Loading...
9E - Neighborhood Park Service Area Map & Excerpts from City of Boulder Drought Plan, Vol. 2 02/20/0~ ~ , ~ s Nei hborhood Park Service Area - Ci~ of Boulder a 9 Y ~;I ~ ~ ~~~' ~ Niwol Rd. \ ~I rd / ` ~ ~ s ~- ~ - . .. v+.e SPi_=eF ~ ' _..~ ~r'::i' / NIW( ~ ~ Monar ~~ I li ~ ~ II I ~ ~V I - vy ~Fo ~ F~_ ~' . ~\`$~~ ~ e I ~ ' I . ~ ': f"'" li ~ ~ ~.~ ~ .~ II~~ ~ . I~ ~Taoie Mesa or I ~ ~ .~ I N j ' ~ i ~ ~ ', 1 n~aoanoe aa ~ ~ ~ - ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ SoumBOUiaerRd. Legend . ` ~ . Park Service Area - Park Service Area Bartierro Access :~': Provisional PaM Service Area ~ UntlerServetl Areas Intlustnal, Commercial, Public, Agricultural Zonetl Areas F t e Development Ste ~'' N al PaM Lantl - SF 'al Use Fac I ty _ U b Park _ Area II OPan Space and Mountain Parks Lantl • Untlerpasses antl Britlges V- ~ C~ Q ce Rtl, y m~r I ~ N a~,; ,~ ae. ~~. } _I~~ n~ ~~~ I-~' f' ~~~ .~ ~~~ ~o~ Excerpts from City of Boulder Drought Plan, Volume 2, February 20, 2003 Boulder's Water Supply Reliability Criteria In developing drought management strategies, water managers have recognized that it is not feasible to design a system to meet unrestricted demand in the face of any and all droughts. The costs of such a system would be socially unacceptable in terms of water rates and environmental impacts of water development compared to the inconveniences and minor damages that would from occasional demand reductions in response to droughts. During the development of Boulder's 1988 Raw Water Master Plan~, Boulder adopted water supply reliability criteria that struck a balance between the costs and environmental impacts of increased reliability and the consequences of temporary water supply restrictions. These eriteria were the subject of extensive public meetings and reflected the near-consensus of public opinion. • For those uses of water deemed essential to the maintenance of basic public health, safety and welfare such as indoor domestic, commercial and industrial uses and fire fighting uses, Boulder shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with recurrence intervals of up to 1,000 years. • For that increment of water use needed to provide continued viability of outdoor lawns and gardens, Boulder shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with recurrence intervals of up to 100 years. (The phrase 'continued viability of outdoor lawns and gardens' has been defined as provision, at a minimum, of the amount of water necessary to meet the basic survival needs of outdoor landscaping in general, including trees and shrubs.) ~ For that increment of water needed to fully satisfy all municipal water needs, Boulder shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with recurrence intervals of up to 20 years. The criteria suggest that, during droughts with recurrence intervals between 1-in- 20 years and 1-in-100 years, watering of lawns may be restricted to the extent that grass goes dormant and other landscape vegetation may become stressed, but that sufficient water would be provided to prevent death of plants, trees, and shrubs. In droughts more severe than a 1-in-100 year recurrence, it can be expected that water availability for landscaping would be reduced to the point of threatening the continued viability of portions of the landscape. The performance of the city's water supply system during the 2002 drought was consistent with the city's reliability criteria. During 2002, stream flows in Boulder Creek were at the lowest levels in about 300 years. In this 1-in-300 year drought, the system performed better than expected by providing 57% of the normal outdoor use. This drought year was severe enough that, according to the criteria, only a minimum amount of water was expected to be available for landscape irrigation. Instead, the Boulder water system continued to provide enough water for outdoor irrigation such that only minor loss of landscape throughout the city occurred, mostly in turf areas. .. . Direct Historical Evidence of Droughts Stream gage records provide direct evidence of historical droughts. From the perspective of Boulder's water supply system, the stream gage on Boulder Creek near Orodell is the most suitable gage for this purpose. This gage measures the combined stream flow from North and Middle Boulder Creeks, which provide the majority of Boulder's physical water supply. Recorded flows at the Orodell gage are not natural or virgin flows. They reflect several upstream diversions including those at Barker Reservoir and Boulder's Silver Lake Watershed. However, records of these diversions are readily available and the virgin flow at Orodell can be easily reconstructed, as shown below. This figure illustrates that Boulder Creek streamflow volumes are highly variable and significant droughts occur regularly. The current drought in the Boulder Creek basin began in 2000 and includes the lowest stream flow year (2002) of the last few centuries. , ao,ooo ~ zo,ooo LL 100,000 a ~ o so,ooo > ~ 0 LL 60,000 n 0 c e a ao,ooo 20,000 1910 1920 7930 1940 1960 1960 1970 7980 1990 2000 Tree Ring Evidence of Historical Droughts While stream flows records are limited to the past century, tree rings provide another source of evidence of historical droughts. Tree rings have proven to be useful in extending our records of stream flows back in time and providing valuable insights on the long-term variability of stream flows. This is possible because the growth rings of properly selected trees adequately reflect the year- to-year variation in flows in nearby streams. Scientists at NOAA's Paleoclimatology Program and Hydrosphere have recently used tree ring data to reconstruct vir~in stream flows in Boulder Creek that extend back as far as the early 1700's. The resuits of this analysis are shown in below. These data show that Boulder Creek has experienced droughts that were more severe than those of the last 90 years. The current drought, although extreme, appears to be within the range of historical variation. i ao 000 M ~ ~ ~ ~ u a~ d E ~ ~ 0 > 0 a c oi ~ > 'm 0 c c a ~ 60,000 ~~3 - lowest ar based on trae ring evldence - 28,800 AF . F~ow tor 2002 (ad~ueted to be 40,000 Avera e Annual conalsterrt wfth tree ring deta) - Flow - 73,700 AF ~ zo,ooo 00,000 60,000 B0,000 40,000 zo,ooo 0 7700 1725 1750 7775 1800 1825 1850 1875 7900 1925 1950 1875 2000 Boulder Creek near Orodell, natural flow based on tree ring evidence Figure notes: Flows for 1703-1987 based on tree ring reconstructions Flows for 1988-2001 reconstructed from gage flows by Hydrosphere. Flow for 2002 expressed as the mean tree ring-based flow for 1907-1987 minus 2.14 standard deviations, based upon the number of standard deviations between the actual projected 2002 flow and the mean reconstructed gage flow for 1907-1987. The actual projected natural flow for 2002 was less than 32,000 AF. Tree ring-based hydrology and demand data were incorporated into analyses of Boulder's water supply system conducted as part of the Drought Plan development. By using this information to extend the available hydrologic record, it is possible to formulate drought management