HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - Presentation regarding the Boating Feasibility Study for Barker Reservoir.
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURC~S ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2003
SUBJECT: Agenda Item: Presentation rcgatding the Boatmg Feasibihty Study for Baiker
Reservoir
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Pubhc Works/Utilities/Water Resources
Presenter: Carol Elhnghouse
Joanna Stansbury
SYeve Walker, Landscape Architect and Recreation ConsulYant
Michelle Frey, PhD., McGuiie Environmental Consultanls
Kris Kranzush, Safety Consultant
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: None at this time. Staff will present the draft Boating
Feasibihty 5tudy for Barker Reservoir to WRAB at the May 19, 2003 meeting. WRAB will
be requested to provide comments on the repoit to slaff at the June 16, 2003 WRAB meetmg.
The final study will be presented to CiYy Council m July 2003.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of allowing boaung will vaiy depending upon the selected
scenano. A Cost Appendix, includmg caprtal improvement costs, water treatment costs, and
ongomg o erations and mamtenance costs is attached.
PURPOS~
At the directron of the Boulder City Council, Utilities staif has prepaied a Barker Reservoir
Boatmg Feasibility Study as was recommended in the iecently completed Middle Boulder Creek
Water Source Management Work Plan (Work Plan). The study evaluates the feasibility of
allowmg non-motorized boaling on the reservoir Topics included in the study include safety,
financial feasibility, and waler quality impacts of permitting non-motorized boadng on Barker
Reservoir. The study compares present management (no boatmg) with two non-motorized
boatmg scenarios, a formal and an informal scenario
BACKGROUND
AGENDA ITEM # Paee 1
City Council accepted the recommendations included in the Middle Boulder Creek Source Water
Management Work Plan on July 23, 2002. City Council specifically authorized a study of the
feasibility of allowing non-motorized boating on Barker Reservou• as was recommended m the
Work Plan Council requested that staff complete this study by June 2003 A consultant, Steven
Walker, was used to develop the plan Mr. Walker had previously served as the recreational
consultant for the Middle Boulder Creek Water Source Management Work Plan and had a
familiarity with the project and specific issues concerning boating on Barker Reservoir. A draft
of the boating feasibility study has been prepared for review and comment by the WRAB and
will be handed out at the May 19`h meeting
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The three proposed scenarios regarding boating on Barker Reservoir are briefly described below.
A summary table of the specifics of each scenario follows.
No Boatine Scenario
The No Boating Scenario would be a continuation of the existing recreation uses. Existing
recreation use -primarily sightseeing, hiking, prcmckmg and shoreline fishing -would
continue. The city of Boulder may enhance existing conditions over time to either upgrade
facilities or correct problems
Informal Boatine Scenario
This scenario is a "boat-at-your-own-risk" management option and would use the western
one-third of the reservoir. The surface area open to boating would be limited to minimize
risks to drinking water quality by maximizing the distance between boating activity and the
drinking water pipeline intake at the dam. The limited surface area also restricts boating to
the shallower water and the areas closer to flat shoreline to reduce safety concerns
The boating season would include dawn to dusk hours from Memoual Day through Labor
Day during typical water years but excluding times when Barker Reservoir is spilling
(typically mid-June) This scenario would be limited to "car-top" boats such as kayaks,
canoes, row boats, small sailboats, windsurfers and other paddle craft Boat trailers would
not be permitted. A total of about 20 boats could be on the reservoir at one time.
"Boat at your own risk" means there would likely be no on-site management personnel or
safety boat This does not mean that emergency services would not respond to a boating
accident or injury.
This scenario is unlikely to be an appealing endeavor to a private operator or
concessionaire A boat rental business rs conceivable if there was enough demand,
however, the limited surface area open to boating, limitations to non-motorized boating and
AGENDA ITEM # Paec 2
distance from population centers limits the demand Assuming no involvement of a private
operator or on-site management, there would be no cost to a boater.
Formal Boating Scenario
This scenario would use the western two-thirds of the reservorr The amount of surface area
made available to boating is increased with this scenario because of the reduced safety risks
due to on-site management and the availability of a rescue boat. Boaters would be
venturing into deeper areas of the reservoir farther from flat shoreline and would be at
greater risk of hypothermia if they fell overboard without provisions for swift rescue.
Opening more surface area to boating and decreasing the distance between boaters and the
reservoir outlet increases the risk to drinking water quality
The boating season would be the same and the types of boats allowed would be the same as
described in the Informal Boating Scenario Additionally, this scenauo would allow boats
on trailers. There would be a daily fee or season permit required under this scenarro.
