Loading...
2 - Discussion an Recommendation about Carter Lake Pipeline Project for the City Council Study Session on September 25, 2007CITY OI+ BOULD~R WATER RESOURC~S ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA IT~M MEETING DAT~: September 17, 2007 AGENDA TITLE: Discussion and Recommendation aUout Carter Lake Pipeline Project for the City Council Study Session on SeptemUer 25, 2007. PRESENTER: Ned Williams, Director of PuUlic Works for Utilities BACKGROUND: At the City Council Study Session on August 28, council asked WRAB and staff to retum to City Council on Septe~ber 25 (Study Session) to discuss the Carter Lake Pipeline project and would like the WRAB (as many members as possiUle) to actively participate on Sept 25. Council asked that WRAB, staff and consultants meet to discuss the issues and see what we may be able to recommend and agree upon with respect to the Carter Lake Pipeline Project and Altematives for the Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant Source Water Protection and Treatment Alternatives. WRAB has a regular meeting scheduled for September 17 and I have cancelled all four agenda items that were originally scheduled for that meeting so that the entire meefing can be devoted to a discussion and recommendation on the Carter Lake Pipeline project. If another meeting is needed, we'll need to schedule that. MATERIALS: In 2007, infoimation aUout this project has Ueen provided in WRAB packets for the following meetings: Mazch 19 April 16 May 21 June 28 If you need this infoimation, please biing your packets from those meetings or review that information on-line at the WRAB weU site, as all agenda materials are electronically available. PREVIOUS WRAB ACTION: At the June 28, 2007 WRAB meeting, the following action was taken: WRAB Agenda Item, Page 1 Agenda Item 6 -Final Recommendation on the Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements Study. Motion: DiNatale: WRAB recommends that City Council delay construction of Boulder's portion of the Carter Lake Pipeline and consider it as a future phase for implementation after the following actions have occurred: 1. Construction of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant improvements (C102 and W or alternates) 2. Implementation of the canal bypasses, BMP's and other protective measures for the Boulder Feeder Canal, and 3. Existing bonded indebtedness has been significantly reduced. The actions of other potential participants in the Carter Lake pipeline project should be monitored to ensure that segments constructed by others would not preclude the possibility of Boulder constructing a pipeline in the future. Actions by Boulder may include over sizing of upstream segments constructed by others or acquisition of adjacent right of way. WRAB has cazefully reviewed all of the staff and consultant information and has the following findings: 1. Construction of the pipeline would require in excess of $22 million in funds from the city of Boulder and result in sigzrificant rate increases and tie up revenues needed for other . unidentified future needs. 2. Staff projections for rate increases beginning in 2009 needed to finance system improvements including the Carter Lake Pipeline are 10%, 10% and 12% for the three year period over and above the 3%, 4% and 4% increases the three previous yeazs. 3. The pipeline is an attractive enhancement to the City's operations and would result in more consistent, high quality water, but is not essential for the successful operations of the City's water system. 4. Water currently delivered out of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant is of good quality, meeting all Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. 5. Water quality goals established by staff for non-primary drinking water standards are too restrictive and render infeasible any other option than the Carter Lake Pipeline. 6. Water quality risks in the Boulder Feeder Canal can and should be addressed via measures such as canal bypasses, stormwater best management practices and land use controls. 7. The technical peer review of the Black & Veatch report by Dr. Susumu Kawamaura is consistent with findings 3 & 4. 8. There are minor improvements to the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (alternative 2) that can and should be implemented to ensure continued high quality water. 2nd: DeOreo Friendly Amendment: Knopf: to amend motion as discussed to section 1, items 2 and 3. Section 2, items 5, 6 and 7 (changes already reflected in the body of the motion above) Accepted by DiNatale. Discussion: The WRAB discussed the merits of delay -vs- proceeding as per staff recommendation. WRAB Agenda Item, Page 2 Conclusion: Vote: 3-2 (Knopf, DiNatale, DeOreo for; Byers and Miller against) Byers votes against for the following reasons: She Uelieves it is a health, safety and welfue risk to continue the current system and that it is necessary for long term community health to ensure the purest source water possiUle. It is better to do it now than to wait. Would likely help reduce mitigation costs to all parties involved with the Boulder Feeder Canal Trail. Miller votes against for the following reason: "I am not comfortaUle second guessing the water quality standards set by staff without concrete evidence that it is in error. I assume those decisions were made for good reason and based on concrete water quality information." Agenda Item 7- Final recommendation on the Utilities 2008 Budget and CIP. Motion: DeOreo: WRAB accepts the 2008 budget and CIP with the exception of striking the line items 103 and 105 (water utility fund) dealing with the Cazter Lake Pipeline, and adjusting the proposed rate increases (line 13, water utility fund financial) downward to reflect this removal. 2nd: Miller Vote: 4-1 (Byers votes "no" to maintain consistency with her vote on agenda item 6) SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION: Since the June 28, 2007 WRAB meeting, the Planning Board met on July 19 about the Proposed CIP and took the following action with respect to the Carter Lalce Pipeline Project: The Planning Board concurred (6-0) with the staff recommendation on the Carter Lake Pipeline Project Staff submitted a July 20 "Supplemental Information about the Cuter Lake Pipeline Project" (ATTACHIvIENT A) and made a presentation at the July 31 City Council Study Session. Staff submitted an Aug. 23 Weekly Information Item (ATTACHIVIENT B) and made a presentation at the August 28 City Council Study Session. Information about the Planning Board meeting and the Council Study Sessions az-e available on the city web sites. Finally, copies of letters and emails to city council that have been received by staff between June 28 and Sept 7 az-e included as ATTACHIVIENT C. NEXT STEPS: As staff has reviewed the issues that have come up since the June 28 WRAB meeting, I would place issues in the following categories: Federal Funding: On May 16, 2007, the U,S. Senate passed the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), authorizing federal spending on water development, infrastructure, flood control and other projects conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Contained in this year's WRDA, at the request of Senator Ken Salazar, is WRAB Agenda Item, Page 3 funding authorization for $10 million for construction of a water pipeline which will protect drinking water quality and allow for yeaz-round water delivery from Carter Lake to Boulder and other municipal area water providers. Having been passed by the Senate and the House, the WRDA proceeded to conference committee, where this funding provision was retained. The conference report on the WRDA bill was adopted by the House on August 1st and the Senate is expected to approve the report when it returns in session in September. If so, the WRDA bill will then be sent to the President for signature. In addition, passage of WRDA authorizes the project to proceed, but it will still need to compete in the regular appropriations process in order to actually receive funds from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means the pipeline will need to be an appropriations request next yeaz (and probably beyond) and, if successful, funding would not be forthcoming unti12009. The project submitted was to design and construct an enclosed pipeline conveyance system between Carter Lake and Boulder Reservoir to deliver water in lieu of the Boulder Feeder Canal to improve water conservation and water storage measures and enhance environmental and species protection. While the authorization of funding was directly anticipating use for development of a pipeline, it is conceivable that the funding might be available for other solutions, including water treatment. However, the language of the authorization included in the WRDA Conference Report states that the funds are for "water supply infrastructure" not water treatment; so an amendment to the authorization may be required. Procedurally, it is not possible to amend the conference report at this time -the conference on the WRDA bill has closed and any further attempts at amendment will be struck down by a point of order. Furthermore, if the language is approved as it now stands (which is likely), the City will need to confirm other uses are possible with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and obtain approval from the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction. This maybe difficult under the language of the authorization and based on the original project design presented to Senator Salazar, the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Enviroriment & Public Works. Finally, Boulder is in a "partnership" with the pipeline project and a water treatment solution might not be an acceptable project to the other municipal area water providers who partnered with Boulder in securing this potential federal authorization. A key question is what the city should do if it receives federal funding for the proposed project, and what to do in the interim until that federal decision is made. Security and Vulnerability A Security Vulnerability Assessment was completed in 2003 and in general conformance with the Risk Analysis Methodology for Water developed by Sandia National Laboratory. This assessment identified the Boulder Feeder Canal as one of the city's WRAB Agenda Item, Page 4 most critical and vulnerable infrastructure assets and identified several strategies to , reduce the risk and vulnerability. The most effective strategy is a pipeline. Other strategies were also identified and Blaclc & Veatch provided a cost estimate for these other strategies. Cost and Priority: Blaclc and Veatch provided a cost estimate for vazious improvements associated with: 1. Treatment alternatives (ultra-violet disinfection) 2. Boulder Feeder Canal bypasses 3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Boulder Reservoir 4. Other protective measures for Boulder Feeder Canal Present Worth Cost Treatment -Ultra-violet Disinfection $ 9.3 million Boulder Feeder Canal Bypasses $ 1.5 million Best Management Practices for Boulder $ 2.081 million Res. No Other Protective Measures for BFC $ 1.976 million Pipeline -Road Crossing Extensions $ 8.623 million - Patols $ 7.8 million Total city cost w/ Rd Xin & Patrols $ 31.28 million Total city cost without Xin & Patrols $ 14.857 million Carter Lake Pipeline (city cost with Pipeline federal funding) $ 12.2 million Carter Lake Pipeline (city cost without federal funding) $ 17.2 million Two major-ticket items (Road Crossings and Patrols) relate to security and vulnerability and are cost estimates generated after the June 28 WRAB meeting, so this is new information to consider. Without those two major-ticket items, the total cost (present worth value) is $14.857 million. Recommendation to Council: City Council has asked that WRAB and staff meet and see on what we can reach agreement, and where we are unable to do that, that we document both group's recommendation. Staff will be submitting a Weekly Information Packet (W1P) memorandum to the City Manager's Office by Sept. 19, noon, so that it may be copied and distributed to council in advance of the Sept. 25 Study Session. Staff will provide a draft copy (perhaps 50% complete) of the WIP to WRAB at the Sept. 17 WRAB meeting. WRAB Agenda Item, Page 5 In an effort to help guide the Sept. 17 meeting, one idea is to develop a matrix for Council that would help focus their review. A matrix could look like the following: Issue Agreement WRAB WRAB Preliminary Staff & Staff Recommendation Recommendation Pursue Federal (to be completed) (to be completed) Seek federal funds for Funding in WRDA a i eline Pursue Pipeline Participate in Permits and ROW NCWCD project with other water partners f Construct a pipeline if Construct a Pipeline federal funds are forthcoming in 2009- 2012 Fund at $50,000/year, Constrict BFC provided city is Bypasses and other seeking federal funds. mitigation Accelerate and increase funding if federal funds are not forthcoming. Not needed within the 5-year CIP timeframe, Construct New Water but will be needed if a Treatment Processes pipeline is not constructed, if new regulations require treatment, or if raw water quality changes. ATTACHMENTS: A -Supplemental Information about the Carter Lake Pipeline Project, July 20, 2007 B - Weekly Information Packet Memorandum, August 23, 2007 C -Copies of Communication received by staff from June 28, 2007 -Sept. 7, 2007 WRAB Agenda Item, Page 6 ' ATTACHMENT A T0: Mayor and Members of City Council - FROM: Ned Wi]liams, Director of Public Works for Utilities Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator DATE: July 20, 2007 SUBJECT.: Supplemental Information about the Carter Lake Pipeline Project for the ClP StudySession on 7u1y31, 2007 Attached is a copy of the agenda item memo from the June 28, 2007 Water Resources Advisory B,o,ard (WRAB) meeting regazding the Integrated Evaluation of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements including the Carter Lake Pipeline.. This information summarizes staff efforts to evaluate alternatives and information needed to support a decision regarding whether to move ahead with design and construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline. Including the CarCer Lake Pipeline Project in the 2008 Budget (and the 2008-2013 CIl') is not a final decision by the City Council to construct the project. City Council will still have the following "off-ramp" opportunities to stop its participation7funding in this .project: • Review and approval of the CEAP (early 2008) • Review and approval of the proposed 2009 Budget (Fall 2008) • Issuance of Water Utility Revenue.Bond (Summer 2009 or later) Additional technical informafion is also available in the technical reports.listed as Attachments in the WRAB agenda item memo: These attachments are 250 pages long and are available for review upon request or on the web at: httn://www.bouldercolorado.oov/index.php?option=corn .content&task=view8cid=73188dtemid=l 189 The Boulder Reservoir WTP is currently meeting all drinking water requirements and standards. For this reason the Carter Lake Pipeline has been identified a a discretionary project that it recommended based on its long term enhancement of the watei system and value to the city. Six alternatives were evaluated and there aze differing professional opizuons about the preferred course of action. • Staff's and Planning Boazd's recommendation is that the Carter I.a1ce Pipeline Project is the preferred long term capital improvement alternative. • WRAB's recommendation is that the Carter Lake Pipeline Project not be pursued at this time and reviewed at some point in the future (perhaps 5-15 years). Page 1 The staffrational for con4ntung to pursue the Carter Lake Pipeline Project includes the fallowing: Water Quality and Quantity • Water quality in Carter Lake is of exceptional quality, similar to other city water sources such as Barker and Silver Lake Reservoirs. • The quality of the water delivered from Carter Lake through the 21-mile long, open, earthen canal, referred'to as the Boulder Feeder Canal (BFC} experiences significant degradation, primarily due to surface water nmoff that contains chemical and pathogenic microorganisms and adjacent septiclleach fields along the canal. The water in Boulder Reservoir is subject to additional degradation from body contact and motor boat recreation, increased dissolved solids anu salt content. due to the dissolution of naturally bccutrng minerals in Boulder Reservoir sediments and occasionally has objectionable tastes and odors in the water that aze the result of seasonal algal blooms an$ increased manganese due to oxygen depletion.in, Boulder Reservoir. In addifion, the planned•.recreation trail along the BFC and the planned recreation improvements (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) at Boulder Reservoir will increase the risk of water quality degradation events. The quality ofthe wafer delivered via the BBC is subjectto accidental aiid,; intentional dumping/contamination. • As water demands increase in the future to serve the build=out population, the city is relying on the.Boulder Reservoir WTF to provide a greaterpercentage of the water. The pipeline would provide.increased reliability and flexibility for delivery of water the entire yeaz (the BFC operates 8-9 months}. • Although there are treatment processes capable of removing contaminants from the water, it is better to preclude contaminations from entering the water in the first place. • A pipeline that delivers water directly from Carter Lake would mostly. eliminate these issues. Cost and Finances • The city currently has the opportunity to leverage money for construction of the pipeline with several other agencies including the Left Hand W ater District, the Little Thompson Valley Water District and the Town of Frederick. The city and these agencies recently completed a feasibility study and are currently developing permit applications for the pipeline project through the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD}. There does not appear to be any significant community or environmental impacts of the project that cannot be mitigated. Permits will be required from both Larimer and Boulder Counties as a Matter of State Interest (10417}. The NCWCb previously acquired the majority of the right- of-way (ROW} needed to construct the pipeline along an alignment parallel to an existing pipeline that serves Broomfield and Superior. • The Carter Lake Pipeline Project has been included in the city's Federal Priorities and lobbying efforts and has received support from several elected officials. Page 2 While federal funds have not been appropriated for this project, there is still a. possibility that federal funds maybe appropriated in the next 1-3 year period. • During the past five yeazs, heavy construction costs. have escalated at 22.5 to 50 percent, based on the Engineering News Record or Colorado Department