27, 2002, the Department held a meehng at Meadows Branch Library with
representaaves of the soccer commumty and other interested pubhcs A letter was sent to the
soccer clubs on June 19, 2002 to special mterest groups who use Pleasant View and the meenng
was noticed m the Daaly Camera. Approximately tkurty people representing Boulder Juruor
Soccer/ivvVA Su~cer i,iuo, Bouider Counry rorce, nouider Rugby Club, Grass Roots Ultimate
Fnsbee, Boulder Valley School Distnct, Umversity of Colorado and Colorado Rapids Reserve
came to the meetmg Ned Wilhams of the City of Boulder's Pubhc Works Department gave an
overview of the current drought conditions and oudined the water restncrions for the commumty
It should be noted that mumcipal water use, mcludtng water use by Parks and Recreahon,
accounts for only 3.2% of water use wtttun the City of Boulder as seen m Appendix A-3. The
~ proposed irngahon allocadon plan for the three fields was also presented to the pubhc.
~
Citizens attendmg the meehng expressed concem over the effects of City watenng restnctions on
the Pleasant View facihty Attendees not only ratsed concem about losmg turf at Pleasant View,
but also expressed concerns about the effects of the drought on the Parks system m general At
that meetmg the followmg issues and/or comments were articulated regazdmg the current
conservation plan:.
• Consider pnont~zmg water usage for areas more heavily used by the pubha Special
considerahon should be grven to Pleasant View based on the lazge numbers of people
using the facihty
• Due to the fact that spnnkler systems m pazks cover such large azeas, the 15 nunutes,
twice a week requirement does not provide enough water to keep turf m parks ahve. Tlus
reqmrement favors mazntammg residential turf but not pazk turf. Apply a different
standard for public use lands Standazds for pazk turf must be adjusted to keep the turf
alive
• Public places deserve special consideration. The citizens of Boulder aze passionate about
their parks. Due to the resourcefulness of Boulder ciuzens, a sigmficant surplus of water
savmgs over the tazget has been achieved How aze we usmg the surplus? People would
probably conserve more if they knew that their parks were at nsk and would probably be
willmg to have more s[nngent restncuons placed on residenual use so that a cnsis can be
~ avoided and pazkland saved.
~...
DRAFI' - C~ty of Boulder
Pazks & Recreauon Drought Plan
January 2~, 2003
Page l5
~~
The drought and extreme temperatures dunng July and August contmued to take a toll on the turf -~
on the remaming fields. At the end of July, all of the turf m the remumng 6 fields appeazed
dead, except for vanous rings of growmg turf azound the imgation heads. Dunng tlus time, staff
observed the emergence of many weeds on [he playing fields themselves.
In eazly August, staff agazn was given permission by the City Manager's office to draft another
proposal to reallocate imgation water from other sites. The proposal that was approved by
Public Works and the Ciry Manager's office in late August called for stufting addit~onal acres of
ungated to Pleasant View The sluft in water from other pazk sites to Pleasant View enabled the
remamder of the fields (14 3 acres) to be imgated two hours per zone per week. Shortly
afterwazd, the weather began to cool, and we received addi[~onal natural runfall.
Findinas as of .Tanuarv 16. 2003
The fields that have only 10% turf coverage remaimng aze also showing the presence of invasive
weeds (dandehon and leafy spurge).
Field No. 1 100% turf coverage
Field Nos. 4 and 7 80% turf coverage
Field Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 10% turf coverage
~
.~.
~-~+,
Fi~ure 8
SOIL HORIZONS, INC. ~_ _ _
June 25, 2002
Dave Brown
City of Boulder
Pleasant View Soccer Fields
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
Dave,
I had the opportunity to visually inspect the soccer fields at Pleasant View. Because of
the traffic, I wasn't able to get out on the fields and probe the soil, but it was obvious that
water was the limiting factor. The concern now is how we approach the remainder of the
season, with limited irrigation capabilities and heavy traffic.
The amount of water that has been
~ irrigated with (15 minutes) has not been
enough to meet the turfgrass
requirements as evidenced by the photo
The evapotranspiration rate based on
climatic conditions has been about
0.3"/day. 15 minutes of water is equal to
about 0.12". So even though watering is
done twice/week (0.24"), this will not
overcome the deficit. Potentially, more
damage can be done with the drying and
redrying of the turfgrass. Also, with the
intense traffic of the fields, damage has
been done to the crown of the plant. The
crown tissues are the most vital portion
of the turfgrass plant since the
adventitious roots, the lateral shoots and the leaves initiated from this region. Even if
adequate water was available, damage has been done to the plant and recovery would be
minimal.
If traffic continues on the fields, it is not so much of a concern what further damage this
will do to the turf, but the potential risk of increased injuries. Who will be liable for the
injuries?
~
865 Catalpa Place • Marysville, OH 43040 • 937-642-5501 • 888-933-5501 • Fax 937-642-3422
S41L HORIZ4NS, INC.
The championship field had some
weaknesses in irrigation, but there was no
comparison in quality from the other
fields. A possibility would be to prioritize
the fields and increase the watering times
to at least equal the evapotranspiration
rate. It may take some time for the other
selected fields to improve without
overseeding, but the fields will soften and
reduce the risk of injury.
Recommendations are to reduce traffic on
the fields that do not have sufficient
inigation and concentrate the traffic flow
on the irrigated fields.
~'' As far as the long-term effect, this will depend on Mother Nature. If there is an adequate
-- supply of water later this year, overseeding is recommended on all fields. If precipitation
and water quantity were limited, then the overseeding would be of no value. Depending
upon winter conditions, overseeding could be conducted next spring. We need a heavy
snow pack in the mountains this winter and if there isn't the snow pack, we'll all be
suffering the consequences.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate calling.
Sincerely,
~.~ a,~
Rusty Oetker
Agronomist
O
865 Catalpa Place • Marysville, OH 43040 • 937-642-5501 • 888-933-5501 • Fax 937-642-3422
Figure 9
gr~
°~~'
~
PLEASANT VIEW FIELDS
~Y4 ~~~ Y /
~'~pi 1-~ A ~ , ~ /
M'
'"",• „w''h, ~_ ` ~ ;
~~ ~
~ ~ ~'~~wxa muuuw ~~° ~
~ q ~"~~ ~ ~
~~p menmwwia~ nx~nm
ND-
Fieids Irrl~t~d wkh r~elloeabd watw In lalo June lhrough E~pbmbw Z002 ~
FINds irrigated vrfkh rssllocaled walar In lat~ Augwt lhrough S~ptNnbsr ZOOZ ~
Total alb area b 54.66 acres.
Tolal arws with sandbaso is 24.li4 acres.
CITY OF BOULDER PARKS ~ RECREATION DEPARTMENT
uronteo.uwwurr.zs aoa+
Figure 10
0
..~~.~"---=.-~. ~•
r_ .
- `~;a~ >~ ~ . ~ . .
~: ~c~ .
Pleasant View Northwest Fields - 7-1-02
Championship Field #1- 6-14-02
Championship Field #1- 6-14-02
Pleasant View Fields # 4, 7- 7-1-02
~
~ s.~fi~:;
x:. .~
~ ~ ~ ~ `s-.:~
_ .~
Pleasant View Northwest
: -~
~
=--- -~.
DRAFT - C~ty of Boulder
Pazks & Rcereauon Drought Plan
January 21, 2003
Page 16
~°"^
~ STATUS REPORT AND RECONINIENDATIONS ON SCOTT CARPENTER POOL
Backaround
Since 1998, Pazks and Recreation facihues have been mazntained by the city's Faciliues and
Asset Management Drvision (FAM) In 1997, the consulting firm of Barker Rmker Seacat and
Partners Arclutects P C. completed an analysis of the city's recreanon centers and pools and
made recommendahons for renovauons and refurbishtnent of the faciliries. At that ume, Scott
Carpenter Pool was ~udged to be m the best condition of the four agmg mdoor and outdoor pools,
excludmg the lap and leisure pools at East Boulder Community Center (EBCC). Based on ttus
report and FAM's assessments, muntenance and renovaaon pro~ects for recreation centers and
pools were pnontized
In 1998, the South Boulder Recreahon Center (SBRC) underwent an$800,000 renovatron that
mcluded replacing the pool shell and providing a new filtrahon and dismfecuon system. In
2001, Spruce Pool underwent a$616,000 renovarion that included a new pool shell, a new deck,
new g.:t.e: sys;e.:., ::ght::.g, a;..~'. sha::awe; :ap lancs :~r cnergy eff'iciency. The 2001-2003 North
Boulder Recreanon Center (NBRC) renovadon includes new leisure and lap pools wluch replace
the 25 yeaz old lap pool.
In order to keep Scott Carpenter Pool funcuonmg, $93,000 of maintenance improvements were
completed between 1999 and 2001, mcludmg pump replacement, pool shell punung, waterslide
"'~ repau~ and a new filuation and dismfecnon system.
~..
Pool water use
The number of gallons of water required to imnally fill each pool ranges from a low of 230,000
gallons at SBRC to a high of 350,000 gallons at Scott Carpenter Pool. A total of 1,451,500
gallons of water aze required to imually fill all the indoor and outdoor pools m the system,
mcluding both lap and leisure pools
Although the city does not meter the amount of water used per day to keep the pools filled, a
typical outdoor pool loses 1-2 mches per day to evaporation, depending on weather conditions,
and a typical mdoor pool loses one-quarter mch per day Addiuonal water is lost due to
splaslung, people exitmg the pools, and the regulaz backwaslung necessazy to clean and mazntazn
the pool filters. Based on these factors it is esumated that Scott Carpenter Pool loses 5,000
gallons of water per day under normal conditions, while the smaller Spruce Pool loses
approximately 3,000 gallons per day.