strategies that can address the relatively more severe droughts evidenced by the tree ring records. This is described in more detail in a later section of this report. ... Analysis of the 2002 Drought Development of the 2002 Drought Year From a meteorological perspective, the drought period including 2002 actwally began in the spring of 2000. Precipitation records for SNOTEL sites in the headwaters of Boulder Creek and the Colorado River upstream of the CBT project show that precipitation in these areas fell below average beginning in April of 2000 and remained below average in 2001. Precipitation feli drastically below average in 2002 and remained so until snowstorms occurred in October 2002. Boulder has two snowcourses in the Silver Lake Watershed on North Boulder Creek that are measured at the first of every month throughout the winter. Each of the two snowcourses showed readings as low as or lower than they had ever been. City staff followed the snowcourse readings throughout the winter and realized that they were quite low. Concern was heightened about the upcoming year's municipal water supply, but was not extreme because, in almost all years, snowpack levels increase from April 1 to May 1, often by 20 to 25%. However, the May 1, 2002 readings for the two snowcourses showed that the snowpack had decreased significantly during April. The streamflow levels in Boulder Creek had not risen by the amount expected if the missing snowpack had been melting into the stream. Much of the snow had apparently sublimated or been soaked up by the soil. On May 1, 2002, no snow could be found at the Boulder Falls snowcourse which had never happened at this site as long as records had been kept. The average snowpack measurement on May 1 at this site over fifty years of record is 13.3 inches of water content. Previously, the lowest May 1 measurements had occurred in 1954, with a reading of 1.6 inches, and in 1981, with a reading of 1.2 inches. Both 1954 and 1981 were considered to be very severe drought years. At the University Camp snowcourse, the May 1, 2002 reading was 4.9 inches compared to an average over 62 years of record of 20.5 inches, so snowpack was at 24% of average at this site. On May 1, 1954, this site had a reading of 15.1 inches. Snowcourse readings and comparisons with previous years are shown in the figures below. End nf May Sr~~w-water Content at University Camp Srrowcourse 45 ~to 35 ~ ~ 30 ~ ~ 25 ~ 2U ,$ ~ 15 c 10 5 Unirrersity Camp Snawcourse ` ~ ~ - , f ~ '~ i ' ~ ; 'a a,P. ~ _ ~ F~ ~, ~ ~•~~ ~ ~ z;~ ~ .~ ~k ~; ~ ~~;,,~` ~ ° _ ~ _ ~ °~~ , 7 ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~ . v~: ~ ~~'~~w'".`~+y ""n ~n::~ '. ~¢sw ~4,~ ~~+h ~~. ~.. ~' x ~ ~ i ' ` ' ~ .. . F ` sfsi::~~ > . , r~ vN' ~:~a.tw.M ~r ~yW"'~ m ~~ ~.. ,. ~. , _ ' _ ,~ , F + e i 1fr :. - .n. y~.xA ~.. T . .Y'YM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ kY. '`§~,~ ~'~ ~ ~~,: : ° . , ~ f u y `d ce r: i 1{~i . . . I . ~ . . . . . , . , ~ , ~:.. « .., . ; _ . ., .; .. ,<. ~ , ; . e.. . r . . '" . .. %~: ? `F.i« ~w'" ' . K+~ ~. ~ y r„ ` . .. , ,. F ...,. .. :. , . ~ . ...-. ~ . . , s~ , . 4 ; AV . R.,. .. . . .: . : v ~^ ~~ I . . . . . ~ ~ ~ i . ~ . . 3lP aaY ~a . ~ , r ~ ,, , ~ °~. ~ ~. t 4 ~~ n ~., z . . , ~ a ~ .,~ ~ '`~I~~< .i-1 ~I a'.~J 1 ~..9.~ F _~ 1(11. Ff ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ;`o~ -4 " (l`'~ ~E f. ,Ulti]'~ ~? ~~„ I i .,, tit .': . i ~ : '~ , ,it,, . ~4: .U t .iti~ 1 . . 7 .;X .,i ,.1 ., '~f , ~et .^~i t ~ . . ~ ~ ~. .. ~ _ ._ ~oulder Falls Snowcourse 0 ^~ ~.°~h ~." +~~~ ti`O +.~~ +.9~ +.Q~~ ti`~ ~.°~y ti~ s~~ ~.~~p +.P'~ ~~ ti`~ +.°~~ ~.~ ~.`~" +~`~- ~`~- ~ -~- End of May Snow Water Content - May averago (1938-2002) Water Supply Reliability Assessment Summary of Approach Hydrosphere used the Boulder Watershed Model to assess the ability of Boulder's water supply system to meet its projected build-out demands in accordance with Boulder's water supply reliability criteria. The model was originally developed to simulate all significant aspects of hydrology, water rights, water storage and diversion facilities and water uses in the Boulder Creek basin. The model utilized a 1950-1994 period of hydrologic record under the assumption that the historical drought of 1953-1956 was a sufficiently severe drought event against which to test the city's water supply system. In developing this plan, the modei was expanded to include a simplified sub- model of the CBT Project and Windy Gap projects. This allowed for simulating operation of the two projects during periods prior to their construction. The model was modified to run against a 300-year period of record that reflects the results of tree ring-based reconstructions of natural flows for Boulder Creek and the Colorado River for the years 1703-1987 (actual historical data were used for 1988-2002), This expanded data set allowed for a more robust assessment of the reliability of the city's water suppiy system, including the performance of the CBT and Windy Gap projects. The model was also refined to include the drought response triggers and associated demand reductions shown in Errorl Reference source not found. above. The response triggers were evaluated on May 1 of each year in the model. The response triggers were a function of the forecasted degree of fill of Boulder's upper Boulder Creek water system storage and CBT system storage over the following two-month period. The demand reductions were applied to the subsequent 12-month period. The model also simulated Boulder's invoking of drought reservations associated with its instream flow program and its raw water delivery obligations. Key Assumptions In the modeling analyses done in this reliability assessment, several key assumptions were made. Each assumption is treated as a'given', including two capital expenditure items that have been previously identified as top priorities for maintaining the reliability of the city's water.supply system. • All of Boulder's existing raw water storage, diversion and conveyance facilities are in good working order and capable of operating up to their full capacities. The adequacy of the Farmers Ditch in allowing the city to divert its full portion (12.17 cfs) of Farmers Ditch water rights to Boulder Reservoir should be particularly noted in this regard. ~ Boulder is able to use all of its water rights according to their decrees. • The reliable capacities of the Barker Gravity Line and the Lakewood Pipeline were assumed to be 26 MGD and 20 MGD, respectively, and the Betasso plant was assumed to be capable of simultaneously treating the combined maximum inflows of these pipelines up to 46 MGD. • The reliable treatment capacity of the Boulder Reservoir plant was assumed to be 15 MGD year-round, including during the winter season when the Boulder Feeder Canal is not operating. ~ Boulder's raw water delivery obligations to the Silver Lake Ditch, Caribou Ranch and Valmont Reservoir operate according to their respective contractual agreements with respect to droughts and drought reservations. • Annual leases of municipally-decreed water to agricultural users are discontinued during drought years