of Transportation Construction Cost Indices, respectively. Delaying the construction : . of the pipeline may result in substantially higher costs at a later date. • )f the Carter Lake Pipeline is not constructed, it is likely the city will need to invest in additional treatment processes in the future. Although the treatment processes may not be as costly to construct initially, they require higher on-going operation and maintenance costs and do not have as long a useful life as the pipeline. ' • An alignment.withinthe exisfingnght-of--way (1ZOV,~ of the pipeline constructed in 1995 from Carter Lake to Broomfield is currently available- - • Revenue bonds to fund the project would be issued and, although interest rates aze no longer at historic lows, they remain very favorable WRAB Recommendation The VJI2AB did not agree with the staff recommendation and voted 3-2'at their June 28 ' , meeting to delay construction of Boulder's portion of the CarterLake Pipeline and consider it as a future phase for implementafion, after the following actions have _ occurred: _ • :,Construction of planned treatment improvements at the WTP have been =completed (anticipated to be 2010) .Reduce or eliminate existing dischazges from adjacent properties into the Boulder Feeder Canal • .:,Significantly reduce the exisfing bonded indebtedness (existing revenuebonds aze scheduled to be paid off iri 2016, 2019, 2020 and 2021). The WRAB was concerned about the rate increases that would be necessary to fund.the pipeline when the water currently meets regulatory standards. Dissenting board members . supported the staff recommendation and indicated that the pipeline is a necessary improvement.to protect the safety'of the water and it is better not to delay the project. Plannin¢ Board Recommendation The Planning Boazd unanimously (6-0) recommended the Carter Lake Pipeline Project at their July 19th meeting and review of the proposed 2008-2013 CIP. Utility Staff Recommendafion Staff recommends that the pipeline planning, design and construction proceed as soon as possible. The next step would be to complete the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) with money already appropriated in the existing 2007 ' budget- Although staff is requesfing that City Council appropriate $1 million in the 2008 budget foz design of the pipeline, these funds would not be spent until the CEAP is approved by City Council. In addition, the projected expense of $25 million in 2009 is . also conditional on approval of the CEAP and final City Council action to issue revenue bonds. Page 3 Next Steps Staff will be prepared to discuss this issue in more detail at the July 31s` study session. Questions for City Council regarding this issue may include: 1. Would Council like to schedule a separate study session or public hearing to consider more information regarding this issue2 2. Should staff proceed with the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) with money appropriated in the existing 2007 budget? 3. Should $1 million for design of the Carter Lake Pipeline be budgeted in 2008 with the understanding that no design money will be spent until the LEAP is approved? 4. What additional information does Council need to make this decision? Attachment A -Agenda item memo from the June 28, 2007 Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB}meeting regarding the Integrated Evaluation of the Bouldez Reservoir Water Tzeatinent Plant (BRWTP} Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements including the Carter Lake Pipeline. Also on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorada.aov/index.oho?option=com content&task=view&id=7318&Itemid=l 184 Page 4 i ' ~ - ATTACHMENT A-4'~ 7'~0-D~ v~P~o\ CITY OI' BOULDER ' WATER RESOURCES ADyISORY BOARD AGENDA- ITEM MEETING DATE: June 28; 2007 AGENDA TITLE; Integrated Evaluation of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements. PREPARING DEPARTMENT: Robert E. Williams -Director of Public Work for Ufilities Anne. Noble -Utilities Project Manager Bob Hazberg -Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator Bret Linenfelser-Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator Randy Crittenden- Water Treatment Coordinator - Carol Ellinghouse -Water Resources Coordinator BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: WRAB reconnmendation to support the Carter Lake Pipeline as the preferred long term capital improvement alternative. for the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. FISCAL IlVIPACT: The proposed 2008-2013 CII' includes $1 million in 2008 to design and $25 million in 2009 to construct a pipeline from Carter Lake to the BRWTP. PURPOSE: Attached (Attachment A) is the final report prepazed by Black & Veatch (B&V) Consulting Engineers on the Integrated Evaluation of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements; which recommends that the city move forvaazd with the construction of a pipeline from Carter Lake to the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. Also attached are: a peer review (Attachment B} of the B&V .report prepazed by Susumu Kawamtua, Black & Veatch's response (Attachment C) to'the peer review, responses to WRAB questions submitted to staff in May 2007 (Attachment D) as well as the analysis of the WRAB decision model scores based on scoring by Black and Veatch and 'scoring by Kelly DiNatale (Attachment E). BACKGROUND:. On March 19, 2007, the draft report on the Integrated Evaluation of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements was presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board_ At the time, seven alternatives were identified and evaluated. All of the. alternatives assumed the construction of mid-term improvements at the AGENDA ITEM # Page ] treatment plant which includes treatment with chlorine dioxide {C102). These alternatives assumedthree source water options: seasonal use of the Boulder Feeder Canal, year-round use of the Boulder Reservoir and the Carter Lake Pipeline. Treatment processes were paired with each of these source water options and the alternatives were evaluated based on a performance ranlang, as well as the present worth cost. At the April I6, 2007 and May 21, 2007 WRAB meetings, staff provided additional information in response to questions and comments from the Water Resources Advisory Board, including the evaluation of membrane filtration as an alternative and the evaluation of the alternatives using criteria and scoring provided by the WRAB. In May, 2007, in order to simplify the evaluation process; the number of alternatives - was reduced to six, Based on the assumption that the BRWTP~would continue to utilize both of the current water sources or a pipeline from Carter Lake would be constructed. ANALYSTS: The six alternatives that were brought forward in the final report include: • Alternative 1: Chlorine Dioxide (CI02} only • Alternative 2: C102 and Ultraviolet (ilV} • Alternative 3:0102, UV and Granular Activated Carbon (GAC} • ..Alternative 4: C102 and Membrane Filtration/LlltrafrIiration (Y1F/UF} • Alternative 5: C102 and Advanced Oxidation Process (Ozone} • Alternative 6: C102 and Carter Lake Pipeline A decision process for evaluating the alternatives was developed that utilized a performance ' ranking as well as a net present cost. Criteria were developed by city staff to rank each of these ' alternatives. Each criterion was weighted based..on the consensus of its relative importance. The six final alternatives were numerically rated based on their ability to meet each criterion. The criteria, relative'weightingnnd performance score`for each alternative are shown in Chapter fi of:; the report and are. summarized in Attachment E of this memorandum, along with the WRAB Decision Model Scores. The WRAB developed a separate decision model, which evaluated the alternatives based on eight criteria, including cost. Four WRAB members individually developed relative weights for these criteria, which were then used to score the alternatives: Black & Veatch scored the alternatives based on their assessment of each alternative to meet the criteria. The alternatives were also scored by Kelly DiNatale. The first three alternatives would not meet the city's water quality goals with respect to TDS and sulfates when raw water is provided from the reservoir. Alternative 1; the baseline alternative, would not meet the city's water .quality goals'with respect to pathogens and does not provide an effective organic micro-pollutant barrier. With the addition of W disinf8ction, Alternative 2, provides adequate pathogen inactivation, but this alternative would not provide an effective barrier for orgauicrnicro-pollutants. With the addition of GAC, Alternative 3, the concern of organicmicro-pollutants wontd be addressed. Alternative 4, membrane filtration, addresses pathogens, but not micro-pollutants or TDS and sulfate. Alternative 5, advanced oxidation (ozone) provides barriers for pathogens and micro-pollutants, but nat TDS and Sulfates. Alternative 6, the Carter Lake Pipeline meets all of the city's water quality goals and provides at least one barrier for each contaminant category evaluated. AGENllA ITEM # Page 2 A net presentcost was calculated for each alternative, taking into account both capital and operations and maintenance costs. A 30 yeaz life cycle was assumed for treatment plant processes, with a 70 year life cycle for the pipeline. The. remaining value of the pipeline was credited back in the net.present cost evaluation. Operations and maintenance costs included power, chemicals and consurnables. The cost of staffing the facility was not included as it was assumed to be constant for all of the alternatives. Capital costs were. not included for the mid- term.treatmentplant improvements. However, maintenance costs.for the mid-term improvements were included in all of the alternatives as.it was assumed these improvements would be completed prior to the long-term improvements. The present worth cost, capital cost and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs (in $million) are described in chapter 7 of the report and are shown below: Alternative Description Present Worth Cost . Capital Cost O&M Costs 1 C102 only $52 $0 $0.17. 2 0102 & LTV $9.3 $2.4 $0.21 3 C102 & W & GAC $53.4 $21..9 $0.86 4 CI02 & MF/UF $293. $13.2 $0.42 5 0102 & Ozone $26.9 $13.6 $0.33. 6. C102 &Pipeline $172. $21.1 $0.19 RECONIlV)~NDATION Staff recommends moving forward with the Carter Lake Pipeline. Protection of the BRWTP source water through investing in the construction of the Cartez Lake Pipeline will provide long- termbenefits to the, city. T'he city is placing a greater reliance on this facility than in the past due to continued planned growth in the city's water service area. Even though current regulatory requirements are being met; the risk of contaminants entering the source water and passing through.the;treatmentproccss still exists. Investing in a pipeline that will protect the source water for the BRWTP faz into the future is a worthwhile investment similar to that undertaken by prior generations with the Silver Lake Watershed. The quality of water in Carter Lake is excellent. It is a deep reservoir with a small natural runoff area and is filled mostly with high quality water imported from the Western Slope. These factors aze significantly different than factors affecting water quality in the Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir, both of which aze negatively affected by a much more significant azea of existing development and agriculture. Future development and agricultural practices will likely . exacerbate these negative effects. The threat of accidental or intenfional contamination is also a concern because of limited ability to react or dilute such contamination, The city of Boulder is currently participating in the development ofright-of--way acquisition plans and permit applications for the Southern Water Supply Project II (Carter Lake Pipeline). Other participants include Little Thompson Water District, the town of Frederick and Left Hand .Water District. The pipeline is estimated to cost $33 million. Depending upon the number of participants, the city of Boulder's share of the cost can range from $20 to $25 million. Attached are excerpts from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Southern Water Supply Project II Feasibility Study prepazed by Integra Engineering in January, 2006 (Attachment F)_ AGENDA ITEM ~ Page 3 The Carter Lake Pipeline will address both the near-term and potential increase in degradation to water quaIity.of the BRWTF_ Although water.treatment technology has advanced, treatment processes do fail; Preventing source-water contamination provides a more robust barrlerthan subsequent treatment. The Carter Lake Pipeline would also provide a much more uniform water quality, substantially simplifying the treatment optimization and increasing treatment process reliability. Although the capital cost of the Carter Lake.Pipeline is significant; it is comparable to the cost of treatment tecknologies that afford a similaz level of water quality protection and with the assurance that contaminants will be prevented from entering the city's' source water in the first place; rather than attempting fo remove these contaminants via treatment. The pipeline would also provide ogporttinities and flexibility for improvements in the management and operation of the city's raw water facilities. These include possible hydroelectric power generation as well as improvements inthe flexibility of use of the City's various water sources for the BRWTP. This increased flexibility could provide a slight increase in the drought year yield of the City's water rights portfolio- Water source selection flexibility would be improved by providing a redundant means of supplying BRWTP. At present, source options include drawnzg directly #'rom the Boulder Feeder - Canal or pumping fxom Boulder Reservoir. Since the: canal is shut down from about November to April of each year; the Carter Lake Pipeline:would provide a second option for water delivery- . to BRWTP in the winter months. If one ofthe present source options is unavailable for operational reasons, such as apoweroutage to tha-pumps or herbicide spraying onthe canal; the Carter.Lake Pipeline would provide the f7exibility_of an additional means of providing water. It is likely that. if the .Carter Lake Pipeline were built that it would be used as the sole means. of supplying BRWTP at most times; but th8 options of using Boulder Reservoir water or canal water would remain for use during drought or emergency. This increased flexibility in water supply facilities at BRWTP might provide a slight increase in the.yield of the City's Windy Gap water supplies during drought periods. If the City is able to access its CBT allotment directly from the storage pool in Carter Lake during the winter, the City's winter Boulder Reservoir account can be filled with Windy Gap water each year. At present, it is filled with CBT water from the allotment given in the year that is closing. If this close-out CBT allotment can be accessed froi3i Carter Lake during the winter, it would no longer need to be placed in Boulder Reservoir storage before the canal shuts down in the fall. If the Windy Gap water that is then stored in Boulder Reservoir for the winter is not delivered into the BRWTP aver the course of the winter, it can be exchanged up to Barker Reservoir in the spring for later use at ~etasso. The increased availability of storage space for Windy Gap water and the increased ability to exchange Windy Gap effluent back into the City's water system until it is fully consumed might provide a slight increase in water yield during moderately dry periods when exchange potential exists. 'T`his in turn world allow the City to carryover higher amounts of CBT water under the . City's account within the CBT storage reservoirs that could be used during drought periods The cost of the pipeline as ciurently proposed is less than it might be at a later time Because there is an opportunity to share costs in constricting the Carter Lake pipelnne with other communities. Additionally, on-going construction cost inflation suggests that the cost of constructing the AGENAA ITEM # Page 4 5 pipeline will only increase in the future_'`I'he maj oriiy of tli'e pipeline right-nf way (ROW) has been previously securedby the NCWCD. Continued development pressure along this.ROW may make future construction more difficult. Securing the remaining ROW foi a pipeline at this time is also considered important because of these. development pressures. Also, the cost of borrowing 'money is near an.all time low_ These factors suggest that now is a good time to proceed.with this .project as a longterm inveshnent in the city'g water utility infrastructure. ATTACITIVV~IVTS- Attachment Final Report on the Integrated Evaluation of Boulder'Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) Source Water Protection and Treatinent Improvements.prepazed byBlack & Veatch Consulting Engineers, june 18, 2007. ~ . . Attachment B: Peex Review for the Draft-Report on Boulder Reservoir Water Plant pzepazed by Susumu Kawamura dated May 31, 2007 Attachment C: B&V's Responses to the Peer Review ' Attachment D: Questions and Answers on the Integrated Evaluation•of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment.Plant Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements dated June 2007 Attachment E: WRAB Decision Model scored by B&V and scored by Kelly DiNatale ~.AttachmentT+': Excerpts from the Southern Water Supply ProjactII Feasibility Study AGENDA ITEM # Page 5 J ATTACHMENT B WEEKLY INFORMATION PACIfET MIJMORANDUM To: Mayor Ruzzin and City Council From: Frank W. Bruno, City Manager Stephanie Grainger, Deputy City Manager Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities Bob Harberg, Coordinator of Utilities Planning and Project Management Date: August 23, 2007 Subject: Information Item: Additional Information on Carter Lake Pipeline Project for the. August 28, 2007 Study Session (2008-2009 Recormnended Budget) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This memorandum provides additional information regarding the proposed Carter Lake Pipeline (also refereed to as the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Conveyance Facility or the Southern Water Supply Pipeline II) that was requested during the July 31City Council Study Session about the Capital Improvement Program (CII'). BACKGROUND: Staff has recommended funding in 2008 ($1 million) and 2009 ($25 million) for the city's share of construcfing the Carter Lake Pipeline. Other water providers participating in the project include: Little Thompson Water District, Town of Frederick and Left Hand Water District. There have been differing professional opinions about pursuing the pipeline at this time. The Water Resources Advisory Boazd voted (3-2) to delay construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline. until