2002 ~ool status
In 2002, restnctions on outdoor water use were imposed city-wide due to drought condiuons. In
evaluahng the Parks and Recreation Department use of water for pools, rt was estimated that
Scott Carpenter Pool was losmg approximately 13,000 gallons of water per day, or 8,000 gallons
per day over what would normally be expected, due to leaks m the pool systems. Because of the
excess water loss it was decided not to open Scott Carpenter Pool m 2002. The mdoor pools at
r~ EBCC and SBRC remamed open, and Spruce Pool was opened two months eazher than usual to
~...
DRAFT - C~ty of Boulder
Parics & Recmatlon Drought Plan
January 21. 2003
Page 17
~
help compensa[e for the closure of Scott Carpenter The exisnng pool at NBRC was unavazlable ....~
dunng that hme due to the renovauon pro~ect
Recommendations
In order to determtne the future of Scott Catpenter Pool, staff tured a contractor, Associated
Pools, to reevaluate the pool condiuon, assess water loss, and locate leaks. Based on a staff
review of the options, the following recommended repurs will be made m the spnng of 2003 to
reduce water loss and extend the hfe of Scott Carpenter Pool for approximately seven years
• Replace extenor pool penmeter pipmg
• Install deck drazns
• Install new mam drams
• Install a recirculahon pump stramer
• Patch and caulk the pool shell
• Replace sections of the deck as needed for pipmg repair
Repau~s aze scheduled for completion by May 1, 2003 at a cost of $250,000. The Pazks and
Recreation Department will then focus on plannmg for a possible additional aquatics facihty, as
recommended m the 2002 Recreauon Facihties Needs Assessment, and an analysis of
altematives for a ma~or renovat~on and upgrade of Scott Catpenter Pool.
Staff recommends that the Pazks and Recreation Department be prepared to open both Spruce ~
Pool and Scott Carpenter Pool for the 2003 summer season 1n the event of contmued drought ~
conditions and restnctions on water use, the Department will evaluate wluch pools will be open
for the summer, based on programmmg requuements, water conservation goals, and crty drought
policies
~
DRAFf - C~ty of Boulder
Parks & Recreauon DrougLt Plan
January 21, 2003
Page 18
~.w~+
,,~+ WATER ALLOCATION PLAN
The Pazks and Recreauon Department manages approximately 13376 milhon squaze feet of
ungatable landscapes. Based on the City's water formula at 100% allocat~on, the Depaztment
can use 240 aulhon gallons of potable water each season for imgauon purposes. As was
mdicated previously, m May 2002 Council duected all departments to reduce the amount of
ungaaon each yeaz by 25% Thus, the amount of potable water that the Department manages for
imgation purposes is 180 5 milhon gallons.
Depending on the seventy of the drought m 2003, staff is recommendmg the followmg strategies
be the basis for the Department's overall allocation recommendations. These recommendations
follow the stages of drought as outlmed m the City's Drought Response Plan of November 14,
2002.
Imgatmg ma~or facilihes that use ditch shares should be reviewed sepazately to ensure that
redu~zng water will not affecr fi~c~~re ~l!xat:o^.s of d::ch shazes. Flaurons Golf Course is
imgated through semor ditch shaze nghts from Howazd Ditch. Watson Pazk is imgated wuh
shares of Left Hand Ditch. Additionally, landscapes that aze imgated through alternative
irriganon methods such as dnp or net~n should not be reduced, as tlus is the most effective
method to imgate trees and shrubs
'"w The followmg stages of drought and recommended uses of imgaUOn for landscape purposes or
``" facihty types aze idenufied m pnonty order for 2003
DROUGHT STAGE ALERT I- MODERATE DROUGHT
Unds. :.his :rcug ;~ scage, the goal oi the City is to conserve overall water use by 10% Smce the
Department currently manages its ungation systems at a 25% reducuon, staff does not antrcipate
any changes m the Department's use of water Staff will contrnue to manage the imgation
allocation at approximately 180 5 million gallons so that usage will not exceed these numbers of
gallons
DROUGHT STAGE ALERT II- SERIOUS DROUGHT
Under thts drought stage, the goal of the City is to conserve overall water use by 20%. Dunng
ttus drought stage, the Department will focus on keepmg trees, shrubs, flower beds, gardens, turf
(includmg all playmg fields and pazk azeas) alive The Department anticipates that the irrigation
water allocation from Public Works will be reduced beyond the 25% reducuon (possibly 30-
40%) that we are currendy managing It is probable that our allocation will be limited to
~
~
DRAFT - Gry of Boulder
Parks & Recreauon DroughtPlan
January 21. 2003
Page 19
~
between 105-125 milhon gallons for the season. The followmg faciliries will receive imgation ~
water in pnonty order:
Pro¢rammed arimarv athletic ~elds These types of faciht~es need to be adequately
imgated for safety reasons and for revenue generatmg potential to the Department The
pnonty will be to apply an average of 1.5 mches of imgation water weekly (dependmg
on weather condiaons) to the actual playmg surfaces. Pnmazy programmed athleuc
facihhes that fit ttus category mclude S[azio and Mapleton Ball fields, Pleasant View
Fields and Scott Carpenter Ball fields
2. Trees, shrubs and other arioritv landscaues Imgauon water will next be apphed to
trees, shrubs and other landscapes (not tur~ m all park azeas. Imgation water will be
provided for optimal health to sustam tkus plant matenal The Department has a ma~or
mvestment m these landscapes and needs to ensure that plant matenal is not lost due to a
lack of adequate water.
11~iajnr ¢3CL 8C885, flower beds, satellite fields and Pearl Street Mall: Turf m ma~or
park azeas such as East Boulder Commumty, Foottulls Commumty, Hazlow Platts,
Chautauqua, Scott Carpenter, and the Cenual Pazk/Mumcipal Campus will receive the
next allocauon of water These sites are promment pubhc areas and deserve special
attenaon for their commumty-wide values. Flower beds m[hese ma~or sites will be
planted. Flower beds m all pazk areas total approximately 50,000 squaze feet, which is ~
~ust over I acre Flowerbeds m these ma~or park azeas total less than one acre Tkus ~,
represents less than 1°lo of the total land managed by the Department. The amount of
water that is needed to mamtam these flower plantmgs is cmmscule, compazed to the
water needed to imgate turf However, it is probable that some flower beds m
neighborhood or pocket pazk sites would not be planted dunng tlus drought stage
Finally, sufficient water will be avazlable at a reduced amount for imgatmg satelhte
athlet~c fields Satellite fields located at East Boulder Commumty Center (soccer fields),
P~orth BoLider Pazk (htfle league fields) and Hazlow Platts Pazk (soccer fields) aze
examples of satelhte recreat~onal fields
4. Neiehborhood, Pocket Park and other areas The final allocat~on of water would be
devoted to turf areas m neighborhood and Pocket Pazks. Under tlus stage of drought, it is
expected there would be hmes when park turf will be brown
The Department will manage our pazk landscape sites usmg all of the best available cultural
practaces. Pracuces might mclude, but not be hnuted to, mcreased aeration, and mcreased
mowmg height m general pazk azeas and the use of mulch m shrub and unplanted flowerbeds.
All imgation systems will be programmed to run m the late evemng hours or early mornmg
hours to maximize the water efficiency and numm~ze evaporation loss.
,^-w
DRAFT - C~ty of Boulder
Pazks & Recreauon Drough[ Plan
lanuary 21, 2003
Page 20
„°^-
~- DROUGHT STAGE ALERT III - SEVERE DROUGHT
Under tlus drought stage, the goal of the Crty is to reduce overall water use consumphon by
30%. Ttus scenano will require mandatory water restncuons CIIywide Pubhc Works
deternuned that the City was m a Stage III drought m 2002 It is anhcipated that the Department
will be required to reduce its irngation water usage by 50% or more m this stage of drought In
2002, the Department used 82.7 ~tullion gallons of water Dunng ttus drought stage, the
Department will focus on keepmg trees, shrubs, pnmary playmg fields and, if possible, other turf
azeas alive. The Departmen[ will reduce flower plantmg m most, if not all areas The followmg
faciliUes will receive imgahon water m pnonty order•
1. Proarammed athletic fields These types of facihhes need to be adequately imgated for
safety reasons and for revenue generatmg potential to the Department. The pnonty will
be to apply a aunimum of 1 0 mch weekly of imgahon water to the actual playmg
surfaces Facihties that fit this category mclude Stazio and Mapleton Ball fields, Pleasant
View Fields and Scott Carpenter Ball fields
2. Newlv alanted landscaaes or landscapes showine siens of stress• Imgarion water
would next be applied to newly planted trees or shrubs or exisung, older uees and shrubs
that are showmg signs of stress will be a pnonty for water use Newly planted
landscapes that are imgated through altemauve imgation methods will not be cut back,
~«. as this is the most effect~ve method to irrigate trees and shrubs.