so that the water is available for delivery into the municipal system. • The drought interruption clause within the donation agreements to the Colorado Water Conservation Board is invoked during severe drought periods and use of the donated water for instream flow purposes is temporarily suspended. • Boulder's build-out water demand was projected to be 28,600 acre-feet. This is based on population and employment assumptions presented in Error! Reference source not found. (which reflect the proposed scenario with the highest water use developed through the Jobs and Population project) increased by a 10% safety factor. This safety factor addresses uncertainties related to potential increases in water-intensive industries and `real world vs. modeled' operationa~ factors of the water supply system. • This modeled demand assumes that the water savings associated with Boulder's recently adopted Comprehensive Water Conservation program will have been achieved. If this program is not implemented or does not result in the projected level of water savings, then the 10% safety factor assumed in the water demand projections above will not exist. The Jobs and Population Project has proposed several different scenarios for Boulder's future housing/worker balance. Each scenario would resuit in its own water demand pattern at buildout. However, use of the proposed scenario with the highest water demand will accommodate the needs of the other, less water- intensive, scenarios should they come about. The Jobs and Population Project also projected the number af workers and population in Boulder if the current trends cdntinue into the future. The wat~r use assaci~ted wifih th~ current trend~ scenario is 11 % higher th~n the proposed ~cenario with the highest water use. Boulder's present water demand and water needs under the current trends scenario and the praposed scenario with the maximum water use are shown belaw. Water Needs i onr~i~ ~ooa Max usa ~roposed Max use proposod Pr~sent demand scenario--6uildout scenarlo--buildout Current irends demand w/o wtr cons - -- ---- - - _._ --- - ---- 0 2.600 2860 2890 - - - - - _ .__ - - ---- - r Use 2A000 26000 2f3600 28860 r^Sconerlos l3aso Wator Uso @910%U SaToty Factor ~ ~oulder'~ water use under several future scenario~ Results of Assessment v~~ -~ ~i~' ~~ ~ „~> .~ ~~~•_: " ~>,'p-: `,'{~ r~~..,~ ; •s . Curr~nl tre~nds wlo wafer consorvation -- 31„~O :i 1750 The modeling results show that, giv~n implementation of the dernand rnanagement and capacity expansions listed in the assumptions above, Boulder's wat~r supply system would be capable of ineeting its projected buildout derr~ands, plus a 10% safety factor, in a manner consist~nt with ~oulder's adopted reliability criteria. Over the 300-year modeled period, Boulder's project~d buildout demand was fully satisfied in all but 1O years, a~ summarized in the following table. This ~quates to some level of demand reductior~ onc~ ~very 30 years on average and no demand reduction grQat enough to cau~e significant permanent damage to landscaping. Results of reliability assessment Caveats and Areas af Uncer~ainty It should be noted that this finding of adequacy is contingent upon the assumptions listed abov~. Several of these assum~ significant capital expenditures by the city. Sensitivity analyses show that if Bnulder's modelsd build-out demand is increased by an additional 10% to 31,500 a~re-feet (while still maintaining a 1 b% safety fa~tor), the number of years with r~quired demand reductions would rise ~rom 10 to 25 years out of 300, equivalent to demand reduciians once evQry 12 years ~n av~rage. l`he 25 reductic~ns woulr~ include seven years with Level 2 reductinns, five years with a Level 3 reduction, and one year with a Level 4 reduction as shown in the figure below. This level nf periormance would not meet th~ city's reliability criteria and still maintain a 10% saf~ty factor. The 10% safety factor should nat be considored discretionary as this safety factor addresses uncertainties related to pot~ntial increasos irr water-intensive industries and `real world vs. model~d' operationa~ factors of the water supply system. A 10% increase in the city's build-out demand could result from failure to implement the Comprehensive Water Canservaiion Program in~luded in the Water Corrservation Futures Study. An 11 °/p increase could result from allowing the Jobs and Population Project's `Current Trends' scen~rio to materialize. Failur~ to implement the Camprehensive Wat~r Conservation Progr~m or allowing the Current Trends sc~nario to mat~rialize would place water demand levels beyond the margin of error for assurance of a reliable water supply. A comparison of supply and demand under variaus scenarios is shawn below. Z _ ~ ~ ~+ ~ 0 ~ ~C ~D ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ -e CD ~ ~ ~ ~~ O ~ y ~ ~ Q. tA ~ ~ C C. O C rs ~ ~ rt ~ ~ C ~ (D ~ Ca ~ ~ 93 ~ O~ ~ Number of Y~ar~ with or withraut Restri~tions in 300-Year Per~ead Current trends L~uiEdesut ~rlo wat~r conservafian & wlo i 0% sa€ety faetor Current 4rends buiidout w/ water c conserv~t'eR~ ~ ~;,~;~~°~osafeiy 0 ~ r~~.._. ~ c 0 u ~ ~ ~ ~iax Use pragJ~~~ s~~~~re~ 3 ~ Es~ildaut w/o watec ~~:?s~rv~~e~n & w/ 10% safety factar Ma~c Use pro~sos~ scer~ario buildoui w/water ~anserva~ion program & wh 0% safety factor 210 220 230 240 25D 25Q 27P3 280 290 300 310 ~ Full demand satisfied - no restrictions ^ Leve! I- Moderate ~ Levei I I- Serious ^ Level ll! - Severe ^ Leve{ IV - Extreme Water Supply vs. Demand ~ m r+ tD ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ m ~ Q a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^! i~N Tt ~ ~ Y ~ ~'w Ys ~ ~ ~ m o~ ~ 45000 4(?000 ~aao ~ooo ~ m 3 tl z~oo~ : ` , ~ ~ ~ ~;, ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ `~ ; ~ ~ ~ : ' ' 2aaoc r~ .e _ t - . A~ ~ ~~; ~ i ~ ~./v V V -, . E' i` ~ ~ " .. $'1i:'' .. . . . '~ ~~v~.~„~ fNQ:G3 supg(y avaiiab[e p~~sent demand '~"`" `"~~ ""~~ `°°t"~ _bui[daut wlo wtr ~ Curreni trends ~ -buifdout demand ~ ~ , I aans I ~ w/o water ' conservation , ~ Unrestra~ned Water ~emand I 24000 ~ 28600 ~1460 31750 I 34920 '~ non-drought supply 39600 j j ~ I ^ 1-in-20 year drought supply 34000 ; ~ ~ ' I i ~ 1-in-50 year drought ~upply 26600 ; ~ '~~ ~ 1-in-100 year drought supply ' =`3~u~~ ' i I , ! iG00 I i7700 ~ Scer~arias I !.._ . I M~ use scena~~ ! Current trends I Each scenario would result in its own pattern of occurrence~ of the various draught al~rt levels as previously d~scribed. This pattern is shown below. Occurrence$ of Drought Alert Ler~els at Buildaut Conditions 14 12 ~ ~ 10 `a a ~ m m ~. g 0 a M C .y 6 m m ~ ~ 0 p 4 Z 2 p .~~. L.evel I- Maderate Level II - Serious Level III - Severe Level IV - Extreme Drought Atert Level ---. _- - - - ---- - - -- - - - - ------- _ _. _. ^ Max Uso proposed scenarlo buildout w/wAter conseNation program & w/10°1o safety faclor ^ Max Use proposed scenario buildout w/o water conservation & w/ 10% safety faclor ~Current trQnds buildout w/ water conservalion & w/10% safeFy factor ~ Current trends buildout w/o water conservation & w/o 10% safety tactor Occurrence~ of drought al~rt levels The water yield analysis is based on evaluation af historic climate data. 