other treatment alternatives have been constructed and improvements to the Boulder Feeder Canal have been completed. The Planning Board voted (6-0) to pursue the pipeline project. Staff has recommended that the city pursue the pipeline project and continue its efforts to secure federal funding to partially offset the cost of the project. City Council members asked questions about the Carter Lake Pipeline Project at the July 31 study session and the questions and answers (Q&A) are reflected in Attachment A. The Q&A responds to general topics about: • Water quality in Boulder Feeder Canal • Contamination • Costs • Climate change • Federal funding Page 1 FINANCIAL IMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDING: At this time, while $10 million for the project has been included in the federal Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, the WRDA must still be approved by the U.S. Senate in September before being sent to the President for signature. In addition, there must still be an appropriations request next year and, if successful, funding would not be forthcoming unti12009. Therefore, the financial, impact to water rates with and without the federal funding would be as follows: Water Rate Increase Needed for Carter Lake Pipeline Project Alternative 2009 2010 2011 1. No Pi eline Project 5% 5% 6% 2. Pipeline Built with $10 8% 9% 10% , million in federal funding 3. Pipeline Built without 10% 10% 12% federal funding COST IMPACT: WRAB recommendations included: 1. Water Treatment (ultra-violet disinfection or alternative treatment), 2. Boulder Feeder Canal bypasses, 3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Boulder Reservoir, and 4. Other protective measures for Boulder Feeder Canal The cost impacts for both WRAB and staff recommendations are shown in the following table. More cost detail maybe found in Attachment B. The "Present Worth Cost" approach reflects both one-time capital costs and annual on-going operation/maintenance costs and is consistent with previous cost analysis information. The WRAB recommendations stated that the city should delay construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline until the four specific actions had been implemented, but the WRAB did not have the conceptual level cost analysis at the time of their recommendation. However, this information is being sent to the WRAB this week. Present Worth Cost Treatment -Ultra-violet Disinfection $ 9.3 million Boulder Feeder Canal By asses $ 1.5 million Best Management Practices for Boulder Res. $ 2.081 million WRAB Other Protective Measures for BFC $ 1.976 million - Road Crossing Extensions $ 8.623 million -Patrols $ 7.8 million Total city cost $ 31.28 million Carter Lake Pipeline (city cost with federal Staff funding) $12.2 million Carter Lake Pipeline (city cost without federal funding) $ 17.2 million * Page 2 The pipeline alternatives have a lower present worth cost than its capital cost because the pipeline has a longer life (about 40 years longer) than treatment alternatives, and therefore has a residual, or salvage, value reflected in the analysis. As is reflected in the City Manager's 2008-2009 Budget Message, the impact of reduced buying power has been reflected in double digit increase in construction costs. Delaying large, significant construction projects today will likely result in substantially higher costs at a later date. The memorandum from Left Hand Water District (Attachment C) reflects their commitment to move forward with the Carter Lalce Pipeline project, despite questions about Boulder's continued participation. NEXT STEP: The Aug. 28, 2007 Study Session will be about the 2008-2009 Recommended Budget and staff will be available to answer questions about the Carter Lalce Pipeline Project. If additional information is required about the project, staff will follow-up at the Sept. 18 City Council business meeting under Matters fiom the City Manager. Including the Carter Lake Pipeline Project in the 2008 Budget (and the 2008-2013 CTP) is not a final decision by the City Council to construct the project. City Council will still have the following "off-ramp" opportunities to stop its participation funding of this project: • Review and approval of the CEAP (early 2008) • Review and approval of the proposed 2009 Budget (fa112008) • Issuance of Water Utility Revenue Bond (summer 2009 or later) City Council will have the first reading of the 2008 Budget on Oct. 2, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: A -Question and Answer Sheet B - B&V, draft BRWTF Source Water Contaminant Mitigation Costs, August 21, 2007 C -Left: Hand Water- District memorandum, July 24, 2007 Page 3 ATTACHMENT A ~{z, ~-a3-~~ ~a> Carer Lake Pipeline City Council Study Session, July 31, 2007 Questions and Answers (August 22, 2007) L What is the useful life and annual maintenance cost for the pipeline? Useful life for large diameter welded steel pipe of the type proposed for the Carter Lake Pipeline is estinxated to be 70 years (Quantifying Future Rehabilitation and Replacement Needs of Water Maiiis, AWWARF, 1998). The estirrxated amzual rnainterrance cost for the pipeline is 0.2 percent of the initial constructionx cost, or approximately $42,000 per year. 2. What are the costs associated with the Water Resources Advisory Board alternative recommendation to the pipeline? The costs associated with the WRAB altenaative reconwnendation includes costs associated with: 1. Treabnent alternatives (ultra-violet disinfection) 2. Boulder Feeder Canal bypasses 3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Boulder Reservoir 4. Other protective measures for Boulder Feeder Canal Present Worth Cost Ultraviolet Disinfection $ 9.3 million Boulder Feeder Canal B asses $ 1.5 million Best Management Practices for Boulder- Res. $ 2.081 million Other Protective Measures for BFC $ 1.976 million -Road Crossing Extensions $ 8.623 million -Patrols $ 7.8 million Total Recommendation-city cost $ 31.28 million More cost detail may be found in Attaclrrarent B. 3. Is the recommendation by the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) good for the long term or merely a short term solution? It is unknown if the recommendation (voted 3-2) by the WRAB will serve the long term needs of the city's water system. The recommendation includes deferring the construction of the.Carter Lake Pipeline as a major capital investment and relying on treatment to remove contamination. The WRAB motion also stated "The pipeline is an attractive enhancement to the City's operations and would result in more consistent, high quality Page 1 water,... Presumably, WRAB would still consider a pipeline in the future if the combined treatment/BFC improvement alternative did not provide the desired outcome. It is city staff's fundamental belief that in providing safe drinking water, it is always better to prevent pollutants from getting into the water (i.e., a pipeline) than to allow the pollutants to get into the water and then try to remove them (treatment). Future contaminants that will enter the city's water supply without the pipeline are unknown as are the costs and abilities of futaire treatment technologies. 4. Why is it important that the proposed Carter Lake Pipeline provide greater flexibility in managing the city's water rights portfolio? Flexibility in selecting which city water source to draw oti at any given time is important because of the unpredictability of Colorado's present climate and the likelihood that unpredictability will increase as global warming effects become more apparent. Maximizing the flexibility available to water system managers to draw from various sources based on changing conditions assures that Boulder will have adequate water supplies during all but the most serious drought years. The amount of water from each of the city's sources varies each year due to Colorado's semi-arid climate. The general components needed for a reliable water system include: 1. Water rights 2. Storage reservoirs 3. Delivery system from reservoirs to water treatment plant 4. Water treatment plant S. Delivery system (pipes) to homes and businesses It is important that each component have redundancy and flexibility if the system is to be reliable. The' Carter Lake Pipeline provides flexibility by providing a new, year-round way of delivering water from Carter Lake (and the NCWCD reservoir system) to Boulder Reservoir'WaterTreotment Plant. Presently, the BFC operates about 9 months per year. This pipeline may also potentially increase the city's water yield in the future, depending upon future impacts to west slope water yields, climate change and other considerations. Strategic use of reservoir storage space creates the flexibility needed to be prepared for drought years. Like most western communities, Boulder depends on stored water most of the year. High streamflows from melting mountain snowpack occur for only a few months of the year. Natural streamflows in late summer and winter cannot meet customer demands and must be supplemented with stored water supplies. Boulder must also store water in reservoirs during wetter years to carry over for use in dry years. The city owns reservoirs in the Silver Lake Watershed, Barker Reservoir, and Boulder Reservoir. In addition, the large storage volume (over 720, 000 AF) of the CBT project is vitally important as a supplemental supply during droughts. Maximizing flexibility for water system operations is important now, but will become even more important in the future. Due to the limited water available for delivery to Betasso WTP, the amount of water treated at Betasso WTP each year will be very similar Page 2 to the amount treated at BRWTP irz the future. The capacity of BRWTP will be used razor•e as the Cit)v reaches full build-out arzd ra2axin2ized use of both treatment plants throughout the year will be needed. Use of Betasso WTP capacity is presently razaxirazized, so all future growth will be seared with water treated at BRWTP. Therefore, in the future, BRWTP will operate as a yem•-round baseload plant. Betasso WTP will carry part of the baseload, Uut mast of the Betasso WTP capacity will be used to meet peak water demands during the irrigation season. 5. How are the impacts of climate change being evaluated and factored-into the decision? Stratus Consulting, a Boulder fcnn, received a grant from NOAA to study the effects of climate change on water supplies and, in particular, Boulder's water supplies on both the east and west slopes. The study is expected to be con2pleted in August or September and the Water Resource Advisory Board is tentatively scheduled to receive ara update at its Septera2ber I7rr' meetir2g. The results of the Stratus report will Ue included ire the city's Source Water Master Plan (SWMP) and is expected to be con2pleted in first or second quarter 2008. TI2e SWMP is an update to the 1988 Raw Water Master Plan and will review all available inforn2ation arz the adequacy of the city's water supplies for• various conditions (i.e., drought, clirazate change in2pact, etc) in order to make recon2ra2erzdations for future source water studies, facilities, resources and policies. This review will be completed before construction of the pipeline, treatment facility or other improvements. Previous nodeling of Boulder's water system performance if extreme weather events increased due to global warming has sho~n2 that Boulder's reservoir storage would buffer the city against these events. Even with an increase in extreme events, based on the modeling, the city would still be able to meet the water system reliability criteria set by City Council m2d reflected in the Drought Managen2ent Plmz. Nevertheless, reasonable steps are being taken to guard against actual clirazate change effects on municipal water yield. For example, the city has purchased the Barker Reservoir systen2 in 2001 to increase the city's available reservoir storage in the Boulder Creek basin. Operational changes have been made that focus on felling Barker Reservoir sooner in the sprir2g through earlier exchanges of water from Boulder Reservoir. The City has expanded the capacity of the BRWTP to 16 MGD. The city continues to acquire water rights irz local irrigation companies that have the poter2tial to either increase municipal supply or iraxprove operational flexibility (more than leaving the water for use urzder• the ditch would do). Proposed capital improvements for the future that would increase flexibility to deal with potentially decreased water yields due to clirazate change include restoring reservoir capacity at Green Lake No. 2 in the Silver Lake Watershed and participating in t12e construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline to Boulder Reservoir. Page 3 6. What would it take to provide free "water monitors" to all our customers so that they could have instant access to their water use data? Water monitors are small, wireless devices that can remotely read the water meter and can provide instantaneous data about water usage to the caistomer. The water monitors are only compatible with "Orion" transponders that are connected to the interior of the water meter pit. Of the 28;000 water meter pits throteghout the city, approximately 2,000 have Orion transponders. The city sells the water monitors far $200 in order to partially offset the cast of the water monitor and the new Orion transponder that must be installed. To date, the city has sold 31 water monitors. The cost to the city to install Orion transponders in the remaining 26, 000 water meter pits and provide a single free-of-charge water monitor to each home business is approximately $7.1 million, of which $2.1 million is the cost to provide, free-of-charge, a water monitor to each homeJbusiness. The city has a program to install the Orion transponders in the remaining 26,000 meter pits, but at the current funding level, it will take about 8-12 years. 7. Check the "Bill Comparison" information to see if it's accurate, as my water bill is about $32/month and I think I'm a below average user. In the "2007 Comparison of Annual Water Bills" of IS Front Range communities, Boulder's annual water bill of $340.10 was the third lowest. The cauncilmember whose bill is about $32/month and is a below average water user was referring to their "entire" monthly utility bill that includes water, sewer and flood. -The "water-only" portion of the councilmember's bill is about $14/month, or $168/year. 8. What is-the status of the federal legislation for funding the project? On May 16, 2007, the U.S. Senate passed the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), authorizing federal spending on wafer development, infrastructure, flood control and other projects conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Contained in this year's WRDA, at the request of Senator Ken Salazar, is funding authorization for $10 million for construction of a water pipeline which will protect drinking water quality and allow for year-round water delivery from Carter Lake to Boulder and other municipal area water providers. Having been passed by the Senate and the House, the WRDA proceeded to conference committee, where this funding provision was retained. The conference report on the WRDA bill was adopted by the House onAugust IS` and the Senate is expected to approve the report when it returns in session in September. If so, the WRDA bill will then be sent to the President for signature. In addition, passage of WRDA authorizes the project to proceed, but it will still need to compete in the regular appropriations process in order to actually receive funds from the Page 4 U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers. Tlzis means the, pipeline will need to be an appropriations request next year (and probably beyond) and, if successful, furxding would not be forthcoming until 2009. 9. If federal funding is received, is the city restricted to use the funds for the pipeline or can the funds Ue used for other water-related improvements? The project submitted was to design and construct arx enclosed pipeline conveyance system between Carter Lake and Boulder Reservoir to deliver water in lieu of the Boulder Feeder Canal to improve water conservation and water storage measures and enhance environmental and species protection. While the authorization of funding was directly anticipating use for development of a pipeline, it is conceivable that the funding might be available for other solutions, including water treatment. 73owever, the language of the authorization included in the WRDA Conference Report states that tlxe funds are for "water supply infrastructure" not water treatment; so an amendment to the authorization maybe required. Procedurally, it is not possible to anxend the conference report at this time -the corzfererzce on the WRDA bill has closed and any further attempts at amendment will be struck down by a point of order. Furthermore, if the language is approved as it now stands (which is likely), the City will :need to corxftnrz other uses are possible with the U.S. Anny Corps of Erxgirxeers and obtain approval fronx the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction. This may be '.difficult under the language of the authorization and based on the original project design presented to Senator Salazar, the House Connmittee on Transportation & bxfi~astructure and the Senate Conxrnittee on Erxviromzxent & Public Works. Finally, Boulder is in a "par2rxership" with the pipeline project and a water treatment solution might not be an acceptable project to the other municipal area water providers who partnered with Boulder- in securing this potential federal authorization. 10. The data shows a continuous degradation in water quality for both the Boulder Feeder Canal (BFC) and Boulder Reservoir from 2001-2005 Uased on an increase in the E-coli count. What is the reason for the decrease in the E-coli count in 2006? Bacteria counts in the Boulder Feeder Canal (BFC) and Boulder Reservoir are affected by multiple factors, including: • BFC flow rate at time of sampling, • volunxe of water passed through Boulder Reservoir, • precipitation generatirxg runoff carrying bacteria directly in to Boulder Reservoir, • outfalls discharging directly to the BFC from either precipitation events or irrigation, and • natural variation irx bacteria counts due to bacteria die-off and regeneratiorx. Review of fecal bacteria data from 1997 through 2006 for the BFC indicates a good correlation between average BFC flow at the time of sampling and average fecal bacteria counts. Higher flow rates typically generate lower bacteria counts (see graph Page 5 ' below) since additional releases from Caner Lake dilute bacteria and other contaminants. In 2006, the average BFCfZow at the time of bacteria sampling was higher than previous years, and the primary factor for lower bacteria counts. An analysis between total annual canal flow in the BFC and average annual fecal bacteria counts explained 75 percent of the variation in fecal bacteria counts. ®fecal bacteria (#/100m1s) 120 D flow (cfs) 100 80 - 60 - 40 ~ iii ~~~i 20 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 year Boulder Feeder Canal -Average fecal bacteria counts- compared to average flow at time of sampling (1997-2006) ' An analysis between total annual canal flow into Boulder Reservoir and average annual fecal bacteria counts in reservoir bottom water explained 40 percent of the variation in fecal bacteria counts. Boulder Reservoir canal dilution is definitely a factor to consider when looking at fecal bacteria trends. The relationship between these two variables is depicted in the comparison graphs below. ® fecal bacteria (#/100m1s) 60 50 40. 