...-
3. Maior aark areas and Pearl Street Mall: Ma~or pazk areas such as East Boulder
Community, Foothills Commumty, Chautauqua, Swtt Cacpenter, Central Pazk and Peazl
Street Mall will receive the next allocahon of water It is anticipated that there will be
hmited water avazlable for these sites; however, Peazl Street Mall will recerve enough
water to conserve the limited landscape areas that aze managed and possibly plant a few
flowerbeds A ma~onty of all pazk turf azeas will be brown m tlus drought stage most of
the hme. -
4 Neighborhood Parks, Pocket Parks and other areas The last allocation of water will
be devoted to turf and other landscaped areas m Neighborhood Park and Pocket Pazk
azeas In a severe drought situation, it is expected that pazk turf would be brown
DROUGHT STAGE ALERT IV - EXTREME DROUGHT
Under ttus drought stage, the goal of the City is to reduce overall water consumprion by 50%
Ttus scenano will ban all outdoor watenng of turf entirely Crtywide and there will be only water
avazlable for essential mdoor use. In this scenano, the Department ant~cipates that its imgauon
allocatron will be reduced by 75% or more thus providmg a ma~cimum of 60 milhon gallons tha[
will be available for ~rngation purposes In tlus drought stage, the DeparUnent will attempt to
sustain some matuce trees but anucipates there will be a ma~or die off of plant matenal m most
~" landscaped azeas There will be no flower plantmg dunng tlus stage
`-.
Appendix A
..~M
DROUGHT INFORMATION
Frovided by City of Boulder Pubhc Works DepartmenWulities Division
,...
~
~
Cilt~/ Of BOU~C~@1' ,4ppendix A-1
Public Works Department/Utilities Division
~. ~~~
~
Water for Boulder's Future
The city of Boulder has sufficient water suppiies to meet the city's pro~ected needs under the
present ultimate bwidout scenario and under all three of the scenarios currently being
considered in the Jobs/Population Project. People have asked how that could be, given that the
city of Boulder had water restnctions this year. There are several factors that address this.
1) In 1989, City Councd established standards for the city to meet that assure a reliable
water supply to the community. Water provided by the city serves purposes ranging from
cntical uses that require an assured supply, such as water for dnnking or fire figh6ng, to
those uses which can tolerate occasional restnctions, such as outdoor irngation or car
washing.
Our reliability standards vary for the types of uses For example, the city of Boulder
provides sufficient water to meet all municipal water needs up to and through a drought
severe enough to occur only once every 20 years on average. However, water for
landscaping needs may be restricted for droughts that occur more often than every 20
years and may be eliminated entirely for droughts that occur only once every 100 years.
~! The 2002 drought is considered to be a 1-in-300 year drought within the Boulder Creek
basin, which simply means it is extremely uncnmmon in its high degree of seventy.
Despite the extraordinary drought, the city has been able to supply all essential health
and safety water needs and stdl provide some water for landscaping. This has shown that
the city has the ability to meet our community's water needs within our established
reliability standards
2) Another factor relates to the city's mfrastructure. The capacity of the Boulder Reservoir
Water Treatment Plant and the capacity of Lakewood Pipeline currently limit the amount
of water we can get into the city's water system. The Lakewood Pipeline is bemg rebuiit
and when completed in 2003, wdl be able to carry more than 30 percent more water at
the times when additional water is avadable. (It is currently running at 15 million gallons a
day [MGD], and it will run at 20 MGD )
Due to the drought, over half of the city's water supply was delivered through the Boulder
Reservoir Water Treatment Plant this year The treatment planYs capacity will be
expanded in the near future. With an expanded Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment
Ptant, we will be able to get more water into the system.
Prior to bwld-out, Boulders water fac~lities will have higher capacities. Therefore, we wdl
,,., have a better abdity to meet our future water needs and will be able to continue meeting
tw,,, the adopted reliabdity cntena for the water system in future droughts.
3) Bcul~ar ~s a~o~t 90 N~rcert bwlt cu;. T~ere'cr2, re~: hcmes/developments vr,ll have a
limited additionai impact on our water supply
4) Gfobal warming may affect the amount of flow in the streams supplying Bouiders water in
the future, but it is unknown whether streamflows will increase or decrease in this area. ~'1
Current global warming models have difficulty predicting localized effects, and various `-r"
models have reached differing conclusions on possible increases or decreases in
streamflow m the northem Front Range
However, it is possible to look at the margin of error built into assumptions about the
ability of Boulder's water supply portfolio to supply future needs in each of the
Jobs/Population Project scenarios being studied. If global warming were to cause
streamflows to drop by 10 percent, it will produce a lesser reduction in Boulder's water
supply because the city owns some very senior water rights. It may take a 15-20 percent
reduction or more m streamflows to produce a 10 percent reduction in Boulder's water
supply.
If Boulder's water supply were reduced by 10 percent, the city could still meet pro~ected
water demands at bwld-out without increasmg the present level of necessary drought
restrictions under all of the Jobs/Population scenarios. However, if the city's water supply
were reduced by 15 percent in the future, Boulder would be unable to meet water
demands under any of the scenanos without some increased level of water use
restnctions during drought penods The vanations in water demands between each of
the Jobs/Population scenanos all fall within a 5 percent range of vulnerabdity to any
potential future reductions in water supply due to global warming.
Where does Boulder's wafer come from? ~"
~°
Like most Colorado communities, Boulder depends on stored water most of the year. High
streamflows from melting snowpack occur for only a few spnng and summer months. This water
is captured m reservoirs Natural stream flows in late summer and winters are not su~cient to
meet consumer demands and must be suppiemented with releases from reservoirs The amount
of water that is available for use vanes from year-to-year and depends on snowpack in the
mountains -
On average from year-to-year, about 40 percent of the city's water supply comes from the Siiver
Lake/Lakewood Watershed on North Boulder Creek, 40 percent from Barker Reservoir on
Middle Boulder Creek, and 20 percent from Boulder Reservoir sources. The Silver
Lake/Lakewood Watershed and Barker sources are used as much as possible every year
without reducmg drought reserve supplies. As Boulder grows, the percentage of water delivered
directly through the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant wdl increase to about one-third of
the total supply on average. The city owns enough additional water at Boulder Reservoir to meet
all of Boulder's future needs.
Water from Barker Reservoir is treated, along with the Silver Lake/Lakewood Watershed supply,
at the Betasso Water Treatment Plant. Most of the water treated at the Bouider Reservoir Water
Treatment Piant comes from the Coforado B~g Thompson (CBT) and Windy Gap pro~eets. These
projects divert water from the upper Colorado River on the westem slope and bnng it to „~,~
northeastern Colorado through a series of tunnels, canals and reservoirs.
/Colorado Water Resoaree s Research Institute /
5::•:~~~~a;y ~i ~-vi~rauo's,'3tunghts and Frrormiruer.i'vvei rerivds, Y890-1999. =
''~ NOTE. The dates tn th~s summary are bared an 12-nwnth ~(959-1973 DRY/WET Interesnngrollercouternde I
-- water year (Oct-Sepr) precipitatton totak from individua! N,lth altemanng very wet and fa~rly dry penods and -
weather srat~ons and thus are not ~dennca! to rhe dates ~rt ]azge spaual vananons Lwal droug6t was provalent ~
the table for 24-rrsonrh penods, at rke bonom of the page ~n 1959,1960,1962,1963,1964,1966 and 1972. Very
"~et weather was reported m 1961,1965,1969,1970
^ 1890-1894 DRY Severe but bnef drought m I890, and 1973 wtth episodes of floodma
paruculazly east of mountams, followed by a very wet
1891. Dry 1893 with severe drought 1894, agam most ^ 19741978 DRY Colorado's most:ecent penod of
pronounced over eastern Colorado sustamed mula-yeaz drought culaunaane m the I
record-brealungwmterdroughtof1976-1977,the ,
^ 1898-1904 DRY Sustamed and very severe drought ~est wmter m recorded tvstory formuch Colorado's -
over southwes[em Colorado Wocst drought on ~eh counay and Western Slope
record m Durango azea Some dry years elsewhere m ~
Colorado, but not as severe or susta~ned Very wet ^ 1979-1980 WET Bnef but pronounced wet penal
1900 northeast Colorado with heavy wmter snows helped replenish reservous
r""",
~
^ 1905-1929 WET Longestrecordedwetpenadm ~
Colorado h~story with ~eatest areal extent m 1905-
1906,191415,1921,1923and1927 Si~uficantbut
L~~L J~~ ..~L~ J J
ouci uavugau5 'u G:CUi uuiu~p Ifi75 ycTiuu, iTiuSi
norably 1910-11, and 192425
^ 1930-1940 DRY Most widespread and longest lasung
(and most famous) drought m Colorado recorded
tustory Severe droughtdeveloped m 1931 and peaked
m 1934 and early 1935 Interrupted by heavy spnng
rams m 1935 and more w~despread heavy rams ~n 1938.
Culaunated With one more exnemely dry yeaz m 1939
when several stauons along the Front Range recorded
thes dnest yeaz in ivstory
^ 1941-1949 WET Widespread wet wea[her, espec~ally
1941-42,1947 and 1949 Wet penod mteaupted vnth
dry mountam wmters -1944-•15 and 1945-~6 wieh very
'°- -------'---- - ~_. --
~vn mwwya~.wa~.~wuwauwi
^ 195a1956 DRY Ex~emelydrypenodstatewideexcept
for one very snowy mountam wmter 1951-52. Most of
state affected, and drought woise than the 1930s m
some areas such as [he Front Range.