'There are s~veral plausible c(imate chang~ scenarios that could significantly improve or degrade the city's ability to reliably meet its currently projected build-aut demands. As discussed previously, the current state af climate modeling at a regional level is not sufficiently developed to fully evaluate the extenfi, if any, af the ~ffect of future climate ~hanges on Boulder's water yields. While many areas of uncert~inty are out c~f Baulder's control, the city c~n manag~ its growth and its related water demands and can pursue additional water supply developm~nt options. ... Irrigation Use Reduction Reducing irrigation demand can have a large effect on total water demand and on peak demands since, as previously discussed, irrigation makes up a large percentage of summer-time use. There are two very effective means to reduce irrigation use-changing the plants within the landscape and changing lawn watering methods. .... Landscapers estimate that an established xeriscape landscaping will use 1/3 to 1/4 of the water recommended for bluegrass lawns. In addition, it is estimated that the water use for a newly-installed xeriscape will use half the water that an established bluegrass lawn uses."' This is based on the following assumptions: • The bluegrass lawn is receiving 1~/z" of water a week with a 70% efficient sprinkler system. • For every 5000 square feet of xeriscape, 1000 square feet is bluegrass,1000 square feet is perennial flowers and groundcovers, and 3000 square feet is shrubs. • The flowers and groundcovers have moderate water requirements (10 galions/square fooUseason), rather than being very xetic. They are watered using an in-line soaker line with 0.6 gallons per hour (gph) emitters every 12 inches, with the soaker lines laid 18 inches apart. • The shrubs are planted an average of 3.5 feet apart, and each have one 1 gph emitter. • The shrub and flower irrigation zones are run for 1.5 hours twice a week. • The shrub and flower beds are mulched with wood mulch: 1 inch for flowers and 3 inches for shrubs. ~ The soil is clay or clay loam. Many bluegrass lawns receive more water than this, as discussed below, and many xeriscapes use less water than this. A xeriscape using buffalograss or having no lawn, and having more xeric perennials and groundcovers will use less water. However, inclusion of some bluegrass, even in a xeriscape, is very appropriate in some locations and often helps to make the appearance of xeric landscapes more acceptable to homeowners who desire a more "traditional" landscape. Some turfgrass specialists state that the drought tolerance of bluegrass is generally underestimated'° While bluegrass may require more water than other turfgrass species to look its best, bluegrass may also survive drought better because of its capability of going dormant. When bluegrass is allowed to go dormant, as little as'/z inch of water every 2 to 3 weeks will keep the crowns of the plants alive. After sufficient rain or irrigation is then received, the grass will quickly recover. Bluegrass can potentially survive several months without significant rainfall or irrigation. The drought tolerance of bluegrass was demonstrated during the drought year of 2002 for many Boulder lawns. The irrigation restrictions caused most bluegrass lawns to go dormant during the summer. The city received many calls from residents who were not willing to readily believe that their lawn was dormant and not dead. However, after some precipitation arrived in the fall, lawns throughout the city quickly turned from brown to green. Even with landscapes composed almost entirely of bluegrass, much can be done by the city to reduce water use through education on proper irrigation and provision of information on the amount of water required. Bluegrass lawns are often over-watered. In Denver, studies have indicated that 1.5 to 2.0 inches of water have been applied by homeowners to lawns each week when only 0.9 inch is required for an attractive bluegrass lawn." The amount of water applied to a lawn need not exceed the maximum evapo- transpiration (ET) rate of the lawn less the rainfall, as this is all that the plants can use. However, studies have found that adequately fertilized grass, with sufficient nitrogen, had a minimal reduction in visual quality when irrigation was decreased to 70% of the amount needed to meet the maximum ET rate." Bluegrass can be maintained in a dormant state with little plant die off with as little as 50% of the maximum ET rate: " The maximum ET rate for lawngrass and 70% of the maximum ET in average and dry years for the Denver-Boulder area is shown below. Evapo-transpiration rate for lawngrass in the Denver-Boulder area Water Use for City Parks and Street Landscaping Presently, municipal use (including parks irrigation, recreation centers, and street median irrigation) in Boulder accounts for about 3°/a of the total annual demand of the city water system. As a part of the city's on-going water conservation program, an annual water allotment is set for all irrigated city parks property. The goal of this allocation has been for the Parks Department to use only 75 percent of the theoretical maximum water requirement for bluegrass for these properties. The Transportation Maintenance staff foilows the same allocation practice for irrigation of street landscaping. As discussed above, adequately fertilized bluegrass remains attractive and healthy-looking when irrigation is decreased to just 70% of the maximum ET rate. During the public meetings for the Drought Plan development, strong support was voiced by the majority of citizens for the concept of setting different, more lenient standards for the irrigation of pubiic landscapes than for private users. The community has commented that it highly values the ciry's many parks and playing fields and desires to have a high level of maintenance for these properties, even during a severe drought. Many citizens attending public hearings and writing to local newspapers expressed that they would be accepting of efforts to keep public landscaped areas green even as private yards are going brown. There appears to be broad support for a policy decision to allow the city Parks and Recreation Department to operate under an individual irrigation management plan allowing city parks staff to manage an allocated amount of water during drought periods when restrictions limiting irrigation time are in effect for other water users. The Parks Department has demonstrated their ability to keep water use within a fixed allotment requirement. If restrictions are required in the future, the Parks Department could follow its own set of water use reduction targets because of its capability to manage the irrigation systems in the parks system to meet those targets. There is presently in place a monthly reporting system that provides direct feedback on water use to the Parks Department staff every month. Parks staff has the training to read the parks water meters using a remote read tool which can give them daily or weekly water consumption data if needed. The overwhelming majority of the Parks and Recreation Department water use and the Transportation Maintenance water use is for irrigation and occurs during the summer months. This is the period when, in droughts, the city will be asking its water users to achieve the water use reductions percentages for the irrigation season as shown below. Percentage reduction goals for types of wat~r us~ge Alert `~"~~~~! ~~~~~,~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~ ~ `1~ '~~ ` ~~d~ , ~4, rl~~`i1W.l~~l,i ~'1~'4;~~ I ~~. ~" F.,./~,,.