30 20 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 year Boulder Reservoir -Bottom water average fecal bacteria counts 1997 through 2006 Page 6 ®annual canal flow (acre feet) 35000 ',ati' ;~"w >X,;~. 30000 25000 ~ ~x 20000 ~ ~i 15000 i 10000 5000 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 year Boulder Reservoir -Annual total canal flow (acre feet) (1998-2006) Although evaluating bacterial trends is useful, predictirxg future levels is di" fficult due to the multiple factors that can affect Uacteria (and other corxtaraxinants). In addition, the trends shown irx the above graphs are based on average bacteria courxts, and do riot fully reflect tlxe spiking events (short duration high fecal bacteria counts) that Izave occurred in the BFC. High levels of fecal bacteria (pathogen indicators) during spikirxg events is of greater concern at the Boulder Reservoir water treahnerxt plmxt arxd increase tlie probability of difficult to renxove pathogens passirxg through the treatnxent system. 11. Besides building a pipeline, how can pesticides used on agricultural fields and entering the BFC through irrigation return flows and runoff be mitigated? The type of pesticide and the frequency mxd degree of applicatiorx on agricultural lands adjacent to the BFC is dependerxt on the irxdividual land owners approach to pest management, the type of crop grown and the various regulatiorxs of different jurisdictiorxal agerxcies One way of trying to limit or eliminate the application of pesticides on land surrounding the BFC would be through voluntary actions at the request of the city of Boxilder, or some other agency with similar interests. Developing and implenxerxtirxguoluntary reduction or elimination of pesticide use would rxeed to be supported through an education program tlxat would provide altenxatives to pesticide use, or rrxanageraxent techrxiques that would decrease the potential for applied pesticides to be transported by runoff (precipitation or irrigation returnx flows) and ultimately reach the BFC. Agencies such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or Boulder County Parks and Open Space Departnxerxt could possibly assist in providing pesticide application marxagenxent strategies arxd education. The city of Boulder could also provide guidance for pest management based on the city's bxtegrdted Pest Mmxagenzent prograrrx. This could irxclude applying least persistent cherrxicals at minimum dosages to reduce the risk of pesticides entering the water supply. Page 7 Also, there are structural or land acquisition alternatives that could be considered. One alternative is to eliminate t11e ability of contaminated water to enteY the BFC by diverting the water over or under the canal. If this is not possible, then best management practices (BMPs) such as conservation easements around the BFC cocdd be purchased, when possible, so pesticides have time to naturally break down before entering the BFC. These costs are identified in the WRAB recommendation arid included in Attachment B. 12. Besides building a pipeline, how can herbicides used to control weeds along the BFC and entering Boulder's water supply be mitigated?- The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) is the only agency implementing a weed control program along the BFC. The NCWCD weed control program consists of applying 2,4-D which is a toxic, but widely used, herbicide along the inner banks of the BFC and the adjacent Right-of--Way owned by the NCWCD. While 2,4-D is a widely used herbicide, it is a toxicant that affects humans and wildlife. Common symptoms (for mammals) of 2,4-D poisoning include: vomiting; convulsions; kidney and liver injury; and genetic damage. The NCWCD weed control program focuses on spraying target species (thistles, goat heads,.knapweed) that mowing can not control. The 2,4-D application procedure used consists of spraying the inner and outer banks of the BFC from atruck-mounted spray unit. Currently, the city of Boulder haS-a verbaLagreement with the NCWCD to provide city staff with a notice of application 24-hours in advance. Several alternatives for weed control, besides the application of 2,4-D, could be considered, but may not be as effective. One option is to investigate alternative chemicals that are less toxic, but still have some effectiveness, in controlling weeds. Another option is to implement a manual weed removal program. This would be a much more costly program, and require additional staff, since the current weed control program covers the full 2I-mile stretch of the BFC. Finally, the city could also propose to take on the responsibility of controlling weeds along the BFC. 13. Besides building a pipeline, how can microbial pathogens entering the BFC through . irrigation return flows and runoff be mitigated? Microbial pathogen risk can be reduced by eliminating storm and irrigation return flows into the BFC. The most efficient and effective way to do this is to divert runoff water over or under the BFC. Outfalls that can not be diverted around the BFC would require some type of structural ornon-structural best management practice (BMP). Structures of this type may require- land acquisitions and on-going maintenance and would only reduce the risk of pathogenic organisms entering the BFC, not eliminate it. Based on a cost estimate by Black & Veatch presented in Table TMI -3 (Attachment B), the cost of routing the outfalls over or under the BFC is $1.5 million. Page 8 bx addition to re-routing outfalls and constructing BMPs, to address agricultural return flows, there nxay be opportreraities to suggest raxore efficient irrigation practices to land owners, but inxplernentation of those practices would be at the discretion of the land o~,rxer. Past fecal bacteria monitoring data has indicated that outfalls are only part of the microbial problem identified in the BFC. The interior dirt walls (prisnx) of the BFC slope above the water line harbor many small and large arxinxals which generate feces that wash irxto the BFC during stor~ax events and irzcreasirxg carnal flows. To eliminate most of this potential contanxinatiorx the prism of the canal would have to be lined, preferably with concrete, or have the BFC covered. Road crossings also provide locations where raxicrobial patltiogens can erxter the BFC by stone rurxoff or accidental or irxtentional routes (septage haulers, etc.). To reduce the chance of pathogens entering at these points some type of impervious barrier would need to be constructed between the BFC and the road. 14. Besides building a pipeline, how can the risk of contamination to Boulder's water supply from swimming and motor boating activities at Boulder Reservoir be nutigated? To:nxost effectively reduce tlxe potential of contanxination fronx swimming and motor boating, both activities would rxeed to be phase out. However, Boulder Reservoir is a very popular place for water recreation irx Boulder Courxty arxd it may be virtually inxpossible to eliminate these types of activities. A cap could also be placed on the current level of recreation at Boulder Reservoir to restrict the rxunzber of boat permits issued and incorporate a razaxirnunz daily use rzunxber for swiraxrners. Implementation of water quality protection strategies such as no over nigltit boat mooring, no fueling on or near the water, no two cycle engines and an annual boat motor emissions progranx can also be considered. Year-round erzforceraxent of the leash law and riot allowing dogs at Boulder Reservoir would also benefit water quality alorxg with incorporating best nxarxagement practices for storm runoff fronx parking lots. If the risk of contamination cannot be effectively managed by preventirxg the contaminants fronx entering tlxe water, tlxen treatment technologies such as nxernbrane filtration, ultra-filtration, or granular activated carborx nxay be needed in the future. 15. Why is it important to provide consistent water quality that matches Boulder Creek water sources? There are nxultipte benefits from having finished water quality consistent between the Betasso water treatrazent plant (WTP), which receives raw water from the Boulder Creek watershed, arxd the Boulder Reservoir WTP. For Boulder residents who receive drinking water from the Boulder Reservoir WTP, there are noticeable differences in water taste and odor when tlxe source water is Page 9 switched from the BFC to water from Boulder Reservoir. This does not happen to residents that are served water by the Betasso WTP. From an equity standpoint; Boulder residents are paying the same rate for water that at times of the year have noticeable, signif cant differences in quality, although the quality in both systems meets state and federal drinking water requirements. Consistent water quality especially dissolved solids (alkalinity, hardness, and sulfate) would enable the. city to have a uniform corrosion control program at both treatment facilities. A corrosion control program minimizes the amount of metal corroding, or leaching, from the interior of metal pipes (steel/iron water mains and indoor capper pipe) into the potable water which, in turn, results in pipes and infrastructure that has a longer life. In Boulder, there are industries that can benefit from having water quality equal to what the Betasso WTP provides, versus the Boulder Reservoir WTP. Currently, most all of the industries in Boulder that are affected by the quality of water they receive are located in the eastern portion of Boulder, which is served by the Boulder Reservoir WTP. From discussions with various industries, including IBM, Amgen and Roche, benefits from having water provided by the Carter bake pipeline could include: o Consistent water auality: During the period of April through October the Boulder Reservoir WTP has the ability to take source water directly from the BFC or Boulder Reservoir. Typically, water is taken from the BFC during this period which provides better quality water far certain parameters, especially hardness and alkalinity. On multiple occasions, the Boulder Reservoir WTP is required to switch back-and forth between the two source of water to address concerns such as application of 2,4-D along the BFC by the NCWCD, recreational activities (running races, bike races, etc.) that take place along the BFC and identification of elevated levels of contaminants in the BFC. Switching from one source water to the other changes the quality of treated water coming from the WTP and requires some industries to adjust their on-site water treatment processes. o Reduced level of treatment: Some industries need to provide additional treatment to the water provided from the Boulder Reservoir WTP, especially when the source water is Boulder Reservoir, which has high hardness and alkalinity. If raw water was provided through the Carter Lake pipeline the Boulder Reservoir WTP could provide water lower in hardness and alkalinity. This can also be achieved by providing water from the BFC, but as mentioned, the BFC is vulnerable to multiple sources of contamination and only provides water to the Boulder Reservoir WTP from April through October. o Reduced water use and energy costs•~ For some industries the primary use of water is for the operation of cooling towers. From discussions with industry, receiving water lower in hardness and alkalinity increases the number of times cooling tower water can be cycled. Once cooling tower water reaches a certain Page 10 level for various n2inerals it needs to be discJarged to 112e city's sanitar~~ server. Cit)~ staff lr.as been ir2fonned that the number of cooling water recycles can be increased 100 to 300 percent if the water is lower in hardness and alkalinity. bicreasing the number of cycles allows less water to be used, less water discharged to the smtiitary sewer, less energy usage and fewer cooling tower repairs due to scaling and mineral buildup. 16. What are the costs and other ramifications of having to shut down the Boulder Reservoir WTP due to herhicide app]ications along the Boulder Feeder Canal and other know incidents that may affect water quality? The cost irazpact is estimated to be about $1,000 per each shut donor of 24 hours or less. The impacts on water.quality and water production are also important. Risk of contaminants passing through the treatment prrocess is greater with fluctuations iTa the flow through the treatment facility. In addition, during high water demand periods, production firom the Betasso 4VTP may need to be increased, placing greater demands, or possibly exceeding the capacii)~ of tl2atfacility and therefore forcing water resUictioris. Page 11 ATTACI3MENT E ('Fo -a3-~ ~ w~e~~) r~ TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210 Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Level Costs To: City of Boulder, Colorado From: Dr. Christopher J. Tadanier Black & Veatch Reviewed: Shawn LaBonde Black & Veatch Subject: BRWTF Source Water Contamihant Mitigation Costs A. Introduction This Technical Memorandum provides conceptual level costs for contaminant mitigation of source water supplied to the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility (BRWTF) through the St. Vrain Supply and Boulder Feeder Canals. The St. Vrain Supply Canal conveys raw water from Carter Lake to the vicinity of Lyons, CO, which is then conveyed through the Boulder Feeder Canal either directly to BRWTF or to Boulder Reservoir where it is stored for subsequent drinking water treatment at BRWTF. For the purposes of this discussion, we refer to these two canals collectively as the Boulder Feeder Canal (BFC). The conceptual level cost estimates presented here were developed by applying unit process costs to potential BFC contaminant mitigation measures. The. Class 5 planning level cost, opinions presented here reflect use' of standard engineering practices and were prepared without the benefit of detailed engineering designs. As defined by The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Class 5 cost opinions of this type are generally considered to have an accuracy range of plus 100 to minus 50 percent. Any actual project cost would depend on current labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, bid date, and other variable factors. These cost opinions are perhaps best used to compare the relative costs of various combinations of source water contaminant mitigation measures, rather than actual project costs or for detailed budgeting purposes. T~11-1 0 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210. Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Level Costs B. Background Boulder Feeder Canal is a 21-mile long, open, earthen canal that supplies raw water to BRWTF. Between April and October, the City diverts raw water from BFC just upstream of Boulder Reservoir. and delivers it through a pipeline directly to BRWTF. During the remaining months, when BFC is not in operation, raw water is pumpedfrom Boulder Reservoir to BRWTF for treatment. Both BFC and Boulder Reservoir have several features that make them vulnerable to source water quality degradation, as listed in Tabled. Table 1 Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir Vulnerabilities to Water Quality Degradation BFC Boulder Reservoir • Open channel Open to recreational uses including swimming 51 outfalls discharge into BFC ahd motorized boating. • 1.3 street crossings Overland flow drainage • Uncontrolled access Naturally occurring manganese • Neighboring land uses Algal blooms leading to T&O episodes ' • Herbicides rputinely applied Higher TDS due to mineral dissolution • Bank scouring during storm events High turbidity from wind action and BFC flows • Reduced treatability due to higher temperature In 2003, the Source- Water Quality Protection Study (Phase 1 Study) was completed by Black & Veatch (B&V) to identify and evaluate alterriative approaches to TM1-2 r, ~ TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 , DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210 Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Level Costs improve and protect source water quality for the BRWTF, based on forecasted regulatory requirements as well as internal City-established goals. It was recommended that the following alternative be carried forward for further investigation: Long-Term -Pipeline from Carter Lake to the BRWTF - Construct a 21-mile raw water pipeline from Carter Lake that would deliver water year-round to the BRWTF by gravity flow. The City has requested that Black & Veatch develop additional conceptual level cost opinions for three potential categories of BRWTF source water contaminant mitigation measures including 1) canal improvements to eliminate agricultural runoff flows to BFC, 2) canal improvements to bypass stormwater around BFC, and 3) updated costs for recommended improvements to Boulder Reservoir identified in the Phase 1 Study. C. Improvement Conceptual- Costs "Based on input from the City and previous studies, conceptual level costs for 11 contaminant mitigation measures were developed to better protect the Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir from accidental or intentional contamination. Conceptual costs are listed in Tables TM1-2, TM1-3, and TM1-4. 1. Reinforced box culverts at road crossings (Table TM1-2). Satellite "imagery was used to identify BFC road crossings that could be fitted with reinforced box culverts fo provide a containment barrier for accidental or intentional contamination of BFC. The length of-each box culverts was determined on a case by ease basis, with a minimum {ength of 100 feet to each side of the- crossing (200' ft total). Where the canal runs parallel to a road at any distance closer than 100 ft, a"reinforced box culvert was placed if the land topography allowed for possible surface drainage. from the road into the .canal. Thirteen crossings with a total box culvert length of 15,250 ft were identified: TM1-3 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210 Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Level Costs 2. Lining BFC (Table TM1-2). The cost to line 10,,000 ft of BFC not fitted with box bulvert was determined based on an unreinforced concrete layer 3'/z inches. The unit price listed in Table TM1-2 includes clearing/grubbing, subgrade preparation, and . installation of the concrete. 