There would be on-site management personnel and a rescue boat. The manager would
observe boats on the reservorr and would respond to accidents The rescue boat would be
sufficiently powered to arrive at an accident within minutes of notification
It is possible that a concessionaire could be the boating manager. A concessionaire would
acquire the rights to manage boating by way of a recreation lease with the city of Boulder.
In turn, they gain the rights to charge boaters a user fee, It rs doubtful that such an
endeavor could be profitable.
The reservoir would be accessed by one boat ramp at the west end near the existing parking
lot Thrs lot would require enlargement and paving and striping to accommodate 20 boat
trailers and vehicles plus an additiona120 spaces for car-top boaters or day users.
Comparison of Boating Study Scenarios
=°'`=Coropar'atiwle Faotor ~~,, °No Boating_ Informal Boating° ~°~ ~,~ormal~oatin~;'
"," ~ = ~' ~,!~ ~"'S ` 'Scenario Scenarid ~_ ",S~anario "'
~'~Types,Of Noh+ None Car-ToplHand Carry Car-Top/Trailers
,
'.~~ ;~., _, Motb¢izad BQata~i Only
'±_, ~; Qp~Slte
a°~ ~
_ None None Yes
,
:
r; =~ Mangy emi:n#,, _'
~
~,°',=CbnceSS~opalre,=n;
4
- None Very Unlikely Possible, but Unlikely
,
!.- ~Eins~gency;p' NotApphcable Not On-Site On-Site
~''`" "~ p
a,~ es arise Safet Boat
Y
<~'_ .},=~;Access .~, ,- Not Applicable Boat Access Point Boat Ramp
AGENDA ITEM # Paee 3
• 'Fee ~~;~"~
~ Not Applicable Possible Yes
+°,~=~Reserirgir=~;,
~~ ` Not Applicable 65 acres 130 acres
;~Suli;~~eArea`;';;;, Western l/3 Western2/3rds
+`=r~,Surfao~Acres'-`~" Not Applicable 3.5 3.5
~ Per QAhf,° `~~ °'''
"" ~'
,
t~ Capacit~r'~~,~,.'' Not Applicable 19 Boats at One Time 37 Boats at One
Ades Per feat
~'w ' Time
.
f -..
~
I
_
~_a~
n ~
n,P
?_ '• `Ni~mhe~ of Beats` None 15 Boats 30 Boats
°~ ~ ~' Weelietid'D;a
=* ~,Parlting ; ; °~' ~ Existing Parking Existing Parking Lot Existing Parking Lot
2
e
' "' ' -' ' ~' ~_ `
4 Lot West End of West End of Reservoir Enlarged, Paved and
iE i`Ri3 • _ i t~ix
_
i ~
»I_'
~."J'° - ~;
;~•
Reservoir
with Minor
Striped
,
°=i~~'~~'``~ ~' Im rovements
"
"`~-,'~~~'„='Number`ot'Boat§ None 765 1,250
,
~~;z; _ _
` ;'°~ Per Year
~
~` ->
_ -;,.~-'tNltMrtlbek"Qfa' , None 1,225 2,000
' _ ,~i Has~teis'Per Year
STArP' RECOMMENDATION
City staff does not recommend opening Barker Reservoir to boating due to safety,
security, water qualriy, and financral concerns. However, if boating were to be allowed
staff believes the Informal Boating Scenario as recommended m the feasibility study rs
preferable to other options. Staff rs of the opinion that the city of Boulder's water utility
should not pay for the assocrated costs of provrdmg facilities and management to permit a
boating program to be implemented and maintained Separate funding sources outside of
the water utility fund should be clearly rdentrfied and secured before boating rs to occur.
Staff also believes that the development of the Informal Boating Scenario should be
contingent on the preparation and rmplementatron of a safety plan that meets the approval
of local and regronal emergency servrce providers and law enforcement agencres. It
should be noted that allowing boating to occur on Barker Reservorr goes against the
national trend for drinking water providers and the recommendations of dunking water
regulators to decrease the amount of access and recreation allowed on or near drinking
water sources, particularly terminal dunking water reservoirs such as Barker Reservorr
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests that WRAB provide comments on the study at the June 16 WRAB meeting. Staff
wrll request a recommendation on the rssue of boatrng on barker Reservorr from the WRAB at
the June 16 meeting. A final study report along with both staff and WRAB recommendations
wrll be presented to Council rn July 2003.
AGT;NDA ITEM # Paee 4
Barker Reservoir Boating Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Conductrng a boating feasibility study for Barker Reservoir was a significant and Crmely
recommendatron of the Middle Boulder Creek Water Source Management Work Plan
(July 2002) prepared for and by the crty of Boulder Utihtres Drvrsron. This study rs the
fulfillment of thrs recommendaCron.