+(~...~ ~ . ~.4~ . Cy{.I a.3\J ~ ~~~} . } . :.: ..,. ,# ~` . q g. ~~~4~`~~~,~ ~ ~ ~C,.:E 1 i,) """ f5f~t'~~ . 1 ~' . . „ ,_ ~~ 7 : . . . . ~~ 5 . . . ~qyy I `~ ....... .. .. . ... . .. q 1 ~1 - ~ .. . ~~~~~~rrr~~~r~~~~~:~1 I~~Ir~~t.~~~~r't~~a~ ,' ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, " ~~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~fitx~lfi6~~iQ~4.~ac~~ t~~°tfr ta1s~B,~:~~aC~P~B~l1~~ ~ C;i~'~e~ ~~li4~d'~: ~fi~:~t:~d~i ~t`~a;1f tt3C..1P"it:.~ . . ~ ' .~ ~~~ _ _ s~~l ~ ~.. ~.r _ .., ~1,~~ ~~t.SP,~.Ep}F.,1i ~.~Idl~.~d)~~~~.~ iV94,8~~q,~ il-~-, f ~ ~``~ 1~~~~ ~ ~ ".-,~a ~ ~~~i ~~~~~ ~ `ca'l ~~ The irrigation season targets for the overall city are higher than the annual targets because only 34% of the city's overall water use is outdoor use, occurring in the irrigation seasdn, and this is the most discretionary type of water us~. Hawever, because of th~ Parks Department's demonstra~ted ability to carefully manage their water allocation and because of the unique seasonal and outdoor use distribution of their w~ter usa, it is appropriate to set indc~or and autdoor water use reduction goals specifiic to the Parks Department, rather than applying the irrigation season goals for the city as a whole. Transportation Maint~nance can continu~ to follow th~ same allocatian percentages as is set for parks in irrigation of street landscaping. The city's overall annual water us~ reduction goals can be used tc~ develap goals for reductians in indoar and c~utdoor u~e for the Parks D~partment to achieve in each drought stage. The Parks Departm~nt overall anr~ual gaals woutd be the same as the city's averall goals for Dr~ought Stages II, III, and IV. However, the Parks Departm~nt g~al f~r St~ge I dre~ughts can be set slightly lower (5% instead of 8%) in recognition of th~ high degree of on-going conservation practiced by th~ Parks Department in achieving the regular annual water allocation goal. The overall annual gaals can be expr~ssed in terms of the reductions in indoor and outdoor wafier use that will b~ required of the Parks Department, assuming 85% of Parks Department water use is outdoors and 15% is indoor use. If the ratio of Parks Department indoor to outdoor use changes in the future, it would be appropriate to ~Iter the values shown in the following table. The reduction in water usage for irrigation of parks prop~rties at each drought stage can be expressed in terms of the maximum E7 rate for bluegrass in th~ same manner as the allocation is set in non-drought years, In evaluating these numbers and how they translate into visual quality of parks landscaping, it is important to remember that an amount nf water that meets 75% of the maximum ET rate is considered a 100% allocation in non-drought years because 70% of the maximum ET rate is sufficient to sustain a healthy bluegrass lawn. Also, as previausly dis~ussed, blu~grass can remain in a dormant state for manths and recover readily wifih little long-term damage with as little as 50% of the maximum ET rate applied. Therefore, these water use allocations should provide for parks turf to remain green ~nd healthy in Stage I, remain green though stressed in Stage II, remain alive though dormant in ~tage III, and not di~ off until a Stage IV drought. As previously discussed, these restrictians on irrig~tion water availability should occur in fram 10 to 25 years out of 300 years. Water use allocation levels for Parks Departm~nt Nanpotable Water Use In response to this year's drought condifiions and Boulder's watering restriction prograrr~, there has beer~ much interest voiced in various ways ta reduce treated water use within the city. Ideas such as household greywater reuse, rain barrel storage af rooftop runoff, a city-wide reuse ~ystem, increased use of ditch water for park irrigation and groundwater use were brc~ught up. Rainbarrel Starage of Rooftop Runoff Several concerned citizens thaught it would be a good idea for homeowners to capture rooftop runoff in rainbarrels in order to partially meet water needs for landscaping, Unfortunately such practice is prabably ill~gal under Colorado water law. The State Engineer has stated that capturing rain runoff in rain barrels represents an unlawful diversion of water that is a part of the stream system and that should be administered according to the priority system. The city is unable to authorize or promote rain barrels for this reason. Even if rain barrels were legal in Boulder, the amount and frequency of rain in the summer make them a doubtful proposition at best when a cost benefit analysis is pertormed. For example, a 55 gallon barrel filled once a week would supply less than 5% of the water needs for an 800 square foot lawn. During a drought period when precipitation is limited, it is unlikely that even this much water could be captured. Water Reuse The broad concept of water reuse covers several ideas ranging from household greywater use to a city-wide reuse system supplying large irrigated areas. There are important legal restrictions common to all reuse options. Under Colorado water law, water rights are created on the basis of an applicant's intended beneficial use. The return flows from that beneficial use are normally considered part of the allocable supply in the stream available to other water rights. Colorado water law therefore prohibits reuse of water, except for the following situations. • Water diverted under a water right was originally decreed to allow for such reuse. 1 Groundwater pumped from nontributary aquifers is generally reusable because this type of groundwater is not part of the natural stream system. • Water imported from another stream basin is generally reusable because of its 'foreign' nature with respect to the receiving basin. However, CBT project water cannot be reused due to specific project restrictions that assure that farmers on the lower South Platte, who helped pay for the project but are located far from project facilities, would receive the benefit of increased return flows. • Changed water rights whose diyersions are limited to the amount of water that was historically consumed in the original use. In this case, the changed water right is diverting water that was historically lost from the system via beneficial consumptive use. Other water rights are therefore not entitled to the return flows from such a changed water right. Most of Boulder's water rights are decreed for municipal use on a one-use basis only. The only significant exception is Boulder's Windy Gap rights. Windy Gap water is imported from the Colorado River Basin and its return flows are fully consumable. While Boulder