HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 10/17/2005CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisor Board
DATE OF MEETING: Oct. 17, 2005
NAME/'fELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Robin Madel, 303-441-4073
NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS -Jim Knopf, Robin Byers, Gil Barth, Bart Miller; Kenneth Wilson was absent
STAFF - Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Chris Rudkin, Jean Gatza, Anme Noble, Randy Cri[[enden, Carol
Ellin house, Robin Madel, secretary
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL]
Agenda Item 1- Call [o Order
The meetin was called to order at 7:00 .m.
Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minutes - July 18, 2005 and Aug. 15, 2005
The mmutes were held over endm com letion of several amendments and revisions.
Agenda Item 3- Public participation and WRAB comment
There was none.
Public Partici ation was closed.
Agenda Item 4- Public hearing and Gnal recommendation on the Boulder Feeder Canal (BFC) Trail
Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP).
Jean Gatza presented the BFC Trail CEAP for recommendation by the WRAB. Gatza discussed the three
alterna[ives considered by [he s[aff and said [ha[ [he staff is recommending Alternative C. Ga[za reminded
the board that approval of the CEAP ~s not the same thing as approval of [he traiL Gatza said [hat funding
levels required for mi[igation measures have not been de[ermined. Finally, Ga[za discussed pubhc feedback
received concerning the Irail.
Chris Rudkin reviewed the wa[er quality concerns and mi[iga[ion measures associa[ed with [he trail.
Rudkin said [hat relying on [he Reservoir Wa[er Trea[ment Plan[ [o ensure adequa[e quality for its influent
wa[er is not enough. Source wa[er protec[ion is also required. The BFC Trail could have ~mpacts to canal
water which is used as source water for part of the year. The Health and Safety Study determined that it
was difficult ro derive absolute risk levels associated with the trail project and assumptions about risk and
safety will have [o be con[inually revisi[ed to help refine past decis~ons.
Gatza said tha[ a major goal of the CEAP process for [he [rail projec[ was a consensus based approach for
all of the parties involved, including city and Boulder county s[aff.
Public Participation
Kathleen Kassadav, 5704 Prospect Rd., Longmont, spoke ou[ agains[ [he treil and asked the WRAB [o
consider AI[erna[ive A if wa[er quality is truly [he issue of concern. Kassaday poin[ed ou[ [hat she feels [he
community part of the CEAP process has not been sufficiently addressed and has been minimized. She also
feels [he process has been fast-tracked.
Richard Wolmewicz, 5741 Prospect Rd., Longmont, spoke ou[ against the [rail. Wolmewicz said [ha[ [he
op[ion [o not do [he projec[ was not considered. He pointed out that there is very li[[le discussion about
agriwlture, drtches and reservoirs in [he CEAP report. Wolmewicz feels tha[ proposed trail mi[igation
measures are in direct opposition ro the direction he has received from the State Engineers office regarding
the condition and management of the reservoir on his property. He feels there have been no de£mitive
answers for ques[ions asked by [he adjacent property owners. He also said that [here needs to be more
information on where the outfalls will be directed.
Mark Mclntvre, 2045 Balsam Dr., Boulder, spoke in support of the trail and Alternatives B or C.
Mcintyre feels the trad would enhance recreational opportunities dramatically.
WRAB Questions
The main questions covered:
• Flexibility of the document for incorporation of new information;
• Availability of data from similar si[uations; and
• The need for addihonal assessment and evaluation.