Currently boatrng on Barker Reservorr is not allowed. At the trine of acqurrrng Barker
Reservorr Boulder crty staff and Council decrded that no motorrzed boating would be
allowed on Barker Reservorr at that trine but commrtted to review the non-motorrzed
boatrng rssue The no boatrng policy was a contrnuatron of the policy under the prior
ownershrp of Barker Reservorr by Xcel Energy There are many proponents and
opponents to non-motorrzed boating each crting many pros and cons. Proponents believe
that a Barker boatrng program would be an excellent recreation asset to Nederland and
the region Opponents believe that boatrng on Barker would be unsafe due to hrgh winds,
cold water temperatures and steep shorelines and could negatrvely rmpact the character of
Nederland There is also srgnificant concern that boatrng may degrade Barker's water
quality to the detriment of the city of Boulder's drinking water supply.
Purpose
The purpose of thrs study rs to evaluate the pros and cons of boatrng on Barker Reservoir
and to provide sufficrent information to support a reasoned drscussion of the options by
Boulder crty staff and Boulder Crty Council Boulder needs rmmediate plannrng
drrectron on the boatrng issue and realrzes that all aspects of the study will be under
substantial public scrutiny Grven recreation, safety, and water qualrty rssues flits study
focuses on an m-depth analysts of these rssues.
Methodology
This study assesses three drfferent boatrng study scenarios, mcludmg a no-boating
alternative. The scenarros are not intended to be limrtmg, but are representative of the
full range of reasonable options The two boating scenarros include an Informal Boating
Scenario whrch would utilize the western one-thud of the reservoir and a Formal Boating
Scenarro that would utilize the western two-thrrds of the reservorr. The scenarros are
evaluated relative to safety, potential water qualrty impacts, public need, management
options and financral consrderations. A comprehensrve public involvement process was
utrhzed to rdentify rssues and concerns.
Management Options
A number of management optrons rangrng from management by the city of Boulder to a
private concessronarre are consrdered Management capabrhties, responsrbihties,
resources, and pros and cons are drscussed relatrve to potentral managers. Primary
concerns regarding management optrons are financral consideratrons and the abrlrty to
operate a sustainable boatrng program.
Safety
A major concern is boating safety relative to wind, water temperature and steep
shorelines. All of these factors arc evaluated and data was collected from other reservoirs
to better understand Barker's conditions. Wind and cold water are typical of many lakes
and reservoirs Emergency service providers and law enforcement agencies and entities
for the Barker Reservoir area are strongly opposed to any boatrng program without the
development of an acceptable safety plan.
Water Quality
Water quality considerations are comprehensively assessed and concerns are expressed
about potential adverse impacts Co Barker Reservoir both for the quality of water within
the reservoir and for its use as a drinking water source Current water quality conditions
are evaluated relative to treatment capabilities and projected costs are provided regarding
boating impacts and the city of Boulder's abilities to mitigate these impacts. Treatment
costs to offset boating impacts may use significantly and may directly affect a final
decision regarding boatrng
Financial Analysis
Both direct and indirect costs and revenues are addressed for each boating study scenario.
Costs and revenues, along with water quality concerns, may play a substantial role m the
selection of a boating study scenario. All protected costs are provided for the range
options evaluated. A significant finding of this study is that revenue generating
capabilities are poor for any management entity and boatrng scenauo.
Summary of Options
City staff does not recommend opening Barker Reservoir to boating due to safety,
security, water quality, and financial concerns However, if boating were to be
allowed staff believes the Informal Boating Scenario as recommended m the
feasibility study is preferable to other options. Staff is of the opinion that the city
of Boulder's water utility should not pay for the associated costs of providing
facilities and management to permit a boating piogram to be implemented and
maintained. Separate funding sources outside of the water utility fund should be
clearly identified and secured before boating is to occur. Staff also believes that
the development of the Informal Boating Scenaiio should be contingent on the
preparation and implementation of a safety plan that meets the approval of local
and regional emergency service providers and law enforcement agencies. It
should be noted that allowing boating to occur on Barker Reservoir goes against
the national trend for drinking water providers and the recommendations of
diinking water regulators to decrease the amount of access and recreation allowed
on or near dunking water sources, particularly terminal drinking water ieservoirs
such as Barker Reservoir
Cost Appendix
Barker Boating Feasibility Study
Summary of Water Quality Costs
The water quality imphcatrons of boating activities on Barker Reservorr are
substantral and they represent a srgmficant cost to the City's drinking water
program as summarized below.
Incremental Y~eatment costs result m a total caprtal investment of $175,000
and an annual O&M cost of $60,000. Thrs represents a total annualized cost
$70,000 per year for increased Betasso WTP operational costs.