^ 1957-1958 WET 1957broughtpeisistentwidespread
drought-brealang precip~tauon across neazly ail of
Colorado - wettest yeaz m ruorded tustory
1981 DRY M ex~eme but bnef drought penod from
the fall of 1980 mto the summer of 1981 Tlvs
drought agazn rook azm a[ the Colorado tugh country
and ski mdustry and imaated a hu~e investment m
snow makmg equ~pmenc It also suatulated the
wnung of the "Colorado Drought Response Plan"
and the forsnat~on of the "Water Avulabiliry Task
Force" wtuch has been meenng at least once a
quartereachyearsmce1981
^ 1982-1999 WET Colorado's second lonoest
sustazned wet penod m recorded hLStory and the
most drought free penad smce 1890 Extremely
abundant snowpack and surface water suppl~es 1982-
1987 - largest annual streamflow volumes tlus
century on several nve:s In[ecesnng penod, 1987-
1994 with only modest snow pack accumulaaon and
consistendy below average streamflows, but vnth
low elevauon precip~tauon above average reducmg
demand for surface water Sigmficant buc bnef
drough[ in 1989 to eazly 1990 m southwest Colorado
A bnef ~owm~ seazon drought m 1994 m noctheast
Colorado, and another locaUzed drought over SW
Colorado from laze 1995 mto 1996. Uery wet state-
w~de m 1995, 199~ and 1999 The decade of the 1990s
has been the wettest m recorded Ivs[ory over much
of southeastern Colondo
Table of Dry and Wet Periods for Colorado from the Fraction of Observing Sites.
Precipitation for 24 month SPI.
Date Dry Duration Date Wet Duration
1893-1905 X 12 yeazs 1905-1931 X 26 years
1931-1941 X 10 yean 1941-1951 X 10 yeazs
1951-1957 X 6 years 1957-1959 X 2 yeazs
1963-1965 X 2 years 1965-1975 X 10 years
1975-1978 X 3 years 1979-1996 X 17 yeats
15
Appendix A-3
~~
y~,..
~~~ O~ BQL~~(~Q~
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
DROUGHT PLAN
Volume 1
Drought Response Plan
DRAFT
November 14, 2002
~,"
....
~~ •~~~
~
~
Public Works Department
.H.
~
HYDROSPHERE
Resource Consultants
~quacraft in~~
IVAiFR fNGINffRIVL 6 NANAGEMfNI
DRAFT - City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1- Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Pagei
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This plan was developed cooperatroely by City of Boulder Public Works/Water Utdities staff,
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc., and Aquacraft, Inc. It reflects extensive input from
several public meetings and focus groups and from Boulder's Water Resources Advisory
Board The authors wish to acknowledge the expertise and assistance of scientists at the
NOAA Paleocl~matology Program regarding tree ring records and their application to stream
flow reconstructions We also appreciate the insights and cooperation of Northem Colorado
Water Conservancy District staff in evaluating the operation of the Colorado-Big Thompson
pro~ect dunng extended droughts. In addition, we would also like to acknowledge the
expertise and assistance of the economists and rate consultants at Integrated Utilities
Groups, Inc.
~
..,.-
~
~
~
DRAFT - City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1- Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page u
~ PREFACE
4~
The need for water use limitations due to drought is not expected to happen often to
Boulder's municipal water system because the city is fortunate to own a diversified water
rights portfolio that has a high degree of reliability The city of Boulder might go for a decade
or longer without expenencing any water shortfall due to drought. However, Boulder is
located m a semi-and climate and drought is an expected part of the natural hydrologic
cycle in this region. Although it is unknown when the ne~ drought will occur, it is viRually
assured that another drought wdl eventually occur.
The purpose of this Drought Plan is to provide a guidance document for recognizing
droughts that wdl affect water supply avadabdity for the city of Boulder and for responding
swtably to these droughts. Volume I is the Drought Response Plan, which includes
summary mformation on Boulder's water supplies, a categonzation of drought levels
according to seventy, and detaded information on the particular actions that might be taken
to respond to each drought alert level. Volume II is the Drought Technical Information and
Analysis that provides the supportmg documentation for the Drought Response Plan.
Specifically, Volume II contains the detaded analysis, data, and history to help assess
Boulder's water supply system
No municipal water supply system is drought-proof. The cost of providing facdities and
. water rights that might be used only once m many decades would be high and would not be
~._ a wise use of avadable funds A response to a drought penod will be required whenever the
available supply of water is expected to be less than the anticipated water supply demands
for an extended period of time, usually untd the next spring snowmelt occurs m the mountain
areas feeding Boulder's water system. Therefore, it is valuable to have a plan m place for
responding to drought that is based on expenence with previous drought events that have
affected Boulder's water system It is hoped that the availabdity of this plan wdl facditate a
promnt and appropnate response to future droughis
In developing this Drought Plan, it was recognized that there was a need to address a broad
spectrum of issues related to drought However, this document is not intended to expand
mto areas more appropnately addressed in the context of an ongoing water conservation
program. Ongoing water conservation efforts can ease the impact felt on normal activities
dunng drought periods but wdl not elimmate the need for reductions in water use during the
infrequent penods when the municipal water supply system has reached its limits. Because
these effoRs are considered to be part of a broader ongoing water conservation effort, they
are not reiterated as part of this Drought Plan
Given the high reliabtlity of Boulder's water supply system dunng all but relatively severe
drought penods, the response to most droughts can be a voluntary effort. However, there
will occasionally be a more severe drought, such as the drought of 2002, that will reqwre
mandatory water use restrictions in order to assure that the abdity to provide water for
,,,.,,. essential health needs is well-protected for all of Boulder's water customers. Throughout
,,,,,,, the Drought Response Plan, emphasis is placed on education and voluntary efforts with the
DRAFT - City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1- Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page m
more restnctive mandatory response elements reserved for the most severe drought ''"'+
situations. In addition, the Drought Response Plan focuses on implementation of act~wties `~'"
that wdl result in rapid reduction in water use. Actions that take longer to implement or have
a delayed response to implementation are included m the ciry of Boulder Water
Conservation Futures Plan (developed in July 2000)
As the Drought Plan was being developed, it became apparent that the plan needed to
serve several purposes and address various audiences. A major purpose of the pian is to
convey what type of drought response the public might expect to see with a given severity
of drought. This mformation could be conveyed as a stand-alone document. However, the
more detaded background information and analysis behind the development of the drought
response actions is of interest to those people with an active role in the recognition of
droughts and implementation of the drought response plan Rather than distribute the
drought plan mformation into separate documents, it has been divided between two
volumes of a single Drought Plan.
Havmg a complete understanding of the information contained in the second portion of the
Drought Plan is not necessary to successfully respond to a drought affecting Boulder's
water supply. However, this information and analysis wdl be of use to the city staff working
with drought issues and wdl be of interest to those mdividuals desinng more detailed
knowledge of drought situations.
~"~1
.v.
~
DRAFT - City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume t- Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page iv
..~
~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1-DROUGHT RESPONSE PLAN
INTRODU CTION .............................................................................................................1
PLAN PURPOSE AND ELEMENTS .. ... .. . . . . . . .. . . ................ .. . . .. .. . ............ 1
WHAT IS A DROUGHT~ . . . . .. . . . ..... ...... . . . . . . . ............. .. . . . 1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 3
HOW DO WE USE OUR WATER~ . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ........ .. . .. . . . ............ 3
WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? ...................... .... . . .. . .. ................... .. .. 4
HOW RELiABLE IS OUR WATER SUPPLY~ ......... .. . . . . . . . ............. . . . . ... 6
DROUGHT RESPONSE .................................................................................................7
DROUGHT RESPONSE TRIGGERS ................ . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... ......... ......... ... .. ..... 7
DROUGHT RESPONSE STRATEGIES ................. . .... . .... . .. .... ........................... .. .. .. .. 7
~` DROUGHT ALERT STAGES AND WATER USE REDUCTION LEVELS ... .. .. .. .. ......... ... ..... 8
DROUGHT STAGES AND RESPONSE OPTIONS ...... . . . ... . . ... ..... .................... ... .. ..... 8
STAGE I - MODERATE .................. . . . .... .. .. .. . . . . .......... ........... ....... . .. .......... 11
STAGE II - SERIOUS .... . .... . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..................... .... .... .... .. . .. .. ........ 12
STAGE III - SEVERE . . . . . . . . . .. ..... ........................ . .. .. . . .. .. .. . ........... 14
STAGE IV - EXTREME ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..................... .. . .. . . 16
PUBLIC INFORMATION ..............................................................................................18
RESPONSE STRATEGY . . ..... ................................ ............ . . . . . . ... .. . .. .. ..... 18
GENERAL GUIDELINES .. . . . ................. .......... ... . ... . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . 19
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 21
~.°
y...~
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 1
~
~,-
INTRODUCTION
PLAN PURPOSE AND ELEMENTS
The response plan includes the following three elements.
• Identifying and classifying a drought given knowledge of our water supply and use,
• Responding to a drought by increasing supply and decreasing demand, and
• Commurncating with the public about the drought
WHAT IS A DROUGHT?
"DroughY' is a concept that cannot be easdy defined except m the context of a speafic ~
region and a set of needs or expectations. Generally, it is a penod of time (months, years,
decades) dunng which the avadabdity of water is sigrnficantly less than the people, arnmals
and plants in a region are accustomed to en~oymg. Droughts are defined both by below-
average water supplies, due to below-average precipitation over an extended period ot time,
and the effects of the low supply.