WRAB Summary
Oct (7, 2005
Page No. 1
WRAB Discussion
The discussion covered numerous topics. In general the board was in favor of starting conserva[ively,
prohibi[ing dogs and horses and limiting access. However, [he board felt [here were too many deficiencies
in the CEAP report [o make an mformed recommendation about an alternatrve. Issues included:
• Adding information to the CEAP [o address questions and concerns and including informahon
from the public heanngs as the CEAP is presented to other boards;
• Starting conservatively and limiting access points, dogs and potentially horses. Limiting access
could be done Ihrough signs [o indicate where parking is allowed;
• Addressing human/dog/ne~ghbor conflicts;
• Evaluating other examples such as the hundreds of miles of hails along canals in Phoenix. Jim
Knopf provided informa[ion, includmg pho[os, from [he Phoenix canals;
• Costs of addressing water quality issues in the reservoir rather than in conshuchng a pipe to
contain [he canal;
• Using [he maintenance road ins[ead of buildmg a new trail alignment;
• Providing informa[ion regarding horses and cryptosporidmm studies;
• Including information on how other communi[~es have handled canals and trails;
• Including inpu[ from the Audubon Society and Boulder County Na[ure Associa[ion regarding
raptor habitat;
• Including information abou[ the federal Bureau of Reclamation's Vulnerability Assessment on
Nor[hern Colorado Wa[er Conservancy Distric[ (NCWCD) facilities.
• Discussing the impact of conveyance of Ihe canal from the Bureau of Reclamation to the
NCWCD, which could impact the status of doing a National Emironmental Protection Act
(NEPA) evaluation;
• Including more input from stakeholders such as ditch companies, community and the Left-hand
Water District;
• Inclusion of baseline data regarding who the anticipated users are;
• Including information about phased construc[ion;
• S[a[ing informa[ion about funding up front; for example, what the U[ilities Depar[ment will be
responsible for. The WRAB does not want a recreation project ro be funded with Uulities
Department funding, espec~ally for i[ems like ex[ra monitoring [hat would no[ be needed wi[hout a
trail;
• Including information on real es[ate, such as how much of [he current righ[-of-way (ROW) is in
fee by [he Bureau of Reclama[ion and how much is needed for easemen[s;
• Including information abou[ ROW acquisition for routes off the canal and [he method of
acquisi[ion;
• Includmg information about alternate routes;
• The status of Ihe SL Vrain Trail;
• Including baseline data and a model for contamina[ion in [he report
• Including a breakdown of existing contaminants in the report
• Including [he cos(s and benefits of pu[ting [he canal in a pipeline;
• Including a breakdown of species of concern, especially cryprosporidium and giardia;
• Evaluating baseline livestock use on adjacent properties so that new impacts aren't assigned to
existing uses;
• Concerns about mitigating away Vail impacts rather [han having the same produc[ as Betasso
Water Trea[men[ Plan[ users;
• Including information abou[ impac[s to people who swim or recrea[e in Boulder Reservoir,
• Considera[ion of the impact and implications of opening up this area ro the public versus not
opening up Silver Lake watershed;
• Including facts on purpor[ed dumping even[s;
• Including a Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) diswssion and its possible status for de-
listing;
• Including accura[e informa[ion about the need for more PMJM data;
• Including a cultural resource invenrory report;
• Including a discussion about the CEMEX plant and their air quality issues with Boulder Counh
WRAB Summary
Oct. 17, 2005
Page No. 2
• Including a discussion on revege[at~on issues on NCWCD's land; and
• Including be[ter defined s[ra[eges for managing safety issues.
Bart Miller moved that, despite WRAB's opinion that a fully developed CEAP,
incorporating input of all of the involved boards, would produce a viable CEAP, the CEAP
in its current form has fundamental deticiencies that must be rectified, and WRAB is
currently unable to support this CEAP.
Robin Bvers seconded the motion.
im Kno f moved to amend the motion so that the deficiencies outlined in the minutes of the
Oct. 17, 2005 WRAB meeting are included.
Robin Bvers seconded the motion.
The amended motion reads
Bart Miller moved that despite WRAB's opinion that a fully developed CEAP, incorporating
inpu[ of all of the involved boards, would produce a viable CEAP, the CEAP in iYs current
form has fundamental deficiencies as set forth in the OcL 17, 2005 WRAB minu[es, that
must be rec[ified. For this reason, WRAB is currently unable to support this CEAP.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the amendment.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
The board discussed whether or not the CEAP should be brought back for another presentation before it
goes on to the City Council.