3. TurbidityfToxicity Monitoring along BFC (Table TM1-2). Real-time turbidity/toxicity monitoring at'3 locations on BFC using the .Hach Event Monitor Trigger System' (EMTS) .was used to establish a conceptual cost. For this application, this system would be configured to continuously monitor pH, turbidity, conductivity, temperature,, ,and..total organic- carbon. .Once each minute, software applies an algorithm (patent pending) to the serisor measurements, calculating the site's water quality baseline. -The EMTS alarms when the trigger signal exceeds a trigger threshold, indicating an "event." The EMTS may be equipped with an -agent library containing profiles of various contaminants: 4. BFC Outlet Screen (Table TM1-2). Stand-alone bar screen at the BFC outlet to Boulder Reservoir to remove debris and dead animals. The bar- screen cost included mechanical cleaning to minimize maintenance demands. 5. Automatic Gates for BFC Service Road (Table TM1-2). Automatic gates at all of the road crossings to increase BFC patrol efficiency and allow the BFC access road to be secured at all times. 6. Surveillance afong'BFC.(Table TM1-2). Pole-mounted cameras at each road crossing with pan, tilt, and zoom, features coupled to a digital video recorder. Output from~this system would be available at the BRWTF control room, and could be reviewed in conjuriction-with an alarm from. the EMTS described in item 3 above. TM1-4 r, p TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210 BoulderReservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Level Costs 7. Canal Patrols (Table TM1-2). Cdntinuous patrol 24 hours a day when BFC is in operation. A staff of 4 seasonal employees would be supervised and scheduled by 1 permanent staff employee (FTE). The permanent staff member would also have additional duties related to Boulder Reservoir contaminant mahagement functions described in item 11 below. 8. Annual spring cleaning of BFC (Table TM1-2). The first duty of the seasonal patrol staff would 6e to survey and remove small debris including brush., plant matter, trash, 'and animal carcasses from the canal each spring prior to canal operation. Removing large obstructions such as fallen trees would remain the .responsibility of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Cost for this activity is inc{uded in item 7 above. 9. BRWTF mechanically-cleaned bar screen and intake structure (Table TM1- 2). Black & Veatch designed and constructed this type of structure on a canal similar to BFC in 1999. The cost for this `project was updated to August 2007 using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for Denver. The CCI values used were 4498.45 for 1999 and 5770.70 for August 2007. The 1999 project cost was accordingly inflated by a factor of 1.28. 10. Eliminate BFC agricultural runoff flows and bypass stormwater (Table TM1- 3). The drainage areas associated with 60 agricultural runoff outfalls, stormwater control structures, and uncontrolled surface drainage over the canal bank were provided by the City, and used to estimate mitigation costs. A conservative runoff rate was assumed and industry standard costs for materials and construction were applied to determine a whit cost per acre to bypass the return f{ow with the largest drainage area. Mitigation costs for the' remaining return flows were determined using the unit cost applied to each drainage area. It should be noted that no downstream drainage TM1-5 r. TECHNICAL MRMORANDUM 1 DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210 Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Lavel Costs improvements for water bypassed around BFC were considered, and if required could substantially increase the cost estimates developed here. 11. Updated costs for Boulder Reservoir improvements (Table TM1-4). Updated cost estimates for those Boulder Reservoir improvements recomrriended in the Phase 1 Study (Table 3-2) of 2003 were developed using the ENR CCI for Denver. The CCI values used were 5015.43 for 2003 and 5770.70 for August 2007, giving an inflation factor of 1.15. D. Net Present Value of BFC Improvements A 30-year life-cycle was. assumed for estimating a net present value for the BFC improvements considered here. Other common economic analysis parameters used include a 2007 baseline, an O&M inflation rate of 4 percent, a loan interest rate of 6 percent, and a preserit worth factor of 4 percent. The total capital and annual O&M costs for BFC improvements are listed in Table TM1-2 as $11,28fi;000.and $260,000, respectively. Using the economic assumptions listed above, the life-cycle present value in 2007 dollars for capital and O&M costs are $14,180,000 and $7,800,000, respectively, which gives a total project net present value of $21,980,000. TM1-6 p o TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210 Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Level Costs Table TM1-2 Boulder Feeder Canal and Reservoir Improvementshl Item Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1. Reinforced Box Culvertsl ~ $450 JLF 15,250 LF $6,863,000 2. Concrete Ganal Linin t'i $101 /LF ' 1,000 LF $101,D00 3. Toxicit /TUrbidit Monitorin'I"t $25,000 ea 3 $75,000 4. Bar screen at BFC Outlet $150,000 ea 1 ea $150,000 5. Automatic.Gates at Road Crossin s $3,000 ea 26 ea $78,000 6, Surveillance at Road Crossin s $1.Q,000 ea 13 ea $130,000 7. Canal Patrols Patrol Staff $40,000 eal ear 4 ea $160,000 Su ervisor $100,000 ea/ ear 1 ea $100,000 8. Clean canal rior to initial o erationlst 9., Covered self-cleahing bar screen at $307,877 ea 1 ea $308,000 intake structure 10. Outfall B asseslst $1,500,000 11. Reservoir Best Management Practiceshl $2,081,000 Total Ca ital Cost $11,288 000 Total Annual Labor Cost $260,000 Net Present Vatuelel $21,980,000 Costs rounded Jo the nearest $1;000 tZt Assumed 100 LF on each side at all rdad crossings. Ist Canal lined with 3Yz in. thick unreinforced concrete. Unit cost includes clearing/grubbing, subgrade preparation, and instaAation of concrete. lot Toxicity and Turbidity monitoring will be executed together at 3 spearate locations along the canal. let The initail cleaning of the canal will be the first duty of the four seasonal employess so this cost is taken into account in Item No. 7. (et See Table TM1-3. See Table TM1-4. ~"t30 yr life cycle, 4 percent 0&M inflation rate, 6 percent interest rate, 4 percent discount factor. TM1-7 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMI DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado ~ B&V Project 144922.0210 Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility ~ B&V File E Source Water ContaminantMttigation ~ August 21, 2Q07 Conceptual Level Gosfs ~ ' Table TMt3 - , Cost to Bypass BFC Outtalisl'i Outfzlls to be addressed by NC6yCD during fa112007 ~ - ~area(ft2) acrca Outtalislo - Cansiruchon Engineering Tafal 90650.08 208 79 $2,500 $0 $2,500 2J45fi.29 ~ 0.89 90 $2,500 $0 $2,500 ' 242254.1 SSB~ 357 $5,000 $9 $5,000 3438].23 0.79 349 $2,500 $0 $2,500 - 199743.4 4.59 984 $5,000 $0 $5,000 410615.6 9.61 972 $10,000 $0 $1q,000 31810.2 0.73 3J0 $2,500 $0 $2,500 489241 11.23 3J9 $10,000 $0 $10,000 523056.9 1201 525 $10,000 $g $70,000 103]/27 .23.82 Bank 522,500 $0 $22,500 - Total 71.05 10 $72,500 $0 §72,500 Outfalls. remaining after 2007 area(it2) acres Canal tlutfalLNO Construcaan Engineerng Total , 1050901 24:19 SVSC 45 $86,600 $1],136 ,$85,700 _ ]6221.5 1.80 SVSC 92 $5,200 $5,000 $10,200 47511.39 1.09 SVSC 187 $3,100 $5,000 $0,100 1349487 30.98 SVSC 191 $88,100 $22,002 $110,100 7IX166.49 1.62 SVSC 997 $4,600 $5,000 $9,600 26551.9 0.61 BFC 155 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 - ' 19279.51 11.44 BFC 1J1 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 11701.7 ~ 0.27 BFC 109 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 50109.15 -1.15 BFC 204 $3,300 $5,000 $8,900 270]9.65 ~ 0.62 eFC 20Z $2,500 $5,000 - $],500 ~ ' 1857$.62 0.43 BFC 208 $2,500 $5,090 $7,500 334324.3 7.68 BFC 238 $21,900 $5,451 $2],400 ~ - 73])9.22 .1.69 BFC 906 $4,900 $5,000 $9,900 - 128589.9 2.95 BFC 310 ~ $0,400 $5,000 $13,400 - 2231465 5,12 BFC 359 b14,800 $5,000 $19,fi00 10]47.34 0.43 BFC 387 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 ' 85/63.64 1St BFC 399 $4,300 $5,000 $9,900 107846.2 247 BF,C 403 $7,100 $5,000 $72,100 141803.0 3.26 BFC 479 $9,300 $5,000 $14,300 180980.3 4'.15 BFC 416' $11,900 $5,000 $16,800 1870709 90.95 BFC 435 $709,000 $27,240 $796,200 20289.9fi 0.47 BFC 423 ~ $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 24674.11 0.57 BFC 429 $2,500 $5,000 $],500 497849.1 71 A3 BFC 441 $92,500 $8,118 $40,600 1413012 32.46 BFC 450 $92,300 $29,052 $115,400 47!1147.5 10.88 ~ BFC 455 $46,800 $75,592 $62,400 ' 1802744 43.68 BFC 459 $124,100 $91,023 $155,100 10040.29 0.23 BFC 512 - $2,500 $5,000 $],500 ' 11341.97 026 BFC 519 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 19851.87 0.45 BFC 536 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 ' 29620.78 0.68 BFC 537 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 9004.4"/ 0.21 BFC 549 $2,500 ~ $5,000 $7,500 71671.67 1.65 BFC 548 $4,700 $5,000 $9,700 686s83.1 iS.T/ BFC 578 $44,600 $11,199 $55000 187054.5 3.04 BFC 570 $10,900 $5,000 $15,900 56590.73 1.30 BFC 584 $S,J00 55,000 $0,700 40930.94 0.84 BFC fi09 $2,700 §5,000 $7,700 52209.69 1.20 BFC 616 $3,500 $5,000 $0,500 5090493 11.69 BFC 620 $93,200 $8,900 $41,500 217553.3 4.99 0FC 643 $14,200 $5,000 $19;200 548228.6 12.59 BFC 655 $95,800 §8,939 $44,700 Total 286.11 41 $046,000 $320,053 $1,174,000 ' Bank oyryails remaining After-faI12007 - ~ ' Area (fl2j aerea Outtall I4o Constme0on Engineering Taal 50228.18 1.15 _ Birk $9,300 $5,000 $0,900 ' 152870.4 3.51 Bank $10,000 $5,000 $75,000 64585.46 1.48 Bank $4,3,00 $5,000 $9,300 ' 141540.6 325 Bank $8,300 $5000 $14,300 - ~ 653371.3 15.00 Bank $42,700 $10,853 $$3,400 ' 24250 0.58 Bank $2,500 $5,000 $],505 - 34000.90 0.78 Bank $2,500 $5000 $7,500 90515.78 0.70 Bank $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 ' 3765.08. 0.09 Bank $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 To[al 26.52 9 $79,6011 $50,653 §130,300 Consimc6an & Engineering COST Total= $1,376,800- PermttBngBedhoud000ntyTOtaIAIISi(es= $25,000 PermMing LOngmOn[COUnty TOtel All Sites= $50,000 ' Tdlsl ESlimatetl Cpst6= $1,451,000 .Planning Bud9el= $1,500,000 All costs assume ne tlowrvsiream drainage improvements Sre requlretl farthe bNPass flows. Any requlretl downstream impravemenk coultl signiecantty Increase the costs presenletl In Ihis eslimale. - TMt-8 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM I DRAFT City of Boulder, Colorado B&V Project 144922.0210 Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility B&V File E Source Water Contaminant Mitigation August 21, 2007 Conceptual Level Costs Table TM1-4 Capital Cost Opinion for Reservoir Managementt~i Solution Description Requiremerits Estimated Com onent Cost Reservoir and Develo reservoir to o ra h data $8,000 watershed Ex ansion of existin GIS data $6,000 information Develo mentof Reservoir Model $1,000 Outlet protection Fence appropriate areas $25,000 Recreational Develop detailed inventory of current $12,000 activities recreational activities Human Fishin Fisheleahin facilities. $46,000 Sources Install 1 additional toilet immediately Toilets and additional toilets as necessa $144,000 Water Quality Complete required water quality testing $6,000 Monitorin Emergency Plan Develop emergency plan $6,000 Public Develop public education materials $23,000 Notification Bieretention facilities $276,000 Structural storm water treatment systems $92,000 Watershed Treatment of runoff from Lake Valley development $11.5,000 Sources Treatment ~of runoff from golf courses $173,000 . Treatment facility for irrigation canal start-up flows. $173,000 . Planting and drip irrigation $230,000 Subtotal $1,334,000 Engineering and Administration (20%) $267,000 Ggntingencies (30%) $480,000 Total $2,081,000 Rounded to nearest $1-,000 TM1-9 ATTACHMENT CC~a $ -a3 - 07 mc~B~ Mailing Address: ~ Office Address: P.O. Box 210 6800 Nimbus Road Niwot, CO 80544-0210 ~ I~ Longmont, CO 80503 Phone 303-530-4200 ~ I M - F, 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Fax 303-530-5252 Left Hand Water District www.lefthandwater.dst.co.us 1VIemoYandum To: Carl Brouwer From: Kathy Peterson, General Manager Dater July 24, 2007 CC: SWSPII Participants Subject: Project status Our District has considered the question of continuing the SWSP II project, if Boulder elects not.to continue. While a project with close regional participation has obvious advantages and cost savings, Left Hand Water District remains committed to the project and would.like to see the studies and pem~itting process move forwazd, despite questions of Boulder's continued participation. We have identified the SWSP II project as serving several key components of our Master Plan. It will decrease vulnerability of our water supply as it adds redundancy to our system by providing an alternative source of supply; it will give us that supply on a yeaz around basis, the water quality will be unquestionably superior and will not be subject to the same potential for pollution or interruptions of supply as the deliveries from the canal: Both past and present Boards of Directors have strongly supported the project, and we see no reason to change our support at this time. We realize that our costs will increase if Boulder withdraws from the project, but we are willing to shoulder a reasonable, increase in order to gain these benefits. WRAB Agenda Packet, Sept. 17, 2007 Attachment C Copies of Communication received by staff from June 28, 2007 -Sept. 7, 2007 PETER J. GOWEN 5494 Raritan Place Boulder, Colorado 80303 Voice: (303) 494-5420 Fax: (303)494-6135 e-mail: PJGowen@comcast.net To: Boulder City Council CC: Frank Bruno, City Manager Ned Williams, Utilities Director Date: August 25, 2007 Re: Comments on August 28, 2007 Council Study Session - Carter Lake Pipeline CIP Project Foundation for Comments: • I am a master's level water quality hydrologist with university teaching experience in this subject area. I have been a govermnental scientist in water and water quality management at the federal level (EPA and BLM), state level (Wyoming DEQ), and local level (a council of governments in Boise, Idaho). • I have served as general legal counsel (attorney) for 16 years for local govemtnental water and wastewater service providers in Colorado. • I chaired the City's WRAB for the first five years of its existence, and guided it through its earliest deliberations on the Lakewood Pipeline and Silver Lake Pipeline CEAP's. I testified on behalf of the WRAB at the County 1041 hearings on the Lakewood Pipeline project. • I served on the Planning Boazd for three years and am thus intimately familiar with its role in the CIP approval process. • I currently Chair the Beverages Licensing Authority. However, my comments here are personal and have nothing to do with my role on the BLA. • I have been a resident of Boulder since 1983, and it is in that capacity in wlich I address these continents to you. I azn receiving no compensation in any way for my comments. • I was contacted by Ned Williams as to whether I would be interested in reviewing the relevant materials and commenting about this project as it is postured before you in your study session of August 28, 2007. I freely accepted the opportunity, as I have in the past when I have learned of other City utility programs or projects of personal interest to me. I made no commitment to Ned regarding the substance of my comments. • The following comments are my own, based on my independent review of the materials indicated below. They aze based on my collective professional, educational and civic experiences identified above. Substantive Comments: I have reviewed the Council's Weekly lnformation Packet on this subject, as well as the relevant portions of Boazd Packages for the WRAB meetings for March 19, 2007, April 16, 2007, May 21, 2007 and June 28, 2007 and offer the following comments: 1. The technical staff analysis and that of the underlying consulting engineering reports is sound and reliable. Page 1 of 3 2. The underlying policy behind the staff recommendation of protecting the source water of the municipal water supply is consistent with national programs and priorities of the EPA, public water supply industry standards, long-time public health practices, and historical policies and practices of the City of Boulder. , 3. Clearly, the best treatment strategy for dealing with the contaminant issues faced at BRWTP which include: microbial pathogen control, disinfection byproducts control, organic micro- pollutant control, inorganic contaminant control, manganese, taste and odor control, is to avoid the contamination issues to the extent practical in the first place, and then proceed with appropriate treatment technology specific to the residual risk. These advanced treatment technologies aze capital intensive, operationally challenging, difficult to maintain, energy and consumable materials intensive, and occasionally fail. Water treatment is an imperfect science, particularly as the volumes of water treated increases and the applicable acceptable concentrations in the final water decreases for contaminants of interest. Attempting to employ a spectrum of advanced water treatment technologies prophylactically, to protect water supplies from the full range of contaminant risks these supplies face is inefficient and very costly. Even then, these advanced technologies still might not achieve necessary treatment levels in case of a massive slug of contamination. Anyone in the water treatment industry will tell you, if given a choice, they would rather avoid a contaminant than have to treat it. I have had local governmental water provider clients in my law practice, which faced similar problems. Their ultimate solution was consistent with your staff's recommendation, to start with the highest available quality source water, protect its quality to the extent possible or practical, and not rely just on water treatment technology to treat contamination that was otherwise avoidable. In this case, an ounce of prevention is far better than a pound of cure. It is a long-term view. 4. The WRAB majority's analysis takes ashort-term view of the problem. They cite that the BRWTP currently meets drinking water standards and that the water quality goats of the city are too restrictive. These conclusions may be acceptable as things exist today. But this situation is dynamic and will change with time. Boulder's raw water sources start out with incredibly high quality. To allow significant quality degradation before the water reaches the BRWTP, simply because it still meets standards, and then spend large sums of money to remove the otherwise avoidable contamination is folly. This project needs to be considered in terms of its Iong-term impacts and implications, (as prior City officials did in the early 20`h century when they decided to move the intake to the City water supply from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to the Silver Lake Watershed). The current water quality of the Boulder Feeder Canal is a challenge with regard to managing for appropriate protection from Crytosporidium. This is a significant driver for the need to make Iong term improvements at the BRWTP. Currently, standazds at BRWTP are being met, but improvements aze needed to maintain current regulatory compliance in the face continued 'degradation of the water quality of the Boulder Feeder Canal. Additional development wilt clearly occur along the route of the 21- mile Boulder Feeder Canal, aggravating the situation even worse. The severity of some of the future threats can not even be assessed at this point, because they are unknown and can not be assessed until they occur. The city can attempt to respond piecemeal to these threats as they occur, but it will be like death by a thousand paper cuts to do so, and in the end, it will be far more costly. The situation begs for a lonb term solution. 