Dro~ghi ~s a pa~; o~ the ~atural cycle in this regoon. Colorado is a semi-and state with many
areas receiving an average of about 15 to 20 inches of precipitation a year. However, the
amount of precipitation that can fall in any given year can, and usually does, vary greatly
from the average Some years may be extremely wet, and others may be very dry
Even though drought is part of the natural cycle, it is stdl a unique natural hazard. Drought
differs from other natural hazards in that it can have either a slow or fairly rapid onset,
develops over months or even years, affects a large spatial region, and causes little
structural damage except to plant matenal. It usually has no clear begmning or end. The
impacts of drought span a broad range of economic, environmental, and social sectors.
However, like other natural hazards, droughYs impacts can be reduced through mitigation
and preparedness. For Boulder, drought status can be determined by looking at several
factors including mountain snowpack, streamflows, water rights yields, sod moisture, spnng
and summer precipitation both at high elevations and in the city, and the influence of the
weather on water demands within the murncipal water system Dunng a drought year, the '"~,
total volume of water flowing in streams from one spring snowmelt to the next spnng ~-
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 2
~
,, ~,
~.m.
P"
~
snowmelt wdl be much lower than the
volume of streamfiow over the course of
an average year. Due to Boulder's high
dependence on the amount of annual
snowpack in the mountains, a drought
year is considered to run from one spring
runoff penod to the next (generally, from
May of one year untd May of the next
year)
Water Rights Yields
Water rights allow the owner to divert a set amount
of water under certain conditions if all sernor water
nghts owners are satisfied Senior water nght
means a water right with an earlier appropriation
date when compared to other water nghts. Since
climatic conditions and hydrology of streams vary
from year-tayear, the conditions under which a
specific water right may drvert water vary from year-
to-year The total amount of water that a particular
water nght is allowed to divert in any year is ds yield.
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Respo~se Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 3
^'1!
.,,
BACKGROUND
HOW DO WE USE OUR WATER?
As discussed above, weather plays a significant role in determining the amount of water that
is available In addition to weather, population and the community's water conservation
efforts also affect the amount of water that is used. On average, the annual water use for
the entire city of Boulder is estimated at 7,800 mdlion gallons each year The city water
users include residents and businesses in Boulder, Gunbarrel, Palo Park and Hoover Hdls.
Over the course of a normal non-drought year, about two-thirds of the water used in Boulder
goes for indoor purposes and about one-third for outdoor irngation In this regard, Boulder is
somewhat different than some other Front Range commurnties, where most of the water use
is for ;,~.~c:,r p;:rpcs2s Th2 ;2s~deM~a~ sector (single-famdy and multi-famdy combined)
consumes the largest amount of water in the city, using nearly 62 percent of the total treated
water delivenes The commercial, industrial, and institutional sector uses 26 4 percent of
the total. The murncipal sector, which includes parks and recreation centers, street
medians, public swimming pools as well as all city bwldings, is the smallest use category,
accounting for only 3 2 percent of the total treated water~ demand Nearly 8 5 percent of the ~
treated water is unaccounted-for (leaks, fire protecUon, main breaks, eta) - which is fairly .,,.,
typical for a utility of this size and age.
Colorado's climate is relatively dry and
extremely variable, therefore we are always in
a"drought watch" situation Since Boulder is
located in a semi-arid climate, this means we
are in a transition-region that can expenence
a wide vanety of climate conditions ranging
from droughts to floods Because of this
inherent uncertainty in water supply, it is
almost always advantageous to use water
efficiently and conserve water dunng non-
drought years.
To this end, City Councd approved the 1990
Treated Water Master Plan, which created a
water conservation office and staff position in
1992. A basic, all-voluntary, information and
education based program was implemented
and has been on-going since that time
Boulder's Current Water Rate Structure
The cit~s current rate structure for water is a
three-block increasing structure and is designed
to eqwtably distribute costs to customer classes
and to encourage efficient use of water by
charging a higher urnt pr~ce for using more
water
Water charges are composed of two paRs a
monthly service charge that is based on meter
size and a quantity charge The quantity charge,
based on monthly meter readings, consists of
three blocks of rates As the amount of water
use increases and moves into the next rate
block, the cost per thousand of gallons
increases
'',e
~ Treated water is the water supply that has gone through treatment processes to make it swtable for human consumption
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 4
The key elements of the water conservation program include.
• Educational seminars and workshops
~ Development and distribution of educational/informational media-brochures,
factsheets, ads, videos and CDROM
• Irntiation and admirnstration of a conservation rebate program
• Technical assistance to city departments and indroidual water customers, pnmardy
through landscape consultations.
• Several scientific surveys of customers' knowledge and attitudes about water
resources, use and conservation.
~ Individual research efforts designed to better understand water usage patterns and
the capabilities of conservation technologies.
In 2000, City Counal adopted the updated Treated
Water Master Plan, which included a Comprehensive
Conservation Program This enhanced program is
designed to bwid on the successes of the basic
conservation program whde providing more outreach
efforts, technical assistance, and financ~al resources
to customers. When funded, the Comprehensroe
Conservation Program wdl offer
Xeriscape
Landscape design that promotes
placing planting materials in
environments swted to the needs of
the plant The principies of
xenscape can be applied to an
individual landscape (e g , by
planting shade-loving speaes in
low-light areas) or to broader
landscapes (e g, by promoting use
of drought-tolerant speaes along
the Colorado Front Ranqe )
• An ungation efficiency and repair program for all residential and commercial
customers.
• Rebates and other incentroes for landscape conversion and efficiency efforts
• Increased educational outreach to all customers to increase awareness of efficiency
options and programs.
• Increased indoor conservation programs, in such areas as clothes washer rebates,
leak detection, todet retrofits and commercialhnstitutional water use efficiency
For more details on this program, please refer to the Ciry of Boulder Water Conservat~on
Futures Study (July 2002).
WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM?
Like most Colorado commurnties, Boulder depends on stored water during most of the year.
High streamflows from meltmg snowpack occur for
only a few spnng and summer months This water is Acre Foot
captured m reservoirs Natural streamflows in late ~ne acre foot = 325,851 galions or
summer and winter are not sufficient to meet yP ut the amount of water that cwo
t ical four-member households use
consumer demands and must be supplemented with ~n a vear
Th f h
- releases from reservoirs e amount o water t at
..~. is available for use varies from year-to-year and depends on snowpack in the mountains.
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 5
Every year the city of Boulder treats and delivers approximately 24,000 acre-feet of water '°
(7,820,424,000 gallons) to its customers. The city of Boulder obtains water from two distinct
sources:
• The watershed of Boulder Creek wa Middle and North Boulder Creeks (native basin)
• The upper Colorado River via the Colorado-Big Thompson2 system (western slope)
Boulder's abdity to obtain water from both east slope (native basin) and west slope sources
provides an important measure of reliabdiry against less severe, localized droughts Water
from the Boulder Creek watershed is either used on a direct flow3 basis from Middle Boulder
Creek or North Boulder Creek, or stored in Barker Reservoir or in one of several reservo~rs
m the Sdver Lake Watershed4 located on North Boulder Creek Water from the Colorado-Big
Thompson system is either used directly from the canal feeding Boulder Reservoir or is
stored in Boulder Reservoir. In all, the city owns approximately 26,000-acre feet of reservoir
storage capacity for its system
The city has two water treatment plants:
• Betasso Water Treatment Plant tor
the Boulder Creek water and
• Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment
Plant for the Colorado-Big Thompson
system water
Water Quality
During a drought, the aty may be forced to draw
on lower quality water than would otherwise be
accessed However, the city's two water
treatment plants are designed and operated to
treat drinking water to state and federal
standards The quality of treated water is
frequently tested and ad~ustments are made, as
needed, to the treatment process to produce high
quality water
Together these water treatment plants have the capaaty to treat approximately 55 million
gallons (about 170 acre-feet) per day From the water treatment plants, water is delivered to
customers through several hundred mdes of treated water pipelines In most years, the
majority of this water flows from Betasso Water Treatment Plant wa gravity, and a smaller
amount (25-30 percent) is pumped mto the city water system from Boulder Reservoir Water
Treatment Plant. Dunng drought years, such as 2002-2003, over half of the water supply for
the ary of Boulder may be delivered through the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant
As Boulder grows, the percentage of water delivered directly through the Boulder Reservoir
Water Treatment Plant wdl increase to about one-third of the total supply on average. The
city owns the right to enough additional water supplies at Boulder Reservoir to meet all of
Boulder's future needs.
~
2 The Colorado-Big Thompson Pro)ect, also knawn as CBT Pro~ect, is a water supply pro~ect owned by the Bureau of
Reclamation and operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District The pro~ect brings water from the
western slope to northeastern Colorado to serve as a supplemental water supply to native basin supplies
3 Direct flow refers to water diverted under a water nght that is restricted for immediate use and cannot be stored in a ~
reservoir
4 Watershed is defned as the land area that drains water to a particular stream, nver, or lake
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 6
~
.4.~
HOW RELIABLE (S OUR WATER SUPPLY?
In 1989, City Counal established standards for the city that assure a reliable water supply to
the communiry. Water provided by the city seroes purposes ranging from cntical uses that
reqwre an assured supply, such as water for dnnking or fire fighting, to those uses which
can tolerate occasional restnctions, such as outdoor irngation or car washmg.