owns an average supply of 3,700 AF of Windy Gap water, this supply is not reliable during droughts due to Windy Gap's junior water rights. Boulder can firm up about one-third of its Windy Gap water in its long- term storage account in Boulder Reservoir and through exchange to Barker Reservoir. Boulder also owns a several changed irrigation rights associated with the North Boulder Farmers Ditch, the Lower Bowider Ditch and Baseline Reservoir. Boulder changed these rights to allow for reuse of that water to extinction. However, the amount of net reusable water provided by these rights is relatively small. In order to implement a large scale reuse system, Boulder would have to firm up some or all of its Windy Gap water and develop an augmentation plan based upon its Windy Gap supplies. Household Greywater Systems Some citizens have requested information on greywater systems with the belief that reuse of household greywater would be an effective way to conserve water and reduce the impacts of droughts. Household greywater reuse typically involves manually capturing rinse water from sinks, washing machines, tubs and showers and using that water for landscaping irrigation. While a few 'designed' household greywater systems have been built in urban settings, most have fallen into disuse because of maintenance requirements and the relative ease of treated water options. A brief analysis of household greywater potential shows that very aggressive promotion of this water source (active participation by 20% of Boulder's single family households capturing 20% of their totai indoor use) could probably meet up to 70 acre-feet of the city's 24,000 acre-feet of treated water demand per year. Realistically, both of these assumptions are probably extreme upper limits given the labor and time-intensive nature of greywater capture and reuse. More realistically speaking, a minor and informal level of household greywater reuse normally goes on during periods of watering restrictions. The city cannot formally support or organize household greywater reuse on either level without first developing an augmentation plan and obtaining a Water Court decree allowing the use in order to avoid injury to other water rights. In addition, public health concerns would need to be addressed. While it would be possible for the city to do this, the costs would probably be prohibitive given the insignificant water savings potential. Water Rights Considerations with Greywater Use Colorado operates under the Appropriation Doctrine for administration of its water. This means that the right to divert water from the stream for use is determined based on ownership of water rights. Each water right has its own characteristics including its priority date (which determines when water is allowed to be diverted under a water right as compared to other more junior or senior water rights), its flowrate or volume limitations, its possible uses, its diversion point, and whether or not it carries the right to reuse water after the first use under the diversion. If any of these characteristics are changed, other water users on the stream have the right to review the proposed changes before they are approved by the Water Court in order to make sure that they are not injured by the changes. Other water users have this right because the diversions and return flows from one water use directly affect other water rights. The frequently- used saying is that "One person's retum flow is another person's water right." If the amount of water returning to the river from one water user's diversions is reduced from the historic levels, it might cause less water to be available to anothec water user who has depended on the return flow for a long period of time. This is why water cannot be reused by the original diverter after the water's initial use for its decreed purpose unless the water right specifically states that reuse is allowed. Water not consumed by the firs# user is not "wasted". It will be used by diverters downstream who have the legal right to expect that the unconsumed portion of the first use will become available to them. In this manner, Colorado's water allocation system has a built-in reuse system that assures no water goes to waste. Most of the city of Boulder's water rights are decreed for municipal use on a one- use basis only. The return flows from the city's single use are part of the allocable supply available to other water rights once discharged from the wastewater plant or returned to the stream from lawn irrigation. The only exceptions are water owned by Boulder in the Windy Gap Project, and a small amount of Boulder's recently changed North Boulder Farmers and Lower Boulder Ditch water rights. When the city uses water under these rights, the city is entitled to claim ownership of the water remaining after the first use either for crediting against new diversions into the municipal system or for leasing to water users downstream. Household greywater systems would have the effect of increasing depletions to Boulder Creek below 75th Street by increasing the consumed portion of Boulder's municipal water supply. Consumed water is water that is not sent to the water treatment plant, treated, and then put back into Boulder Creek for others downstream to use. Any change of the historic return flow pattern of Boulder's water system, including extensive use of greywater, has the potential to cause a decrease in the historic return flows to other users. This could trigger a"call" on the river for water by senior water rights owners and force Boulder to pass water that the city could otherwise divert under more junior water rights if the senior users had been satisfied by return flows. In the longer-term, promotion of greywater systems by the city has the potential to trigger a reopening of many of the city's water decrees with imposition of new terms and conditions on Boulder's ability to divert water into the municipal water system. Therefore, if the city were to actively promote use of household greywater systems, it could cause the ironic effect of reducing the total amount of water available to divert into the municipal system. Water users downstream are entitled to the historic amount of return flow whether it is obtained from return flows from city water customers or from decreases in the city's initial water diversions. In the and, no water is "saved" either for the city or the stream through use of household greywater systems. Boulder has an extensive reuse system and de facto greywater system already in place in the forrn of downstream senior water rights that divert Boulder's wastewater and put it to use. In this manner, Boulder's return flows help to meet the needs of downstream water rights, thereby increasing the city's ability to divert in priority upstream. In addition, this existing reuse system is based on discharges of treated wastewater from the treatment plant delivered to downstream users and meets all state permitting requirements. Assuring the quality of wastewater from greywater systems may be difficult and would not provide the same protections to human health as reuse