5. It appeazs that in the long term, even the WRAB majority believes that the Carter Lake Pipeline will ultimately be necessary. The Betasso WTP has reached its maximum capacity, and any growth in demands on the citywide water system will have to be met by the BRWTP. As the City becomes Page Z of 3 more reliant on the BRWTP for its potaUle water supply, it will become even more vital to improve the reliability of the delivery of raw water from Carter Lake to the BRWTP. Ultimately, reliability needs at BRWTP will mandate that the Carter Lake Pipeline Ue Uuilt. Everybody understands and agrees with this. The critical question then becomes project timing. 6. The cost of building the Carter Lake Pipeline will never Ue lower than they are now. At this time, the City has the opportunity to partner with three other municipal water providers that will shu-e in the overall cost of a single pipeline. This is a very efficient away to construct water supply pipelines. It is significant that the project participants will have ready access to an existing pipeline easement. There may even be an opportunity for some federal money. However, even if the federal money falls through, the cost effectiveness of jointly doing this project now with three other municipal water providers is enormous when compared to the future cost of the City going alone with its own separate project in the future. This is particularly so, if this project is currently pursued by the other project participants without Boulder, and the NCWCD pipeline easement is no longer available Uecause the current project interferes with the ability to lay a third pipeline down within the same easement. 7. City Council is already on record in support of the recreational trail along the course of the existing Boulder Feeder Canal. That trail project, worthy as it is, will still expose the canal water to additional significant and potentially serious risks of contamination. Completion of the Carter Lake Pipeline project at the earliest possiUle date will provide consistent and early mitigation against the added risks of water supply contamination Drought aUout Uy the additional puUlic access permitted Uy the trail. This is even more critical since events of September 11, 2001. 8. The Carter Lalce Pipeline project is consistent with past and ongoing master planning for the City. In that regard, it received unanimous support by the Planning Board in the current year consideration of the CIP Uudget. 9. The WRAB simple majority in opposition to the staff proposal was 3-2, and was taken at a time when the cost estimates for their preferred alternatives were not available. Your information package for your study session on this matter provides additional cost information that was not available to the WRAB at the time the WRAB de]iUerated. The present value cost analysis results in significant cost savings with the staff proposed pipeline project, compared to the alternatives proposed by the WRAB majority. The WRAB majority's concerns with the project as proposed appear to be fiscally based. If they knew at the time that their recommendations had a significantly higher present value cost than the staff proposal, their decision may have been different. 10. In conclusion, I believe that the staff recommended, Carter Lake Pipeline project is the best alternative with regards to increasing reliability of the final treated water from the Boulder Reservoir WTP, and deserves full consideration for inclusion in the City's CIP and overall 2008-09 Uudget. To decide otherwise, would be to squander an opportunity to build a necessary project at the lowest possiUle cost. This is Uecause the cost of constructing this necessary project now, will be far less than constructing it as a sole City project sometime in the future. If you decide to defer the project at this time, the problems that the Utilities Division is trying now to avoid, will come to fruition, and it will be necessary to respond to those problems in either a crisis or piecemeal mode. The staff endorsed alternative allows you to deal with the issues now, as part of a thoughtful, conscientious, and comprehensive capital improvement planning process. Which scenario do you prefer? The answer should be obvious. The City deserves no less. Page 3 of 3 (8/29/2007) Neo W III ams - l;OL1nC ~ l:OYreSPOnaence rage From: <bondil@bouldercolorado.gov> To: <williamsn@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 8/27/2007 10:51 AM Subject: Council Correspondence This is only for your information. No need to reply. From: Bill Deoreo Date Received: 27-Aug-07 Response Key: 15700 Respondents sent this email: Ned Williams in PW-Utilities sent an FYI only. Carol Ellinghouse in Utilities sent an FYI only. Bob Harberg in Public Works/Utilities sent an FYI only. Kara Mertz in CMO sent an FYI only. Jody Jacobson in Public Works sent an FYI only. Council Correspondence: Dear Council Members, Below is a list of questions I hope you will ask staff during the study session on the Carter Lake Pipeline. W RAB never had the chance to ask them because the memo was not released until after our last meeting, which was August 20th. Since the memo deals mainly with issues raised by W RAB we found it puzzling as to why we never had a chance to look at it before it was sent to council. So, some questions that we think should be asked are: 1. W by wasn't the memo on the CLP sent to W RAB for review before it was sent to council? 2. Why were the weighting criteria used to compare the CLP to to the various Boulder Reservoir WTP options set up so that only the CLP could achieve the top rank? 3. Why is it necessary to spend $31.28 million in order to continue to use a system that has performed successfully for over 50 years? 4. How is it possible to end up with a present worth value for a project that is less than its actual cost? Can staff guarantee that the cost esimate for the CLP is firm, and that no additional casts will be uncovered as design moves forward? 5. The staff memo proposes to spend 8.6 million to build 2.9 miles of box culvert to protect the Boulder Feeder Canal (BFC) from contaminaiton. Is staff proposing that every other surface conveyance in the water system be similarly protected? Have studies been done to determine the cost of this? 6. The memo proposes to spend $7.8 million for 24 hour patrols and surveylence for the BFC. Is staff proposing it is necessary to employ this level of security on every other portion of the system? Have studies been done to determine the cast of such measures? 7. The CIP proposes to increase water rates by over 50% between now and 2009 ; a large portion of this increase is for the CLP, which is anon-essential project. Does staff believe that a 50% rate increase reflects good management? This will consume a large portion of the available capital of the water utility. Can staff assure council that there are no other capital projects that will be necessary to construct during this period.? 8. When W RAB asked this question they were told that there were none, but then it was learned that the AMR water meters are failing at a higher than expected rate, and we may need to spend $7-10 million to replace them. W by wasn't this disclosed to W RAB as a potential captial project? 9. Why is staff proposing that the CLP pipeline be funded prior to completion of the Raw W ater Master Plan? Wouldn't it make better sense to wait until this and other planning studies are complete to determine whether the CLP is the best place to put our resources? 10. The memo from Staff misses the two main reasons why W RAB withheld support for the CLP: first was the impact on rates, and secondly was that we were not comfortable that all of the other capital needs had been identified. Why were these facts not mentioned in the staff memo? There are other questions, but these are a good start. Council can not simply rubber stamp this. ~ i r rage z Bill DeOreo 303 15th Street Boulder, CO 80304 303-786-9691 (office) If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link http://intraweb.ci.boulder.co. us/itdev/CouncilCorr/servlet/CorrController?respFilled=15700. t`J'/4/ZUU/f IVdU vv II IIt11115 - IJUU IV l~Vl ea Nu lucl ~c "tl" From: <bondil@bouldercolorado.gov> To: <williamsn@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 8/27/2007 12:14 PM Subject: Council Correspondence This is only for your information. No need to reply. From: Bill Deoreo , Date Received: 27-Aug-07 Response Key: 15732 Respondents sent this email: Kara Mertz in CMO sent an FYI only. Carol Ellinghouse in Utilities sent an FYI only. Bob Harberg in Public Works/Utilities sent an FYI only. Ned Williams in PW-Utilities sent an FYI only. Jody Jacobson in Public W orks sent an FYI only. Council Correspondence: In my previous email I asked how it was possible for the present worth of the CLP to be reduced to less than its actual construction cost by an assumed salvage value 40 years in the future. Here are some more info on that. The estimated actual cost to Boulder for the CLP assuming no Federal help is $25 million. Staff has reduced this to $17.2 million by virtue of its assumed salvage value in 40 years. This amount to a reduction on $7.8 million. If you assume an interest rate of 6% it would take a future value of over $80million in todays dollars to provide a present worth of $7.8 million. So, we are being asked to believe that a 40 year old cast iron pipeline will have a salvage value of 320% of its construction cost. This is ridiculous. Maybe the value could be 5-10% of its construction cost, but certainly not 320%. What was the salvage value of the Lakewood pipeline when they pulled that out of the ground. I think we had to pay to have it disposed. Bill Deoreo Aquacraft, Inc. 2709 Pine Street Boulder, CO 80302 303-786-9691 (office) 303-859-4997 (cell) If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link http://intraweb.ci.bou Ider.co. us/itdev/Counci ICorr/servlet/CorrController? respFi Iled=15732. From: DiNatale, Kelly Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:43 PM To: 'ruzzinm@bouldercolorado.gov'; 'agetons@bouldercolorado:gov'; 'wilsonk@bouldercolorado.gov'; 'bohannonr@bouldercolorado.gov'; grayc@bouldercolorado.gov; 'stoakesj@bouldercolorado.gov'; 'polkr@bouldercolorado.gov'; 'schultheiss@bouldercolorado.gov'; 'mcgraths@bouldercolorado.gov' Cc: Knopfj@comcast.net Subject: Comments on Carter Lake Pipeline memo Dear Council Members, Attached is a summary of a memo that is being prepared in response to the August 23, 2007 Weekly Information Packet memo sent to Council by staff on the Carter Lake Pipeline. It was prepared by Jim Knopf and Kelly DiNatale, Water Resources Advisory Board members. It does not represent the official or other opinion of WRAB since WRAB was not provided the opportunity to comment on the new information presented by staff and its consultant, Black & Veatch. We have significant concerns over the handling of the entire Carter Lake Pipeline issue and the apparent actions of staff to limit WRAB's ability to review, question and officially respond to the staff memo. The entire process of evaluation of the Carter Lake Pipeline project, in our opinion, has not been properly handled by Utilities staff. We continue to have serious questions about the analysis conducted by staff and its consultant and do not have, nor were presented the opportunity to review the basis for the questionable about:blank 9/4/200'7 assumptions included in the August 23 WIP. It is important to note that the WRAB members that voted for a delay uz the Carter Lake Pipeline understand and concur with many of the benefits of constructing the pipeline: We believe, however, that budget approval is premature since we do not know if this should be the first priority of the utility, given other water supply risks, capital project needs; rate impacts and potential unplanned costs facing the utility. There is an unjustified rush to judgment on the part of staff to ramrod approval of this project before key questions are answered. We apologize for the delay and late hour in providing information in response to the staff information. Further detail and supporting information on the following summary points will be emailed tomorrow. As volunteer members of an advisory board, we do not have the ability or resources of staff to devote working hours to this issue nor do we have the ability to pay consultants to prepare this information. However, we believe we were appointed to WRAB based on our expertise in water issues and to provide Council with our recommendations on proposed utilities budgets and activities. As Water Resources and Treatment Manager for the City of Westminster, I had 23 years of experience in managing the City's raw water supplies and reservoirs, water quality operations, watershed protection,two water treatment plants, a wastewater treatment plant, a water reuse facility, capital projects management and water rate and tap fee setting. Por the past 4 years I have been employed as a consultant for a large engineering firm and have developed water supply plans and water treatment and water quality evaluations for numerous water. providers in addition to serving as Technical Director for the Colorado Water Conservation Board's Statewide Water Supply Initiative. My comments are solely mine as a water resources professional with 27 years about blank 9/4/2007 ..b.. of experience, were prepared during non-working hours (hence the late delivery of this information) and should not be construed to reflect any opinions or assistance of my employer. Thank you. Kelly DiNatale 506 Juniper Kelly DiNatnle, P.E., BCEE CDM 1331 17th Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Work 303-298-1311 Mobile 303-349-3668 dinatalekn@cdm.com about:blank 9/4/2007 Summary Cormnents on Carter Lake Pipeline August 27, 2007 Jim Knopf and Kelly DiNatale Executive Summary • We support the goal of protecting drinking water supplies. A comUnzation of watershed protection and effective water heatrnent provides a multiple barrier approach to protecting drinking water quality. The Carter Lake pipeline would provide a measure of additional protection and operational flexibility. If the city and its customers had unlimited resources, constuction of the project today would Ue nice. A rational Valance must be achieved, Uased on unbiased analysis. • WRAB did not oppose the eventual construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline. WRAB had concerns over the timing and prioritization, given other potential needs of the utilities system. WRAB was also concerned about the impacts on water rates and the impacts on the timing or ability to fund other capital improvement projects. • WRAB was not provided the opportunity to review and comment on the information provided Council. • Staff has provided contradictory statements on alternatives to the Carter Lake Pipeline. When questioned, Staff indicated that none of the other alternatives listed to the Carter Lake pipelhle would be pursued if the pipeline was not approved. This indicates that the risk is not as great as stated, since staff can live with the status quo and that the "alternatives' were not true alternatives. • Staff's assertion that it is cheaper to construct the pipeline now rather than later is misleading. It is true that capital constuction costs, especially related to the cost of steel and concrete, have been increasing faster than the rate of general inflation. As with all commodity markets, the recent past is not a guarantee of the future. The city has practical limits on the amount it should borrow and also charge its customers. The cost savings claimed by the staff would be equal if the Council should instead choose to use its limited funds for other capital construction projects. • The Utility is facing potential large expenses ahead. There are potentially other significant capital expenditures facing the Utilities funds that have not been included in the 5 year CIP Uudget or rate projections. These include the sooner than anticipated need to replace the automatic meter reading system, potable waterline replacements and Barker Reservoir protection measures. Until the total costs facing the Utility system over the next 5-10 years are known, examined and prioritized, it is premature to authorize funding of the CLP project unless Council is willing to significantly increase water rates. • The risks and costs of other alternatives to construction of the Carter Lake pipeline have been overstated. It is douUtful that staff would implement the measures listed in the August 23 memo. It appears that these measures were developed to make them unacceptably expensive. There was no attempt to prioritize the measures listed h2 the recent memo. These measures do not reflect WRAB's motion and WRAB was not consulted before this list included in the August 23 memo. • There is a demonstrated lack of concern by staff over rate or tap fee impacts or efforts to control costs. Utilities staff give the impression that water rates can Ue increased without any limitations. There has also been a noticeaUle lack of discussion over measures to achieve efficiency in staffing levels or operations, despite requests by WRAB members. • Staff and its consultant conducted a biased ranking of alternatives that did not evaluate objectives beyond the narrow focus of utility operations. The ranking system designed by staff and its consultant ignored the objectives of other interests, including WRAB. There was no consideration ofr objectives such as protecting the recreational users of Boulder Reservoir, environmental enhancement or downsheam uses. • Barker Reservoir likely represents a greater risk than the Boulder Feeder Canal. The Barker Reservoir watershed may represent a significantly greater risk to the city's water system and a careful examination of Uoth the Barker and Boulder reservoirs supplies should be compared using the same 