Our reliabdity standards vary for the types of uses. For example, the city of Boulder provides
sufficient water to meet all municipal water needs up to and through a drought severe
enough to occur only once every 20 years on average However, water for landscapmg
needs may be restncted for droughts that occur more often than every 20 years and may be
curtaded to the point that some die-back occurs for droughts that occur once every 100
years. The most severe restrictions, where outdoor water use is totally elimmated, are
perrr~tted only once in 1,Q~^ year~
The 2002 drought is considered to be a 1-in-300 year drought within the Boulder Creek
basin, which simply means it is extremely uncommon in its high degree of seventy. Despite
this extraordinary drought, the city was able to supply all essential health and safety water
needs, and still provide some water for landscaping. Th~s has shown that the city can meet
f our community's water needs withm our established reliabdity standards.
~....
,~-~
~
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 7
""~V
~
DROUGHT RESPONSE
Once a drought has been declared, the city should be ready to implement a drought
response plan. How ma~or an intervention wdl be required wdl depend on how severe the
actual drought becomes. However, determining when a drought is tnggered is not an exact
science Instead, making that determination can be similar to trying to predict the future.
Ultimately, predictions regarding future water supply avadabdity are made based on the best
mformation available at the time and are updated frequently as better information becomes
avadable.
DROUGHT RESPONSE TRIGGERS
The .^.?^St 2~^.rr^rflflt@ t!mo fer ~va!ua?ing drought response triggers and planrnng drought
responses is late Apnl to early May. During this timeframe, knowledge of the tmal spring
snowpack measurements provides a relatively high degree of confidence regarding the
amount of runoff, and the amount of water that Boulder will get for the year from ihe
Colorado-Big Thompson system is known Additionally, nearly ali of the irngation season stdl
I~es ahead ,,,,,~
`...~
It should be noted that any drought response tnggers should be used only as a gwdeline.
The city of Boulder should carefully evaluate these tnggers, and other factors urnque to the
particular drought, to determine the drought level for response.
DROUGHT RESPONSE STRATEGIES
There are two approaches to responding to a drought one is to mcrease the water supply
and the other is to reduce the demand. Each option presents its own unique
intergovernmental and techrncal issues and must be considered individually
Below are a number of possible actions that may be taken to increase the supply of water in
response to a drought.
• Increased fall/winter season use of the Boulder Reservoir treatment plant
• Elimmation of Colorado-Big Thompson leasmg programs to local farmers
• Exercise of drought reservation clauses in Boulder's instream flow agreements
• Exercise of interruptible supply arrangements with local ditch comparnes. These
arrangements are legal agreements that promise water service most of the time, except
when certam conditions, like drought, make it impossible to continue that service (thus,
the water service is interrupted)
• Water trades with Basehne Reservoir ~
• Exchange of Colorado-Big Thompson water for water released from Jasper Reservoir. --.
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 8
• Drawdown of reserve pools in Boulder's reservoirs
,,,~ • Temporary use of Open Space irngation nghts (e g Farmers Ddch) for murncipal
purposes.
• Drawdown of Skyscraper Reservoir
• Lease of additional Colorado-Big Thompson supplies.
~ Emptying of dead storage in Boulder's reservoirs Dead storage is the water in the
bottom of the reservoir, below the outlet, that can only be removed by pumping.
• Out-of-pnonty5 d~version of water under the "murncipal priont~' clause of the Colorado
Constitution, with condemnation-based compensation to in~ured farmers.
The other method for responding to a drought is to reduce the demand for water The
remamder of this document descnbes how to reduce water use m relation to drought stages,
water use reduction goals, and various response actions for each stage
DROUGHT ALERT STAGES AND WATER USE REDUCTION LEVELS
Droughts can be categorized into stages depending on the level of seventy Each of the
stages can be associated with a certain level of reduction in water use that is needed in
order to continue to supply enough water for present and future demands. The types of
droughts that Boulder might have to respond to can be summarized based on alert levels in
the following table
~
Drought Alert: k
~e ~ Sta e p _ '` ~' Description ~
° ~ , - Annual Water Use
~~ Reduction GoaF ~
I Moderate 10%
II Senous 20%
~ III Severe 30%
IV Extreme 50%
DROUGHT STAGES AND RESPONSE OPTIONS
This drought response plan progresses from what can be done dunng moderate droughts,
moves through increasingly more mtense drought levels, and presents a list of possible
response actions The four drought stages that are discussed m this plan include the
following - moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. With each drought stage, there are a
number of possible actions that may be taken to reduce the demand for water Since every
drought is different, a different mix of options/actions wdl be employed to reduce water use.
~°~
~ `' Out-of-pnoriry is defined as the status of a water right that is not allowed to divert water from the stream because more
senwr water nghts are divertng all available water supply
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 9
Table 1: Drought Response Plan Summary
- Stage ii
= Serious
20%
• Restnctions -
moderate limitations
on outdoor use
• Passible drought
surcharge
Keep the following
vegetation ahve
- Trees
- Shrubs
- Vegetable
Gardens
- Flower Gardens
- Lawns
~
Keep the following
vegetation alive
- Trees
- Shrubs
- Flower
Gardens
- Turf
(includes
plaNng
fields, parks,
medians)
Stage Iil 30%
Severe
• Mandatory restnctions
- severe limitations on
outdoor use
• Probable drought
surcharge
Keep the following
vegetation alive.
- Trees
- Shrubs
- Vegetable
Gardens
Keep the following ~
vegetation ahve: "~
- Trees
- Shrubs
- Turf (playing
fields and
other where
possible)
Determine on case-by-
case basis if public pools
will ooen
Stage IV 50% • Ban outdoor water on Sustain some mature trees, Sustain some mature
- Extreme turf. but recognrze there may be trees, but recogrnze
• Essential indoor water a ma~or die-off of lawns, there may be a ma~or
° use only trees, and shrubs die-off of turf, trees, and
= • Very likely drought shrubs
= surcharge.
'The 2002 drought would be categonzed ~n the Stage /ll - Severe category
As part of the development of the Drought Response Plan, the public and staff provided
feedback on responding to a drought Several key issues, or themes, were raised and have
been included in this plan These key philosophies include the following.
'"~
' Stage I 10% EducatioN Voluntary Voluntary conservation Provide water w~se
'= Moderate restrictions measures information and
' education.
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 10
,-. ~ • Pubiic Involvement. Before, dunng and after a drought, a dialogue must be fostered
between the community and those leading the drought effort. This is an ongoing activity
that involves educating as well as listenmg to input received from citizens This could
take the form of public meetings, informal conversations, input received from the
community via phone calls and e-mails, and any other avenues that support the drought
response
• Equity It is important to ensure that discomfort, difficulty and potential sacrifice are
shared and not borne by ~ust one type of customer, particularly as a drought becomes
more severe Conservation measures for each rype of customer need not be the same
but they should reflect the values of the community, m terms of what is important to the
commurnty (yards, pools, golf courses, parks, etc ) and stdl be equitable in terms of
"everyone is doing something."
• Public versus private standards. Even whde maintaining eqwiy, it may be necessary
to allow a different watering standard on "public proper[~' than on private property. The
public parks and athletic fields may need to have a higher degree of flexibility for water
use man pnvate areas, in order io preserve me a~iiiry to use these limited public areas
during a drought. This concept can be incorporated in Drought Stages I, II and III.
However, in Drought Stage IV, it is unlikely that there will be suffiaent water supplies to
allow this to continue.
• Flexibility. Although restrictions may be necessary in response to a drought, there
_ needs to be flexibdity so that customers can decide how best to use their water. For
instance, customers prefer to know the quantity of water they can use each month but
not be told how to use the water. More flexibdiry will be prowded in Drought Stages I and
II However, Drought Stages III and IV are of such cntical nature that reliance upon pnce
control and customers' good intentions wdl not get the reqwred results during a severe or
extreme drought In response to the 2002-2003 drought, many citizens requested
leniency in enforcing the watenng restnctions by isswng fewer violations and more
wamings, or tiy forgroing well-intended citizens who made a mistake Enforcement is a
balancing act The tnck is to provide enough enforcement to achieve the overall goal,
but not become so heavy-handed so as to create a customer revolt. Enforcement may
be reduced or may be more flexible dunng Drought Stages I and II than in stages III and
IV The 2002 Drought was considered to be Stage III, for which there was limited
potential for lernency to be granted for property owners who did not comply with the
watermg restrictions
These key phdosophies are represented in the response options for each stage. Following
is a descnption of each drought stage and the list of possible actions/responses that could
be taken to reduce the use of water
,,..,
+..-
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume t-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 11
STAGE I - MODERATE ~
~
Use Reduction Target -10 percent
A drought at this stage would pnmanly focus on usmg a voluntary program to reach the
annual water use reduction target of 10 percent. The water use reductions could come from
elimmation of leaks, waste, and unnecessary irrigation. It would not be anticipated that any
noticeable damage to lawns or other landscaping areas would be incurred as a result of the
voluntary reductions m water
Below is a list of possible responses/actions that may be used during a moderate stage of
the drought to reduce water use.
Water Reduct~on Actions
• Ask customers to voluntanly reduce water use, including eliminating waste, leakage,
a~d ;:nnecsssar~ outdoor water use, through use of their own methods and aty of
Boulder suggestions
• Discourage changes in landscape or establishing new landscape since this is water
intensive
• Encourage the use of pool covers on al{ pubVic and private swimming pools during
non-use times. ^q,,
~ Encourage city departments to reduce water use, in particular irrigation use, an „w.~
additionaf 10 percent beyond current efficiency targets.
• Increase staff resources to implement drought response measures.