through the city's wastewater plant. Public Health Considerations with Greywater Use The State of Colorado has a regulatory framework for regulating individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) which is how greywater systems would be classified. The state has adopted the Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Act, (the "ISDS Act") that sets the minimum standards for individual sewage disposal systems. See C.R.S. § 25-10-101 et seq. The Colorado Legislature directed the State Department of Public Health and Environment to adopt guidelines that set the minimum standards that County Health Departments are supposed to meet when they develop these standards. See § 24-10-104, C.R.S. The standards of the local health board are required to be no less stringent than the State ISDS guidelines. See § 24-10-104(2), C.R.S. and State ISDS Guidelines, § II.A. and The State Department of Public Health and for regulating the ISDS permitting process. on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Guidelines") This document contains the included in local regulations related to ISDS require that a greywater system "shall me Environment has adopted guidelines That document is called "Guidelines - Revised 2000" (the "State ISDS minimum standards that should be permits. The State ISDS Guidelines ~t at least ali minimum design and construction standards for a septic tank system ..." See State ISDS Guidelines, § VIII.D.1. Boulder County has adopted ISDS regulations that comply with the State ISDS Guidelines. Therefore, a person that would like to install a graywater system within Boulder County would need an individual sewage disposal system ("ISDS") permit from the County. Typically, there would be two components with a permit, the design of the system and monitoring of the effluent. The system is required to be designed by a registered professional engineer. §7.01 BCISDS Regulations. The effluent from the system would have to meet a number of minimum performance standards related to the content of the effluent. The items include fecal coliform, biological oxygen demand, and total suspended solids. §7.02 BCISDS Regulations. The components of a graywater system would include some type of collection area. Treatment of the effluent would typically include a process where by solids would be allowed to settle out; some type of filtration system; and then some type of disinfection or treatment of the effluent. Finally, there are testing and monitoring requirements. The regulations require weekly monitoring of the effluent. Iris estimated that the cost for such tests are about $75 to $100 per test. Fecal coliform and virus are often found in graywater systems, even when the toilets are not connected into the system. The level of pathogen concentration in the discharge from a typical graywater system, that may include collection from sinks and bathtubs, washing machines, and dishwashers, can be quite high. The county has found that there is little difference, from a public health perspective between greywater and waste water. If a system exceeds 3000 gallons per day, or averages over 2000 gallons per day, additional approval is required from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment §1.02(F) BCISDS Regulations. City-wide Reuse System Developing a city-wide reuse system for irrigating large areas would be theoretically feasible but practically cost-prohibitive. There are relatively few large irrigated areas that receive raw or untreated water from the city and they are dispersed throughout the city. Raw Water Ditch Supply A significant amount of urban irrigation use within the City is already being supplied by ditch water: the CU campus, NOAA/NIST, several Boulder Valley School District properties, Long's Gardens and numerous private shareholders along several ditches. Ditch irrigation of the proposed Valmont Park is already being planned for. Farmers Ditch water rights could potentially be acquired and used to irrigate North Boulder Park and Pleasantview Soccer Fields. ~ WBLA, Inc., City of Boulder Raw Water Master Plan, September 15, 1988. ° Hydrosphere, inc. and Woodhouse, Connie, unpublished study, 2002. 10 Alison Peck, Owner, Matrix Gardens, personal communication. ~° Duble, Richard L., "Kentucky Bluegrass," Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 2002. ° Schmidt, M.M., "Landscaping Alternatives and Irrigation Conservation," lied Potable Water, Nationa/ Bureau of Standards Special Publication 624, Department of Commerce, Denver, Colorado, June 1982. °~ Danielson, R.E., Hart, W.E., Feldhake, C.M., Haw,P.M., Water Requirements for Urban Lawns in Colorado, Completion Report No. 97, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Fort Collins; Colorado, August 1980. "0 Danielson, R.E., Feldhake, C.M., and Hart, W.E., Gomp/etion Report No. i06, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 1981. his month, cyclists can get in some early- season racing while raising money for a worthY cause bY ~g P~ ~ a criterium series organized by Boulder[Denver Couriers: The races take place every ' Sunday through Mazch 30 at the Stazio Recreation Complex, ac~d the $10 entry fee goes taward building a similar paved course'at the future Valmont . City Pazk - wikh a focus on` bringing, youth into cyding. "We.want to create a high' school cycling league for kids in't}ie Boulder VaUey 9chool District," said Chris Grealish, race organizer and owner of Boulder/Penver Couriers. "We can get them interested by bringing them to the facility and showing them all 0bout bikes; teaching them about riding; racing;' bike touring; and we can haVe safety rodeos. They need a place~to'ride and race xvithout being molested by cars." Valmont Pazk; a 132-acre plot of land purchased by the ciry of Boulder with a 1995 voten approved bopd issue, has been a focus for many user groups looking to build facilities. Cyclists have keen designated by ttie cily as a user group with "unmet needs," but, according to Grealish, they would need to raise $1.4 million~to see their idea come to life. Negoriations with the cily so xar have been limited to groups proposing an ice rink and tennis courts because those groupa haue the cohesiveness the city is looking for in project partners, said Teresa Grills, a consultant for the ci4~s Parlcs and Recreation Deparkinent. "I had a l~last at this race. And I definitely think, there aren't enaugh high school kids in cycling." Grealish continues with fund- raising efforts in hopes that more supporters will get on board. In tYie event that the bike course is never built, he said he will donate the money ~to a yauth rnou::t.w7-hIlce program organized by the YMCt1. Me9nwhile, the criterium series means an affordable racing experience that givea back to the commanity. "I had a blast at this race. 9nd I deEnitely think there aren't,enough high school kids jh cycling," said Courtney Guck of Windsor, who won th@ men's Category 4~race Sunday. "We really need to promote Couruiey Guck of Windsor things at that age, since the Europeans are so far ahead of us in this sport" Criterium races are faet paced laps around a short course