Bar[ Miller moved that the WRAB has another presentation of the CEAP before it goes to
the City Council.
im Kno f seconded the motion.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
Agenda Item 5- Staff presenta[ion and WRAB discussion on city staff's water quality treatment
goals for drinking water.
Chris Rudkin discussed the wa[er heatment goals for [he c~ty. Rudkin discussed [he sources, regulations,
master plans, in[egration of quality and quantity, and [he objec[ives for goal se[[ing. The idea s[ar[ed in
2001 and was initially intended to provide input to [he Capital Improvemen[ Program (CIP). The idea has
become a process that will evolve as new information is obtained. Rudkin reviewed the goals matrix and
[ook m u[ from [he WRAB.
Agenda Item 6- Staff presentation and WRAB diswssion on Boulder Reservoir source water
protection and Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant improvements.
Annie Noble discussed the CIP for both water treatment plants. Noble diswssed the two main raw water
sources the city uses at the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plan[ (BRWTP) and a smdy that was done
in 2003 evaluating the Reservoir and Boulder Feeder Canal water sources. The staff looked at ways to
improve the quality of Reservoir water and crea[ed a facility plan for the BRWTP. Noble reviewed near-,
mid- and long-[erm improvements to [he plant Noble said [hat more evalua[ion was needed for long-term
~m rovements and water uali[ .
Agenda Item 7- Staff presentation and WRAB discussion on Betasso Water Treatment Plant
improvements.
Annie Noble discussed [he s[aff evalua[ion of Ihe facility wi[h regards [o capaci[y, water demand and near-,
mid- and long-term improvemen[s. Noble said that further evalua[ion was needed for water demand, raw
water quality, plant performance and mid- and bng-term improvements.
Chris Rudkin said that the need tha[ is common [o both [reatmen[ lan[s is rocess o hmization.
Agenda Item 8- Matters from Staff and Board
Matters from the Staff
• Ned Williams discussed the stams of the Lakewood Pipeline and responded to queshons raised by
WRAB member Ken Wilson. The ro'ect is cuaentl in liti ation and as such has had several o en
WRAB Summary
Oc[. 17, 2005
Page No. 3
records requests that could have caused informa[ion [o be released to [he public without having first
been sen[ [o [he WRAB. Williams discussed the inspections tha[ have [aken place so far. The in[ention
of the inspections is to develop baseline data to evaluate whether a problem with the pipe exists.
• Ned Williams provided a s[atus of the Valmont Butte. No decision has been made yet about what ro do
with the utilities funding because the council is trying to decide what to do about the Fire Training
Center and the property in general.
• Ned Williams discussed the water budget rate structure and plant investment fee calculat~on
methodology. Williams will be mee[ing with [he City Atrorney's Office to ensure [hat the city is
proceeding in a legally grounded manner as it develops the new rate structure and billing system.
• Ned Williams said that the City Council would be considering a revenue bond for the improvements to
the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The staff received two reasonable bids for the project.
• Ned Williams said that the s[aff has met with the Silver Lake Ditch Company and both the city and the
ditch company are putting their issues in writing. The city is evaluating whether or not a consu(tant is
needed to gather missing information.
Matters from the Board
• There were none.
Agenda Item 9 - Adjournment
Bart Miller moved to adjourn the meeting.
Robi~ Bvers seconded the motion.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
The meetin was ad'ourned at 10: l5 .m.
Da[e, Time, and LocaHon of Next Meeting:
Monday, Nov. 28, 2005 (one week later than usual ro accommodate holiday schedules) - 7 p.m., regular
meetin , 5050 East Pearl St.
Minutes approved by:
Date:
WRAB Summary
Oc[. 17. 2005
Page No. 4