1 i methodology before committing significant capital expenditures to the CLP. The city's own planning documents state: "A vulnerability analysis following the Water Quality Control Division procedures for a Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) program indicates the waters in the watershed above Barker Reservoir are highly susceptible to a variety of natural and man-made threats. The vulnerability assessment for the Barker Reservoir watershed rated the water supply as highly vulnerable to over half of the contaminant sources in the watershed." Canals are a common and acceptable delivery method for drinking water supplies. Many other utilities along the front range use canals to deliver water to terminal reservoirs and water treatment plants. • Many water utilities have different sources of supply and water quality. There are many front range water utilities that have multiple sources of supply with differing water quality. hu most cases, these supplies are not blended prior to delivery to customers and customers often receive different quality water. II. Policy Questions The following appear to represent some of the policy questions facing City Council regarding funding of the Carter Lake Pipeline: • Should the Carter Lake Pipeline be constructed immediately, regardless of overall budget and rate implications? • Should funding for the Carter Lake Pipeline Project be delayed until infrastructure assessments and master plans are completed that provide for a total picture of funding needs over the next 5-10 years? • Does the Carter Lake Pipeline represent the highest priority for capital improvement funds, given the possibility of significant unbudgeted expenditures, continuing major waterline breaks and water source risks in the Barker Reservoir watershed? • If the city considers the Boulder Feeder Canal a significant risk that requires quick acfian, logically must the city also include funding for the water source protection measures for the Barker Reservoir watershed, which may represent a greater threat to water quality than the Boulder Feeder Canal? • Should the Council approve a project that requires significant rate increases over the next few years, without first seeking efficiencies and cost savings in utilities operations or capital projects management? III. Recommendation a) Delay funding of further work on the Carter Lake Pipeline Project until the Utilities Master and Strategic Plans and infrastructure assessments are completed, reviewed and approved. These efforts should be comprehensive and thoroughly reviewed before adoption. b) Conduct an independent study examining opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings in utilities operations and capital projects as well as examining the long-term rate impacts of meeting all utility system capital improvement needs. Use these savings to fund a future Carter Lake pipeline or other capital improvements with reduced rate increases. c) Conduct an independent comparison and prioritization of the relative risks of the Boulder and Barker Reservoirs supplies. d) Instruct staff to continue with its existing program of addressing issues with the Boulder Feeder Canal in a constructive and cost-effective manner as opportunities arise. 2 MEMO To: Boulder City Council From: Kelly DiNatale and Jim Knopf Date: August 27, 2007 Re: Cormnents on August 23, 2007 Weekly Information Packet Carter Lake Pipeline CIP Project I. Introduction This memo was prepared in response to the August 23, 2007 Weekly Information Packet memo sent to Council by staff on the Carter Lake Pipeline. It was prepared by Jim Knopf and Kelly DiNatale, Water Resources Advisory Board members. It does not represent the official opinion of WRAB since WRAB was not provided the opportunity to comment on the new information presented by staff and its consultant, Black & Veatch. We have significant concerns over the handling of the entire Carter Lake Pipeline issue and the apparent actions of staff to limit WRAB's ability to officially respond to the staff memo. Abbreviations used in flzis memo: WRAB -Water Resources Advisory Board CLP -Carter Lake Pipeline BFC -Boulder Feeder Canal BRWTF -Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility BMI's -Best Management Practices II. Sumrnaiy of Items Covered in this Memo Further detail and supporting information on the following statements are included in Section V. 1. WRAB did not oppose the eventual construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline. WRAB had concerns over the timing and prioritization, given other potential needs of the utilities system. WRAB was also concerned about the impacts on water rates and the impacts on the timing or ability to fund other capital improvement projects. We support the goal of protecting drinking water supplies. A combination of watershed protection and effective water treatment provides a multiple barrier approach to protecting drinking water quality. The Cazter Lake pipeline would provide a measure of additional protection and operational flexibllity. If the city and its customers had unlimited resources, construction of the project today would be race. A rational balazlce must be achieved, based on unbiased analysis. 1 I 2. WRAB was not provided the opportunity to review and comment on the information provided Council. The August 23 staff memo represents significant deviation from previous information provided to-and reviewed by WRAB. The Black & Veatch memo was dated August 21, one day after the WRAB meeting. 3. WRAB was told by staff that it could not vote on a recommendation to Council regarding potential unbudgeted items. Ned Williams, Utilities Director, informed WRAB, at the August 20 meeting, that it could not vote on a recommendation that Council be made aware at the August 28th study session of the potential unbudgeted liabilities facing the utility.fund. Ned stated that WRAB could not vote on a recommendation since the City code required public notice of this item as a public hearing for the August WRAB meeting. 4. Contradictory staff statements on alternatives. Senior Utilities staff, in a meeting with two WRAB members, in response to a question about likely alternatives to the CLP, stated that he would not recommend-that any other improvements to the Boulder Reservoir WTF be undertaken if the Boulder Feeder Canal Pipeline project was not approved. This suggests that the listed alternatives to the CLP were never real alternatives that would be considered by staff. 5. Potential large expenses ahead. There are potentially other significant capital expenditures facing the Utilities funds that have not been included in the 5 year CII' budget or rate projections. These include the sooner than anticipated need to replace the automatic meter reading system, potable waterline replacements and Barker Reservoir protection measures. Until the total costs facing the Utility system over the next 5-10 yeazs are known, examined and prioritized, it is premature to authorize funding of the CLP project unless Council is willing to significantly increase water rates. WRAB has repeatedly requested, but not been provided, a list of potential other priority capital projects that were not listed on the 5 year CIP budget. 6. Incomplete rate comparison. The rate comparison of annual water bills for various water providers provided by staff is incomplete in that it uses for comparison a customer that would be significantly under its water budget. Comparison of water bills for commercial customers was also not provided. 7. Overstated risks and costs. The Utilities staff and its consultants have overstated both the risks of the Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir and the costs of mitigation measures and best management practices for these facilities. W e did not recommend the measures included in the August 23 memo. 8. Uncertain federal funding. The federal Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which includes authorization of $lOM for the Carter Lake Pipeline, if enacted into law, does not guarantee funding. 9. Biased ranking of alternatives. The Utilities staff and consultant's ranking system used to evaluate the alternatives to the Carter Lake Pipeline was flawed, did not 2 reflect the objectives of WRAB and likely Council and citizens and as designed would only result in the CLP selected as the top alternative. 10. Barker Reservoir potentially a greater risk. The Barker Reservoir watershed may represent a significantly greater risk to the city's water system and a careful examination of both the Barker and Boulder reservoirs supplies should be compared using the same methodology before committing significant capital expenditures to the CLP. 11. Canals are an acceptable delivery method. Many other utilities along the front range use canals to deliver water to terminal reservoirs and water treatment plants. 12. Many water utilities have different sources of supply and water quality. There are many front range water utilities that have multiple sources of supply with differing water quality. In most cases, these supplies are not blended prior to delivery to customers and customers often receive different quality water. III. Policy Questions The following appear to represent some of the policy questions facing City Council regarding funding of the Carter Lake Pipeline: • Should flee Carter Lake Pipeline be constructed immediately, regardless of overall budget and rate implications? • Should funding for the Carter Lake Pipeline Project be delayed until infrastructure assessments and master plans are completed that provide for a total picture of funding needs over the next 5-10 years? • Does the Carter Lake Pipeline represent the highest priority for capital improvement funds, given the possibility of significant unbudgeted expenditures, continuing major waterline breaks and water source risks in the Barker Reservoir watershed? • If the city considers the Boulder Feeder Canal a significant risk that requires quick action, logically must the city also include funding for the water source protection measures for the Barker Reservoir watershed, which may represent a greater tlueat to water quality than the Boulder Feeder Canal? • Should the ComuIl approve a project that requires significant rate increases over the next few years, without first seeking efficiencies and cost savings in utilities operations or capital projects management? IV. Recommendations a) Delay funding of further work on the Carter Lake Pipeline Project until the Utilities Master and Strategic Plans and infrastructure assessments are 3 completed, reviewed and approved. These efforts should be comprehensive and thoroughly reviewed before adoption. b) Conduct an independent study examining opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings in utilities operations and capital projects as well as examining the long- termrate impacts of meeting all utility system capital improvement needs. Use these savings to fund a future Carter Lake pipeline or other capital improvements with reduced rate increases. c) Conduct an independent comparison and prioritization of the relative risks of the Boulder and Barker Reservoirs supplies. d) Instruct staff to continue with its existing program of addressing issues with the Boulder Feeder Canal in a constructive and cost-effective manner as opportunities arise. V. Supporting Information and Discussion 1. WRAB did not oppose the eventual construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline. WRAB had concerns over the timing and prioritization, given other potential needs of the utilities system. WRAB was also concerned about the impacts an water rates and the impacts on the timing or ability to fund other capital improvement projects. • The WRAB members that voted to delay the Carter Lake Pipeline (CLP) Project do not oppose the construction of the pipeline, but believed that construction at this time is premature given financial considerations and other potential priorities. Financial considerations include significant projected rate increases to finance the pipeline construction and the potential for significant unanticipated costs to replace the TRACE automated meter reading system due to documented premature failure. The city is in the middle of master and strategic planning for water resources and utilities infrastructure needs and until these future needs have been compiled, reviewed and prioritized, it is premature to allocate approximately $15 to $25 M in funds to a nice, but not necessary project. • Rate increases of 10%, 10% and 12% over the next 3 years represent significant increases in costs to customers. 2. WItAB was not provided the opportunity to review and comment on the information provided Council. The August 23 staff memo represents significant deviation from previous information provided to and reviewed by WRAB. The Black & Veatch memo was dated August 21, one day after the WRAB meeting. • This gives the impression that staff is intentionally attempting to have Council act on the CIP budget without providing WRAB an opportunity to provide an independent review and revised recommendation, if any, to Council. 4 3. WRAB was told by staff that it could not vote on a recommendation to Council regarding potential unbudgeted items. Ned Williams, Utilities Director, informed WRAB, at the August 20 meeting, that it could not vote on a recommendation that Council be made aware at the August 28th study session of the potential unbudgeted liabilities facing the utility fund. Ned stated that WRAB could not vote on a recommendation since the City code required public notice of this item as a public hearing for the August WRAB meeting. • Detailed meeting minutes are no longer taken. The WRAB meeting discussion was digitally recorded and should be available from the WRAB secretary. • Ned Williams stated that the city code did not allow any motion to be made unless the item was publicly noticed as a public hearing, despite the fact that it was an information recommendation to Council, staff had raised the issue at the last meeting and WRAB does not have any legislative authority. 4. Contradictory staff statements on alternatives. Senior Utilities staff, in a meeting with two WRAB members, in response to a question about likely alternatives to the CLP, stated that he would not recommend that any other improvements to the Boulder Reservoir WTF be undertaken if the Boulder Feedex Canal Pipeline project was not approved. This suggests that the listed alternatives to the CLP were never real alternatives that would be considered by staff. • Staff stated that the CLP is not as essential project, but rather is a "nice to have, but not necessary' capital improvement 5. Potential large expenses ahead. There are potentially other significant capital expenditures facing the Utilities funds that have not been included in the 5 year CIP budget or rate projections. These include the sooner than anticipated need to replace the automatic meter reading system, potable waterline replacements and Barker Reservoir protection measures. Until the total costs facing the Utility system over the next 5-10 years are known, examined and prioritized, it is premature to authorize funding of the CLP project unless Council is willing to significantly increase water rates. WRAB has were not listed repeatedly requested, bujt not provided, a list of potential other priority capital projects that were not listed on the 5 year CII' budget. • WRAB has concerns over significant and unbudgeted potential costs due to the sooner than anticipated faIlure of existing TRACE radio frequency transponders for the city's water meters. These allow automated meter reading. Badger Meter announced the end of the availability of all TRACE transponder equipment, effective Jvne 2007. The city, however, is still paying off the bonds issued for the conversion to the TRACE system. Experience in other utilities, such as the City of Westminster, CO has shown that the failure rate starts increasing with age and hits significant levels at 10-12 years. The City of Boulder budgeted replacement will not allow for completion before the system reaches 10 to 12 years of age. We are concerned that the cost for replacement is not reflected in the 5 year CIP budget and could result in unanticipated rate impacts. We also have concerns 5 over the City paying on the debt for this system after the lifespan has been reached and a replacement system installed and funded. • Other priorities could include: o Acceleration of waterline replacement in the city to min;m;ze the recurring, disruptive and destructive waterline breaks. This accelerated line replacement could occur through contracting for project management, engineering and inspection rather than using in-house staff. o Rehabilitation of reservoirs and raw water facilities. The assessment of these facilities will not be complete until next year. o Process improvements at both water treatment plants. o Watershed protection for the Barker Reservoir supply, where over half the watershed has been rated as "highly vulnerable' by the State of Colorado Source Water Assessment and Protection Program 6. Incomplete rate comparison. The rate comparison of annual water bills for various water providers provided by staff is incomplete in that it uses for comparison a customer that would be significantly under its water budget. Comparison of water bills for commercial customers was also not provided. • The comparison of annual water bills is incomplete, given the large and unusual combination of 3 consecutive years of rate increases of 10%, 10 % and 12%. There are few utilities on the list that are planning those levels of consecutive rate increases. • The analysis is also biased since a lot size was chosen such that the water consumption in Boulder was significantly below the water budget. We should hope that the Boulder bill would be low in that instance since the water budgets are designed to result in low cost to water users. Amore proper comparison for residential customers would be to include examples for below, at and above the water budget. • A comparison should be made for commercial and irrigation customers. 