that usually contains sharn tums and a couple of . hills. The races end at a specified time, and the &rst person Yo cross the finish line ' on tfie last lap wins. "(The fim is) the apeed factor. And ultimately with crit racing, usually the smar[est person wins;' Grealish said. "IYs lhis kotal duel at the end; it's a chess match. Everyone's waiting until.the last second to make their move. It's Icind of an arC form." Nearly 250 cyclists entereil the race Sund'ay, and 10 of them were juniors, age 18 or younger. Juniors can enter the races for free, Grealish expects the nwnber of entrants to grow as cyclists learn about the events, and lie hopes to end up with aUout $5,000 for the bike project after paying for insurance, traffic controland otherexpenses. °I'put on races for ~0 years, then stopped in 1999;" Grealish said. "'Nbw putting on khese races has been gbod because we have a purpose beyond just the race itself. Now iYs nice to be putting the edergy into it, and knowing that I'll be getting it back by helping the community." , ~ . . , ~~ ~ MAHTYCAIVANO/UellyEamere Josedh Taddeuccl, right, Ciding for Vitaniin Cottage, and Colby Pearce with.5280/Subaru charge around a corner during Khe Pro 1 and2 category Sunday at the first of four criferium races in a seri~s to benefit youth cycling: . _ ~I' ~~ . _~~ . , i ~ 1 ~~ . , , ~~ . ~, ACA Permitted Cycling Races Permit Nos. CO-0339, CO-0340, CO-0341, CO-0342 All race proceeds go to the Valmont Bike Park Youth Project. ~ ~ LOCATION: A 1.1 mile loop with a short, steep hill, located between Valmont Rd, and Arapahoe Rd. at 63rd St. in Boulder (see map). *THE COURSE IS CLOSED FOR WARM-UPS! PARKING: Parking is available in the Flatirons Park, off SSth St. just west of the race course. Use the Boul- der Creek Path to get to the race course. DI RECTIONS: From Denver: Hwy 36 to Foothills, north to Arapahoe, east to 55th and north to Central Ave. From Ft. Collins: I-25 to Hwy 119, to Foothiils, south to Arapahoe, east to 55th and north to Central Ave. In Boulder: Ride the Boulder Creek Path east! REGISTRATION: Pre-registration is encouraged. Send standard ACA release and entry fee to Boulder DenverCouriers, 17Z2 14thSt., A`105, Boulder, CD 80302. Cost is $10/race for all categories except jun- iors. Juniors race for free. There is NO late fee! For more information, email: bcourierC~aol.com or call 303-447-2434 after 5:30PM. Race day registration opens at 8:15AM, and closes 15 minutes before each category's start time. One-day ACA licenses can be purchased at the race for $5. ~ DESCENTE CYCLING ~ ~ ^ ~ 3Uf~lE`-J' oarwsna ~ specialized.eom MOOTS 6l1BTOM F •:~ ~ ' I I ~• '' • 1 ~ ,~~~ • ~•~~•• ,~~OI 1a R.MEIIFO~SroRTSM[OICINi LUST Racing~V~~ ~ ' ~ ~ • /~ ~w~~thol~~. rnawiM~as.~u.c~.,~~w.~uwWi UTQYEA Women Open 8:45AM - 9:30AM 45min NONE! Sr. Men 4 9:40AM - 7 0:20AM 40min All race proceeds go to Men 3 Sr 10:30AM - 11:30AM 60min the Valmont Bike Park . Sr. Men Pro, 1, 2 11:45AM - 1:OOPM 75min Youth Project. All ACA race rules apply. Free lap rule is in effect. Race will run weather permitting. There will be no make up dates if cancelled due to bad weather. Additional race information can be found at WWW.BDCOURIERS.COM ~ ~~ ~e ~O jU( ~m ~.~ ' o~,4.u~.2~ ~~. ~~r ~~ ~~ ~a ~ ~, ~; ~ ` Za~t . ~ ~, aoo~3 ~=~c;~'c~r,vf ~ PG~ 7 ,3I3 ~'G RECENE~ ~ 3 MAR 211003 ~-b -~t,~~.e~~~ ~ ~c~2..a~o-~ ~~, ; ~ ..GU DU.Qe~ C J~~ , -Q;~.,~, ~ ~,~,,~. ~.~.~ c~.~.~.~.~.~ ~ , ~~~ ~ ~/ ~~ ~,~-, ~~`~. ~. -~'~ °-~" ~.Q.eP,c.. `~.a~ 9-- -~-`~'~J ~ ~ 1t.C~t1-Y.e.~ ,LS ~~ ~ , ~~ ~~~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ (~ , , , ~ -- ~Y7~.¢.r..~.~.ti~..~C. ~~a.r2 S ` --r~a_,~-. C'~`'~"`'c' C~C.~~.e~.o ~ ~ ~ ~.,c ~ r -~.~..~ ..~..~-~-~~ -~. ~~ ~~~.. ~.. ~~~~ ~ C~-,.~ , `~ .~~.s ~ ~.d..~. °~ `~~~ -~~.. `~t~ C~,~t~.. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ C;~~~.~..,.E, ~,.~ ~ ~~.~~.. ~~. ~ , , ,~ ~~ , ~~.. ~Z~..e~ , ~..a..~~ ~,~~~ L~ ~.. ~~.~,e ~r-a-"~-, a-~- ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~" -~~-- ~~.~.~- "~~..e~C Q~ n ~s .,~,u-~-~.~-~ ~-~- ~ ~~.. .~-,~,~ ~i,e, ~.a~~ ..~,~- -~-- ~C.~~~~! ~~ , a~, ~ , ' ~~ ~~ ~.~. _ ~,~~6,~;,,~;~., ~ oh.~-~.~1 ~- ._-e~iu,~~, ~ r x,,.~,~, ~ .- ~, 5 ~,~. -~._o_. ~ T.~..e.. ~ a,t.a~ ---c.d-~ ~° ~~~ ,~ .-~.~.~. ~~-~- ~'~~ , ~ Q~ .~„ / ' ' ~' ~~-- ~a-c~~ C~-rc.~.-c j ~~ ~ _`'j-~-~~ ~., ~,~,~' f~,~-~-~ r~-~-~, ~ ~- ~~ ~P~. ~ .~,, ,~.~,,,~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~'~-~ ~,~,~ ~~, J ~36 ,~ ~!y,~ ~ ~~~~ ~ l ~ * l 'ti~~..o-E..., ,~„R... ~ :~o--~.Be-~, ~ ~ ~ , ~' `~°3~ $'27,Z8aZ ~. r~q.~.,~ ; °~'ogc+ie,~,a,~e,~ O~pL Co rn,. . r7 ~ ,, ~Y7/ Haroltl W. Copeland ylee rn~senieroc ineau, n.~~•, .• grandchildren; ~a Six s~aw Harold W. Copeland of 3120 Boulder, died Thursday, llth St grandchildren. Visitation will. be held Sunday ' ., March 12, at Boulder Communi- from 1 p.m. ta 5 p.m. at Howe 2121 llth St., Boulder. ~ MortuarY ty Hospital. He was 81. Ae was ourn art Sept. 13, 1910, , Services will be held at 2 p.m. in Hays, Kan., the son oF Aibert Monday at the~ EYrst United Methodist Church of Boulder, Whitaker Copela~d and wittr the Rev. Paul Hood officiat- Lou Fe~tz Copeland. He ~n6• Bprial will be in Green Moun- . mazrled Jan- ice Osthoff on taia Cemetery. Memorial contributions may 1931, 26 Nov be made to the Boulder Evening , . in Boulder. Optimist Club Youth Atnd. He moved _ ..... „.„.__ _,. .... . . . . , . . ta Boulder Prom Hays in 1928. Mr. Copeland was a flarist and owned Sturkz and Copeland Flo- rists and Greenhouses. He earned his bachelor's de- gree from Fort Hays Staie Uni- ' s vera~ty in 1930, and his mastet .. degi'ee from the University of Colorado in 1996. ` ge was a Boulder City Coun- cjunan from 1950 to 1958 and helped in the creation of Scott Cazpenter Park He was aiso the Boulder County ch~ef lsnd appraiser from 1983 to 1971, when he ~aned the Jim Reich Realty firm• He was a charter mem6er of the First Urtited Methodist Church and served on !ts board in 1848 and served as its presi- dent He also was the governor of the Optimiat Club's Colorado ~d Wyartun~ d~gtrict and served a~y natiunal du~ector. He was also a member of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, the Boulder Masonic Lodge No. 14, the I.O.O.F. Odd FeUows of Boulder No. 9,. and the Kansas Club. He was honored with a Daily Camera Monday Morning Rose article on Feb. 25, 1891. He ec~joyed athletics, played softbaU, liked fly flshing and . - coached the YMCA 6asketball team and the.Junior OpWniet baseball team. He was a teacher and princi- pa! at Holyrood High School and superintendent of schools in Ho- ~y~o~l, Kan„ from 1931 to 1942, and also coached the school's football. basketball and baseball teams. While in coUege, he was run- ner-up for the 1930 Olympic tri- als in wrestling. In 1988, he was inducted to the Fort Hays State University Sports Hall of Fame. Survivora include his wife of Boulder, two sons, Dr. Ronald H. Copeland of CorvaUis, Ore., and James D. Copeland of Boulder, ".,. hvo daughters, Joanne Sarbaugh , ~ . ., ~• of Bou-der and :blaril,yn XAstka " of Austin, Texas; three siaiers, ° Gladys Sturtz and Goldene _- _ Howe, both of Boulder, and Maz- ''