Public Information
• Irntiate public information campaign to raise the public's awareness of the drought
conditions:
• Publish water sawngs targets and actual consumption to reinforce water efficient
practices.
• Acquaint customers with measures they can expect rf drought continues or
mtensfies
• Provide information to customers on how to set up a water use plan for their home or
busmess, and how to track their water use.
• Publicize the drought response hotline and the drought web site so citizens can
access up-to-date drought information and/or leave messages regarding questions
and comments. Train cdy staff to respond to the hotline.
• Publicize efforts of individuals and business customers as examples of reducing
water use.
• Use utdity b+ll inserts to highlight section on customers' bdl which compares water use
this year from water use last year
~
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 12
, Partnennq
• Contact large water users to get their ideas and support on ways to reduce water
use
• Coordinate with the existing Partners for a Cleaner Environment (PACE) program to
encourage water use surveys (comprehensive water use analyses) for high-volume
water users in all customer classes, adwse them on ways to reduce water use and,
where appropriate, provide retrofit devices.
• Monitor drought response effectroeness, recommend adjustments to Water Resource
Advisory Board (W RAB) and then to City Councd, document results, and report back
to the public on the results
STAGE II - SERIOUS
Use Reduction Target - 20 perceni
A drought at this stage would focus on not ~ust eliminating waste but on sign~ficantly
reducing water use below normal levels. This could be accomplished using moderate
restrictions, and possibly a drought surcharge, to reach the annual reduction target of 20
~ percent. The restnctions, if implemented, would mvolve moderate limitations on outdoor
water use. There may be some browning of lawns, but in general, there would be little long-
term damage to lawns or other landscape as a result of the reductions in water use.
Below is a list of possible responses/actions thai may be used during a serious stage of the
drought to reduce water use:
Water Reduction Aci~ons
• May employ some measures listed in the moderate drought stage
• Implement mandatory outdoor use restnctions needed to achieve necessary
reductions Restrict outdoor water use to specified hours of the day and specified
days of the week for all customers
• Eliminate street clearnng, playground, and sidewalk and dnveway (and other
hardscapes) washing, except in mstances of spdis of toxic or hazardous substances,
or where public health and safery issues can only be resolved by washing the
impermeable surface.
• Recommend that changes in landscape or establishing new landscape be
postponed.
• Add drought surcharge, a temporary charge designed to enhance revenue stabdity
and encourage water conservation through pnce signals
• Reduce indoor water use.
'~ • Encourage restaurants to only serve water upon request
~.
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 13
• Encourage all hotels, motels, athleUc clubs, inns and bed and breakfast '"~
establishments to have only showerheads meeting maximum flow rates of 2 5 gallons
per mmute and faucet aerators meeting maximum flow rates of 2 2 gallons per
minute
• Encourage all hotels, motels, inns, and bed and breakfast establishments to change
sheets no more than every four days for guests staymg that long, unless necessary
or specifically requested by the guest
~ Promote the reduction of water-cooled air conditiornng.
• Ad~ust temperatures in bwldmgs with water-cooled air conditioners to reqwre less
water
~ Increase education and funds for existing rebate program for high efficiency toilets,
clothes washer conversions and industrial process devices.
• Step up city of Boulder's ongoing leak detection and repair activities for water pipes
and mains under streets.
~ Consider reading meters more frequently than once a month. This would reqwre
additional staff, funds, and changes to the utiliry bdling system
• Restnct vehicle washmg on dealers' lots and in company fleets, both govemmental
and prroate sector.
• Reduce city fleet vehicle washing by 50 percent
• Restnct personal vehicle washing
• Eliminate all fire hydrant uses except those reqwred for public health and safety
• Designate official tree watering days to preserve our long-term landscape
mvestments. ''1
• Train and assign staff to respond to complaints of dlegal water use and police outdoor -~
water use
• Request that ail city of Boulder facilities reduce their water use by 20 percent and
continue to report back to the community on the results. This will demonstrate the
importance of the situation and illustrate the leadership of the ciry m dealing with the
crisis.
~ Request Parks to submit landscaoe irngation management plan for park facilities
aimed at an overall reduction m use by 20 percent.
• Increase staff resources to implement drought response measures.
Public Informat~on
• Intensify public information to reinforce the need to employ more senous measures;
generate awareness of drought status, response, policy recommendations,
requirements and penalties.
• Generate more intense public discussion and media mvolvement about ways to cut
water use while mirnmizing impacts on landscape and recovery planning.
• Publish water sawngs targets and actual consumption to reinforce water efficient
practices
• Publicize the drought response hotline and the drought web site so citizens can
access up-to-date drought information and/or leave messages regarding questions,
comments, or reports of water waste Train city staff to respond to the hotline ~+,
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 14
~..
~ Publish a do-it-yourself "water waste reduction" brochure for households and
aggressively promote it by stuffing it into utdity bdls, putting it on the city of Boulder
drought web site, and using other effective means of distribution.
• Provide each customer with a drought "report card" at the end of the year that
summanzes the customer's water use dunng the drought and compares it to use in a
non-drought year.
Partnennq
• Provide customers the option of installing a personal unofficial water meter on their
incoming waterline to track their use.
• Coordinate with the existing PACE program to encourage water use surveys
(comprehensive water use analyses) for high-volume water users in all customer
classes, advise them on ways to reduce water use and, where appropriate, prowde
retrofit devices.
w..
„-,.
w`.-
~ Establish a fee-based program to allow large-volume irngation accounts to submit
individual water management plans
that require the customer to achieve
targeted water use reductions as an
individual altematroe to the
mandatory restrictions.
• Provide assistance or mcentroes to
customers plannmg for post-drought
landscape revival or replacement
(emphasize Xenscape potential).
• Morntor the effectiveness of the
drought response, recommend
adjustments to WRAB and then to
City Council. document results and
report back to the public on the
results.
Individual Water Management Plan Program
The individuai water management plan program
for large-volume vngation users might be
structured to allow the water user to propose a
plan for achieving the same overall reduction in
water use reqwred of other water users {e g.,
20°/,), but with use parameters suited to the
large-users vngation system The plan would
include methods for measunng, monitonng, and
reporting water use and agreement on the fines if
use goals are not met The water user might pay
a fee in the range of $250-500 for the increased
costs to the cdv of adm~rnstenng an ~nd~wdual
plan
STAGE III - SEVERE
Use Reduction Target - 30 percent
At a severe drought alert level most of the methods used dunng the senous drought alert
level would also be used m an amplified form to reach the annual reduction target of 30
percent. In addition to more severe limitations on outdoor water use, a drought surcharge
will be probably be implemented. There wdl be significant die-back of lawns and there would
probably be damage to other landscape as a result of the reductions in water use. Severe
drought would include events up to the 1,000-year drought occurrence event, at which point
ali but the most mmor of outdoor uses would be elimmated
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 15
Betow is a list of possible responses/actions that may be used, in addition to the measures ~
from staqe II, to reduce water use
Water Reduct~on Act~ons
• Establish more restnctive outdoor use limitations needed to achieve the necessary
reductions.
• Increase enforcement response measures
• Elimmate curbside vehicle washing by all customers (includes car dealers)
• Restnct filling prroate swimming pools
• Reqwre the use of pool covers on all public swimming pools dunng non-use times.
~ Reduce the use of or close public and pnvate swimmmg pools and other water
recreation facdities.
• Require that omamental fountains in buildings and parks be tumed off.
• Impose additional landscape restrictions on water use proportional with the
mcreasing severity of the drought
• Restnct all outside imgation, mcludmg park, golf course, school grounds, and other
govemment facdity irrigation.
• Restnct water use in greenhouses and watenng of nursery stock.
• Restnct irrigation ot private and commurnty food, herb and flower gardens.
• Prohibit all new landscaping including planting of trees and shrubs
• Intensify reductions of indoor water use ~
• Eliminate serwng water in restaurants except upon request
• Require all hotels, motels, athletic clubs, inns and bed and breakfast establishments
to have only showerheads meeting maximum flow rates of 2.5 gallons per minute and
faucet aerators meeting max~mum flow rates of 2.2 gallons per minute
• Reqwre all hotels, motels, inns and bed and breakfast establishments to change
sheets no more than every four days for guests staying that long, unless necessary
or soecifically requested by the guest.
~ Restnct non-essential uses m mdustnal, commercial and institutional operations.
• Add drought surcharge, a temporary charge designed to enhance revenue stability
and encourage water conservation through pnce signals
~ Request that all ciry of Boulder facilities reduce their water use by 30 percent and
continue to report back to the community on the results. This wdl demonsirate the
importance of the situation and illustrate the leadership of the city in dealing with the
crisis.
• Request Parks to submit landscape irrigation management plan for park facilities
aimed at an overall reduction in use by 30 percent.
• Increase staff resources to implement drought response measures.
Public Information
• tntensify public information to reinforce the need for more senous measures;
generate awareness of drought status, response, policy recommendations, ~•-,
requirements and penalties
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
fVovember 14, 2002
Page 16
y~~ ~ Generate more intense public discussion and media mvolvement about ways to cut
~ water use while minimizing impacts on landscape and recovery planning.
• Publish more information on ways to mirnmize landscape damage and loss
Partnennq
• Monitor drought response effectiveness, recommend adjustments to WRAB and then
C~ty Councd, document results, and report back to the public on the results.