7. Overstated risks and costs. The Utilities staff and its consultants have overstated both the risks of the Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir and the costs of mitigation measures and best management practices for these facilities. • The information presented to Council in the recent memo and previous reports are unnecessarily alarmist and appear intended to lead City Council to believe that the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Supply is so contaminated and at risk that it presents an imminent threat to public health. Staff and its consultarit then state that the pipeline is the only way to effectively protect water quality, 6 The tone of the reports and memos suggest that Council would be irresponsible in not authorizing construction of the pipeline. This represents unacceptable scare tactics on the yart of staff and fails to recognize the necessary balancing of risks and costs that occur in all aspects of business. • If the BRWTF supply is such a risk as suggested by staff and its consultant, logically the plant should be shut down today in order to protect public health. The nonpoint source runoff and risk of a intentional or accidental discharge into the canal exist today and have always existed since the BRWTF was first constructed. The canal has served as an acceptable method of delivery since inception of the BRWTF. • Extending the logic of staff and its consultant regarding the risks of bacterial contribution of animals living within the banks of the BFC, the city should eliminate all wildlife in the watersheds (including the Silver Lake watershed) in proximity to the reservoirs and pipelines feeding Boulder's water plants. • The city should more aggressively address security risks at Kossler Reservoir. This open reservoir, located adjacent to Flagstaff Road likely represents a greater security risk than the BFC. Using the logic used by staff and its consultant, the 12 acre Kossler Reservoir should be covered or posted with security guards. As recent as last month, college age students were observed swimming in the reservoir. • PuUlic trail access along the BFC can actually result in better protection of drinking water. Consider all those eyes and ears of trail users. Sgnage can alert users to the fact that the BFC is a drinking water supply, use is a privelege and assistance is requested for water quality protection. • There have Ueen no violations of any drinking water standards in the over 30 years of operations of the Boulder Reservoir Treatment Facility (BRWTF) in the face of increasingly more stringent water quality monitoring and cornpliance requirements. • There have Ueen periodic process improvements at the BRWTF and recent water quality data indicate that additional improvements may be needed to meet disinfection byproduct goals, even if the CLP is constructed. • The new costs presented by staff appear to represent a combination of a brute force approach to mitigation and "everything including the kitchen sink" methodology to specifying and costing the mitigation measures and best management practices for Boulder Reservoir and the Boulder Feeder Canal. The proposal of patrolling the BFC, setting up security cameras and extending every Uridge crossing with a box culvert 100' on each end of a road crossing render this alternative infeasible and as expensive as possiUle. 7 • The cost comparison included in the recent staff and consultant memo is based on the assumption that there will not be any additional water treatment process improvements to BRWTF to improve water quality or meet future regulations that could also address the BFC and Boulder Reservoir water quality concerns. Staft and and its consultant have stated that the Carter Lake water quality will always remain in its current high quality. o There are plans to expand the existing swim beach at Carter Lake. In addition, there is a sizable marina at the lake. Given staff concerns over recreation use (boating and swimming) at Boulder Reservoir, why is staff not addressing recreation use at Carter Lake, since it would become the terminal reservoir for. the BRWTRF if the CLP is constructed? Staff has stated that the large size of Carter Lake mitigates these concerns. Does this mean that "Dilution is the Solution to Pollution' is applicable in all instances? o There are two transbasin projects, however, that have the potential to increase the amount of west slope wastewater and urban and agricultural runoff into Carter Lake from the Colorado-Big Thompson project (C-BT). o Grand County continues to assert that existing C-BT diversions are degrading Grand Lake and have proposed that Shadow Mountain Reservoir' diversions be piped directly to the C-BT Adams Tunnel, eliminating the blending of higher quality water from upper Colorado river in Rocky Mountain National Park. o Grand County has experienced severe beetle kill in the drainages supplying the C-BT system. The long-term effects on water quality are unknown. o Climate change could result in warmer water, increased nutrients or other impacts to water. quality that may necessitate improvements to the BRWTF that could also address concerns with BFC and Boulder Reservoir water quality. Any of the above issues could result in the need for upgrades at BRWTF that are assumed to not be needed if CLP is constructed. • There has not been any attempt by staff or consultants to prioritize the mitigation measures and BMPs identified in the August 23 memo, but merely to assign a cost for each drainage area contributing to the BFC, regardless of area or land use. In fact, many of the 51 contributing outfalls proposed to be bypassed represent one of the most effective and recommended BMPs: grassy swales. Also, many of the areas that drain to the canal are very small, have non- threateningland uses and do not require any action. 8 • Figure 1 is a table provided by staff that shows the areas and associated land uses for the contributing areas to the Boulder Feeder Canal. As can be seen, many of the areas are designated as natural or of very small land area. Prioritizing the largest drainage areas with agricultural or residential land use would result in a significant reduction in costs of constructing bypasses or BMI's. • Figure 2 is an aerial photo of the last segment of the Boulder Feeder Canal before it enters Boulder Reservoir. Does it make sense to construct expensive bypasses for these areas or should flee developed areas be the focus of mitigation measures? 9 City of Boulder Source Water Program Boulder Feeder Ganai Outfall Assessment {2005) Ganal Outfall_No Landuse acres BFC _ 793Mtne Reclaimation _ 2.081 BFC Bank outiail Mirie Reclaimation _ ' 23.823 BFC 90 Nline Reclaimation _ ~ 0.630 BFC ~ 155 Natural _ 0.67Q BFC "171 Naural'~- 0.44`1. BFC 189 Natural 0.269 BFC 204 Natural _ _ 1.150 BFC __^__207 Road _ _~~0.622 BFG 208 Road 0.426 BFC - ~~-~-236 Pasture ~_-7.875 B'FC ~ _306 Pasture - - 1.634 BFC ~ 310 pasture - - 2.952 BFC 357 Residential ! _5.561 BFC _ - 349Naturat'W~-~~~-~_~~~- _0.789 B_FC 359 Pasture ^ - 5.123 BFC 364 Pasture 4.585 BFC _ 367 pasture _ _ 0.430 BFC _ 372 Agriculture 9.610 BFC _ 370 Agriculture _T~ OJ26 BFC _379 Agricuiture~_____~__ 71.231. BFC ~ 399 _RoadlPasture 1.510 BFG - - 403 Pasture _ E.471 BFC 413 Pastore 3.259 BFC 416 Pasture - ~4x55 BFC ____---_435 ResidontiaEi~----_ --38.354 BFC 423I~esideniiai ~Ji 0.466 --'-m. BFC 429 Residential 0.566 BFC 441 Agriculture 11.431 BFC 450- Agriculture _ 32.457 BFC- - 455~Agriculture _ 70.977 BFC _ 459 Agriculture _ _ _ ~ x3.681 BFC 'Bank outtail Natural 0.0$7 BFC 512 Road _ _ 0.230 BFG 5i3 Road ~ 0.260 BFC _ -_-525 Fixed 2005 __-J..-._ 12.008 8FC ' "W~~~536 tJatiaral ~-_T'~''Trv"_,~~" 0.451 BFC -~-_---537 Natural __0.680 BFG 543 Natural _ _ fl.207 BFG 648 Natural ~V _ _ 1.650 BFC _ _ 576 Natural T~ 15.769 BFC 570 Natural _ _ _ 3.835 BFC 594 Residentiat _ 1.299 - BFC 609 Agrtcultura 0.940 BFC __^616 Agdculture>~_____,_.__ 1.198 BFC ~ _ 620 Agriculture 11.686 BFC- ~ _643 Natural - 4.994 BFC ~ 655 Natural ~ t2.586 Figure 1 Outfalls to the Boulder Feeder Canal 10 ~~T`.3d#r/S 5 . t ....._._a... r.., ~ ~ ~nniwp{ ~tt I Y~~ . I. - - - - ~ - Monctfcn ~ i BFC Map . .ew a PHae.neWioms~SwlAePaYx . -pmkWWl ~~.~~,.5~5,~. Mnel Photos]000 u nam uoWiq; -~IDmtf~OCaq `y~US..aaitmdN '~6SEAS &OM<SV3llill _OICIIWC aP.p UaMPPmpYCt 1 Figure 2 Aerial Photo of Boulder Feeder Canal 11 8. Uncertain federal funding. The federal Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which includes authorization of $10M for the Carter Lake Pipeline, if enacted into law, does not guarantee funding. • Authorization under WRDA does not guarantee funding. Congress must appropriate funds for authorized projects in a separate appropriation bill. There are many authorized projects that have never been funded. 9. Biased ranking of alternatives. The Utilities staff and consultant's ranking system used to evaluate the alternatives to the Carter Lake Pipeline was flawed, did not reflect the objectives of WRAB and likely Council and citizens and as designed would only result in the CLP selected as the top alternative. • The ranking system used by the consultant was flawed in that the only result that could be ranked first was the CLP. The revised evaluation system used by WRAB included other objectives rather than the narrow objectives of Utilities staff and resulted in differing rankings. These results reflected that of the 4 WRAB members filling out the objectives survey, other options besides the CLP best met the objectives, of 3 memebers while the other WRAB member had the CLP ranked first. • Ned Williams stated that City Council would never fill out the objectives weighting form, even though it can take less than 5 minutes and lead to the development of consensus alternatives that can meet multiple objectives. • ~ When requested at a meeting with two WRAB members, staff stated they would not fill out the WRAB objectives weighting form, since the staff did not care about WRAB's objectives. • The CLP, while protecting drinking water quality, does not address the fundamental issues of protecting water quality for all uses in Boulder Reservoir and downstream of the BFC. Recreational users in Boulder Reservoir, including children and adults in body contact with the water, as well as water users receiving deliveries from Boulder Reservoir would be exposed to the risks outlined in staff and consultant memos and reports if the CLP is constructed.and the BFC protective measures abandoned. • Figure 3 shows the objectives that were used by certain WRAB members in evaluating alternatives. These objectives, which were not adopted by staff, are intended to cover community and environmental objectives as well as the narrow staff objectives. 12 ©~U~nSp`~~~~t~~'~kSv~ a~ e +D~eSC1~;j7t~0 i~tc~4;' 4~ ~x { ~ r-~y'akA''~~s~¢a!N`~i~~ji a< ~ kbk~4s~sakt~4i'g6uk.+w kl~g«1~"i~sP;,.tNbl~.u~S." ~~ak~iu'Ai~ Manage Costs Comparative net present value cost of construction and O&M using same cost basis and source for comparison Maximize Water Yield and Maximize water yield and system reliability given System Reliability the potential for system failures such as contamination of a water source, climate change, limited exchange potential, etc. Factor in the location of firm yield supplies with the ability to directly treat the water. Simplify Operations Provide for ease of system operations Ensure meeting water quality Maximize the ability to meet Safe Drinking Water regulations Act regulations, factoring in reliability of each source water or treatment barrier under potential source water conditions Provide exceptional treated Provide for high quality water that will water quality that exceeds consistently meet all customer esthetic standards expectations and address unregulated contaminants that may or not be regulated in the future or would be at very low levels on an infrequent basis Maximize enviroiunental Protection or enhancement of land and water enhancement habitats and resources and reducing existing and future pollution sources basinwide Maximize Acceptability Maximize acceptability by limiting disturbances and other impacts to neighbors, commuters, etc. Timeliness/Ease of Permitting Need for 1041, 404 or other local, state or federal permits, ability to deliver project by the time they are needed Figure 3. Objectives used by WRAB in evaluating alternatives 13 10. Barker Reservoir potentially a greater risk. The Barker Reservoir watershed may represent a significantly greater risk to the city's water system and a careful examination of both the Barker and Boulder reservoirs supplies should be compared using the same methodology before committing significant capital expenditures to the CLP. • The Middle Boulder Creek watershed discharges directly to Barker Reservoir a terminal reservoir directly feeding the Betasso Water Treatment Facility. • The stormwater runoff from the Town of Nederland drains directly into Barker Reservoir. Feces from dogs and other animals, leakage from motor vehicles, underground tanks, and pesticides and herbicides represent a few of the risks from the urban and rural areas of Nederland and upstream. • All of Nederland's wastewater is dumped directly into Barker Reservoir. Given concerns over pathogens, endocrine disruptors and other contaminants in wastewater, this wastewater would appear to represent a greater risk to the City's water system than the rural land development along the Boulder Feeder Canal. • If we follow the logic of staff and its consultant, would we need security monitoring cameras on every street and corner in Nederland similar to the security proposed for the BFC? Do we ban dogs in Nederland? Would we have watershed guards patrolling the streets of Nederland? • There is also another wastewater discharge -the Lake Eldora Ski Area WWTP. This plant experiences heavy loads of human waste with little dilution. Biological activities at high alfitude wastewater treatment plants are less efficient during the winter months when the waste load to the Eldora plant is the highest. • The "MIDDLE BOULDER CREEK WATER SOURCE MANAGEMENT WORK PLAN, 2002 prepared for City of Boulder Utilities Department" includes the following statements: o "A vulnerability analysis following the Water Quality Control Division procedures for a Source Water Assessmentaand Protection (SWAP) program indicates the waters hi the watershed above Barker Reservoir are highly susceptible to a variety of natural and man-made threats. The vulnerability assessment for the Barker Reservoir watershed rated the water supply as highly vulnerable to over half of the contaminant sources in the watershed. o "A failure at the Nederland W WTP could have significant impacts on Barker Reservoir and the city's water supply depending on the type of 14 failure. A failure could include the release of raw or partially treated sewage to the reservoir. The proximity of the WWTP to the reservoir and lack of buffer make a W WTP failure a significant concern. The WWTP has experienced violations of its discharge permit as current as the past six months, which can cause water quality degradation at both chronic and acute levels." o Sabotage, terrorism, and vandalism are site specific incidents that can occur anywhere u~ the watershed and may include an incident of biological, nuclear, incendiary, chemical, and/or explosive agents. • Figure 4 is an aerial photo, showing the Town of Nederland and Barker Reservoir. The lagoon ponds can be seen on the west shore of Barker Reservoir as well as the extent of development in the town and the subdivision to the south of the Reservoir. Comparing this development to the areas draining to the Boulder Feeder Canal, suggest that the Barker Reservoir watershed is at a greater risk of a contaminarion event. 15 ei R s a r 4 i~ + 21 -bt ~ I 1 e 5 Figure 4. Aexial photo of Barker Reservoir and Town of Nederland 16 11. Canals are a common and acceptable delivery method. Many other utilities in Colorado use canals to deliver water to terminal reservoirs and water treatment plants. • Many Colorado water utilities have open canals feeding terminal reservoirs or water treatment facilities. Examples include o Ralston Reservoir -Denver Water o Standley Lake -Cities of Northglenn, Thornton and Westminster o Arvada Reservoir -City of Arvada o Maple Grove Reservoir -Consolidated Mutual Water Company o Boyd Lake -City of Greeley o McClellan Reservoir -City of Englewood o Project 7 Water Treatment Plant and terminal reservoir- Cities of Montrose, Delta, Olathe and other water districts • The California State Water Project and the Central Arizona Project convey water in open canals for hundreds of miles directly to terminal reservoirs or water treatment facilities 12. Many water utilities have different sources of supply and water quality. There are many front range water utilities that have multiple sources of supply with differing water quality. In most cases, these supplies are not blended prior to delivery to customers azid customers often receive different quality water. • Many utilities have different sources of water with differing levels of TDS and other constituents delivered to customers that are not blended before delivery to customers o Westminster (Standley Lake and Thornton Treated Water) o Greeley (Big Thompson and Poudre Rivers) o Denver Water (Moffat Tunnel, Strontia Springs Reservoir and Marston Reservoir) o Thornton (Standley Lake, Lower Clear Creek and South Platte) o Most South Metro water providers, including Centennial, East Cherry Creek Valley, Pinery and Parker (Arapahoe and Laramie-Fox Hills groundwater and local alluvial groundwater and surface water) o South Adams County Water and Sanitation District -alluvial groundwater and Denver treated water 17 ~~nrhp CITY OF' BCUI_D~~`; i~' ! rt. ~ , August 24, 2007 "[I'I? ,~.9_ ~ - - Boulder City Council P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Re: Proposed Carter Lalce Pipeline: Roche Colorado Support Dear Council Memhers: Roche Colorado offers its strong support for the proposal to install a pipeline that will deliver water from Carter Lake to the City of Boulder treatment facilities. Roche Colorado's pharmaceutical research and manufacturing operations rely on potable water from Boulder's treatment system. These water resources are incorporated directly into the medicines we produce. This includes injectable dings that demand the highest quality standards. A reliable water stream with consistent purity is critical to ensuring that we achieve these quality standards. Because cur activities are sa reliant cn cGrisist8irt water purity, we regularly lest the water flows that arrive at our site from Boulders treatment facilities. At threes, we detect higher contamination levels, forcing us to implement aggressive purification measures and other emergency adjustments to our operations. This is no mere inconvenience, but a very real threat to the quality of the medicines we are producing and the reliable delivery of critical drug therapies. It is because of our reliance on consistent water purity that we urge City Council to approve the proposed Cater Lake pipeline. The pipeline will protect one of Boulder's raw water resources from possible tampering or contamination, risks that ue cormnon to trench delivery systems. The increased protection a pipeline affords will provide an importaart measure of security for our phanmaceutical research and manufacturing operations. Thank you for your consideration of our iriterests in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance in your deliberations concerning the proposed Carter Lake pipeline. Sincerel - j~ G ~r S~C aNG~ Steve Beck Engineering and Facilities Director Roche Colorado Corporation 2075 North 55th Slrcrt Tel. 303-442-192fi Boulder, CO 80301-2880 Faz 303-938-G413