The cost to support an approprrate monitorrng program for Barker Reservorr
during the boatrng season rs $53,200 whrch includes both the cost of staff trine
necessary to implement the samplrng program and perform appropriate
analyses as well as the commercial laboratory cost for protozoa and algae
analyses.
The total cost of boatrng on Barker Reservorr for the Crty due to water quality
rmplicatrons rs $175,000 m capital costs, $113,200 m annual costs,
representing a total annualized cost of $123,200.
)stimated Direct Costs for Boating Facilities
`SAte,~nh~nce~ent,~
, ~~Iri#ofmalBoat(ng_
~ .,~ormal,B~aflrtg'° ,,,~,
,
,
;,,;`,; ,~;: ;~._ _ ,~ ~
Sceri~rla,,,, ; aG~nar'a'~ 4;,,
~'+,~;,5i'na~~~~~~~~ ~
J $1,500 $2,500
`
"`+, ~.atjdsp~"ih' °~` $15,000 $30,000
• Parkltt $15,000 $84,000
= •~~ Aesfroorri f#eloc;~tiori" Not Applicable $75,000
~, • ; =Site Ai~eni~le~,
~`,< $2,500 $5,000
•` si~or~tAceeia~Point-, $10,000 00 Not Applicable
_
E'~' `d04'~eet_ ~~.' -
~
=i':,=,~oaf~Ram
'~200~feet' Not Applicable $50,000
;~~.'~-~, t3aat pock;i~'' ' Not Applicable $7,000
-*'_ ;13o`~t House~~~`
;,,
~~ Not Applicable $25,000
_
°•'~',B,UP`~,,,,,~;a,r',"`',' ,;;:
6500
$
$8000
+~";, .'S"illwa ~arrfer=,' ,-~ $13,000 $13,000
~•,-;,~Contin eno , ~ $10,000 $25,000
~`Tatal ~stimated,Cost ; ° ,( $73,500 $324,500
*100-foot boat ramp = $35,000
1,000-foot boat ramp = $133,000
1 of 3
Cost Appendix
Barker Boating Feasibility Study
Estimated Direct Annual Costs for Operations and Maintenance
~,' ' Qpera#ions and ~ ~
~ ,~fNo~Boatipg
~ ~ Informal BAating ~ ' '~FQrhlal ~ ,',
INaintQMattae Ctem; Task'
~' `
° ~$eerjari4 ~ ,
, r, 'Scenario , . Roating'$GgnariQ ,
,i~;;'Q'r~PeraQh'nci ~ ~
~,~'~~ - ~ ~,;, ~ ~,
,;,, i'~ ,
FY~2002~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
• Safety Boat Not Applicable Not Applicable $7,000.00
(one time cost)
• Trash Removal $13,154 $16,000 $20,000
and Restroom
Servicing
• Repair or $700 $1,000 $1,500
Replacement of
Signs and Site
Furnishings
• General Incidental $150 $300
Information
Provider
(telephone, other)
• On-site Manager Not Applicable Not Applicable $13,000
• Rescue Personnel Not Applicable
• Law Enforcement Not Applicable $10,000* $15,000*
Personnel
• City Liability Not Applicable $2,500 $2,500
Insurance
• Contingency @ 15 percent @ 15 percent @ 15 percent
Annual Total $15,932 $34,097 $60,145
Anticipated Water Safety Costs
• Continue to collect wind data from the new weather station on the dam installed
by Boulder.
• Install advisory srgns regarding wind, cold water, steep shorelines, the prohibition
of shoreline boat landings, and the lack of rmmediate rescue egmpment or
personnel. ($500.00)
• Install advisory signs clearly indicating that boaters are doing so at their own risk
and are assuming the inherent risk associated with boating on Barker Reservoir.
($250 00)
• The crty of Boulder or other agreed upon entities may close Balker Reservoir to
boatlg due Co cold, windy of stormy conditions at any time and post iC as such. If
boats are on the reservoir at such a time, an air horn of siren will be used to notify
them to return to the boat access point. ($500.00)
2of3
Cost Appendix
Barker Boating Feasibility Study
• All boaters will be required to wear USCG approved personal flotation devices at
all times and not dust have them aboard. Small kayaks (not sea kayaks) will be
exempt
• All boats are subject to inspection by the city of Boulder or other agreed upon
entities. Boats farting inspection wIll no be allowed on the reservoir.
• No alcohol will be allowed on any boats at any time.
• An interpretive display on the dangers of cold water immersion will be installed at
the boat access point. ($300.00)
• An emergency telephone will be installed at the boat access point. ($250 00)
3of3