STAGEIV - EXTREME
Use Reduction Target - 50 percent
A drought at this stage would focus on using mandatory restnctions to eliminate outdoor
water use ana oniy auow essentiai inaoor water use, to reach the annual reduction target of
50 percent. A drought surcharge would very likely be implemented There will likely be a
complete loss of lawns and there wdl be ma~or die-offs of trees and shrubs as a result of the
reductions in water use. A drought of this magnitude would be a ma~or natural disaster for
Boulder, and would create great economic and horticultural losses
,~, Below is a list of possible responses/actions that may be used, m addition to those
measures alreadv emploved at staqes It and III, to reduce water use
Water Reduchon Actions
• Prohibit use of any outdoor watermg system (manual or automatic)
• Close public and pnvate swimmmg pools and other water recreation facdities.
• Prohibit the filling of swimming pools.
• Require ihat all omamental fountains and water features be tumed off.
• Increase enforcement response measures.
• Add drought surcharge, a temporary charge designed to enhance revenue stability
and encourage water conservation through pnce signals
• Consider a moratonum on new water taps until reservoir levels nse
• If possible, designate offiaal tree watering days to preserve long-term landscape
investments.
• Request no fdling of hot tubs, spas, and other non-essential indoor fixtures.
~ Increase staff resources to implement drought response measures.
• Require that all city of Boulder facilities reduce their water use by 50 percent and
continue to report back to the community on the resufts. This wdl demonstrate ihe
importance of the situation and illustrate the leadership of the ciry in dealing with the
crisis.
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 17
Publ~c Informat~on ~"'~
.,..
• Intensify public information to remforce the need for more senous measures;
generate awareness of drought status, response, policy recommendations,
requirements and penalties.
• Publish more inforrnation on ways to salvage some landscape and the most valuable
trees.
Partnennq
~ Morntor drought response effectroeness, recommend ad~ustments to WRAB and then
to City Counal, document results, and report back to the public on the results.
~
~
,"~
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 18
..
~- PUBLIC INFORMATION
During any cnsis or natural disaster, it is imperative to commurncate clearly and effectively
with our vanous audiences A drought is a urnque challenge because a strategic campaign
must be launched with the difficult goal of changmg behavior. In addition, no one knows how
long the drought will last When responding to a drought, there are three key goals for the
public mformation campaign.
~ Communicate the need to reduce water usage by a certain percent during a specified
time period.
• Create a partnership between the city, businesses, neighborhoods, CU, and other key
constituencies to address the water shortage.
• Educate the public about water conservation methods.
RESPONSE STRATEGY
To meet these goals, the following actions wdl be implemented as part of the public
information campaign The actions listed below apply irregardless of the specific drought
s stage.
~....
• Develop/launch public information program
• Create a theme/slogan/iogo/graphics that is meaningful to the commurnry.
• Commun~cate the key messages:
*"This is the situation." (Descnption of problemhssue and what we wdl do to address
it )
*'"~nis is what the ciry is doing." (The ary is taking the lead m water conservation
efforts. Here's what we're doing.)
*'This is what you must do "
*'This is how we are domg." (regular feedback to the commurnry)
*"We are m this together "(The aty wdl take the lead in water conservation efforts and
wdi partner with the commurnty for success.)
• Designate a spokesperson(s) who wdl be the key contact with the media, City Counal,
City Manager and the commurnry.
• Designate a person to manage the information and the message as well as make sure
all essential staff is informed and understand the situation, message, etc.
• Create a drought public information team consisting of those who can help reach out to
all intemal and extemal audiences. The team wdl mvolve staff who can reach different
sectors of the community and use their contacts (such as key personnel from Public
Works, Parks and Recreation, City Managers Office, Open Space, as well as the CU
~,,,, Liaison, Neighborhood Liaison, and business relations (PACE) liaison) The public
~ information team wdl meet regularly to share ideas and coordinate activities.
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 19
^1
In general, the city's drought response campaign wdl inform the public about the drought `°
and the potential water supply problems, encourage specific water conservation behawors
and regularly report back to the community on the effectiveness of the conservation
measures.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
In penods of drought, the effectiveness of any plan is contingent on timely, clear, precise
and honest information to the public As with many public information campaigns
respondmg to crisis situations, events may trigger specific actions, however, there are
"basics" that descnbe a legitimate and successful public information campaign The
following gwdelines are cntical as one plans, develops strategies, and sets into motion a
campaign that is designed to change public behavior
• Provide a consistent and convincing message A successful public information
ram~ai~n ~n3t ~~ ~tdli@~J atnr~~ a rncie ~~r~~3+!~~ n,ust have a consistent message that
presents an honest appraisal of the situation, must state clear expectations and must
provide regular feedback. Belief in the seriousness of a water shortage in the communiry
is a necessary condition for persuading consumers to conserve
• Be clear, concise, and simple. The campaign must identify specific outdoor and indoor ~
conservation tips to bridge the gap between consumer awareness and behavior The
conservation measures should be relatively simple and require a minimum cost (or
sacrifice) for the consumer. The personal cost and inconvernence associated with these
changes should be minimized by a careful selection of conservation measures to be
implemented
• Make the message personal The more personal the information, the higher the
iikeiihood is 4Mat it wdl be understood and assimilated by its receiver. Consumers are
more likely to engage in conservation if they know how much water they can save by
certain speafic actions and if they are convinced of the importance of their personal
efforts in lessening the impacts of drought.
• Listen to the community It is important to remember that communication is not one
way Listening to the community is as important as talking to the commurnty. Solid
information about the effectiveness of a public mformation program can be found in the
questions, comments, suggestions and general feedback received from the communiry.
• Provide regular feedback. It is absolutely essential to provide concrete and real
feedback on water savings dunng drought (i e., how are we doing). Provide regular
feedback on conservation efforts, and provide economic and social incentives for
conservation Provide social reinforcement of conservation behaviors
To insure success and buy-m, the city must not only set an example and take the lead m~'`
water conservation but must work with the community as partners Our commurnty must
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 20
~~° have confidence in the source, and this may mvolve bwidmg a chmate of behef between the
+...- sender and receiver For example, in the 2002 drought, an irntial challenge was convmcing
some segments of the community that there was mdeed a drought. Once that irntial
understanding was established, those segments of the commurnty actively supported water
conservation efforts
The public information program must be a part of the normal enwronment of the community.
The messages must be in simple terms; the messages should be repeated; and they should
be consistent with one another. The messages must have meaning for our community. They
must be compatibie with our value system and must be relevant to the problem Established
channels of commurncation should be utdized, paRicularly channels that are used and
respected by the commurnry.
.~ ~ -
~
~
~
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 21
SUMMARY
Drought, a shortage of water usually associated with a deficiency of precipitation, occurs
when the demand for water exceeds the avadable supply of water. The severiry of drought
depends on the magnitude of the deficiencies compared to histonc averages, the size of the
area impacted, the duration, the abdity of people to respond, and the resdience of the water
supp{y system. Even though the cdy of Boulder has a relatively reliable water supply
system, there will be some drought years where a drought response is required to assure
sufficient water supplies are avadable to carry the c~ry through untd reservoirs can be
replenished.
This plan is intended to help staff, customers, stakeholders, City Councd, and the Water
Resource Adv~sory Board better prepare for a drought. Ultimately, our drought response
decisions wdl be based on the specific circumstances during the drought and cannot be
known with certainty ahead of time Therefore, this plan does not spell out each speafic
acUon m a penod of drought; ~t is instead a guide for the commundy and decision-makers in
a drought situation.
~
~
Eqwty, public involvement, flexibdity and recognition of the drfferences between pnvate and
public areas are the gwding pnnciples of this plan However, the success of any drought
response effort is dependent upon the wdlmgness of our commurnty to work together '"'~q
~
~"*,,
City of Boulder Drought Plan
Volume 1-Drought Response Plan
November 14, 2002
Page 22
~~^`°'
•,W,a
,R°"",
`~.~..
~
~
Appendix A-3
~
City of Boulder Water Use by Customer Category
Unaccounted Municipal
8.5% 3.2%
Commercial/
Industrial
26.4%
Single-Family
Residential - -
34.2%
Multi-Family
Residential
27.7%
~
Appendix B
CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE PARK TURF
'"~' Defimtron of Terms
~...
I. Park s~te use classificahon
A H~gh use
I Yeaz-round use as weather perm~ts
2 Used by both groups and mdmduals
3 Intenstive use by groups
4 Frequent use [hroughout the day and week
B Med~um use
1 Seasonal use as weather perm~ts
2 Used by groups and md~v~duals
3 Interm~ttent use throughout the day and week
C Low use
1 Sporad~c use
2 Used by mdrnduafs
3 Low impact use by small groups
4 Sporadic use throughout the day and week
II Turf condmon
A Excellent
Parks
90-100% lrve turfgrass coverage
0-10% weed mfestatwn/ bare soil
~
'„r, Athlehc fields m complex or pazk settmg
95-100% lrve turfgrass coverage
0-5% weed mfestahon/baze soil
Sahsfactory
Parks
50-90% hve turfgrass coverage (I queshon gomg as low as 50% for sahsfactory~)
10.50% weed mfestauon/ baze so~l
Athleac fields m complex or withm pazk settmg
SO-95% tive turfgrass coverage
5-20%a weed mfestanon/baze soil
C Unsahsfactory
Pazks
0-50% turfgrass coverage
50-100% weed mfestahon/ bare soil
Athlehc fields m complex or wuhm park sethng
0-60% live turfgrass coverage
40-100% weed mfestanon/baze soil
~
"+,..