Loading...
Minutes - Water Resoruces - 12/17/2007 DRAFT CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: December 17, 2007 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Kaaren Davis, 303-441-3229 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS -Jim Knopf, Robin Byers, William DeOreo, Kelly DiNatale, (Bart Miller Absent). STAFF - Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Eric Lessard. Ridge Dorsey, Bret Linenfelser, Felix Gallo, Kim Elkins, Floyd Bebler, Kaaren Davis, secretary. GUESTS - Alan Vajda (CU), Larry Barber (USGS), David Norris (CU) WHAT TYPE OF MEETING BOLD ONE REGULAR SPECIAL QUASI-JUDICIAL Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item 2 - Meeting Minutes -November 19, 2007 Motion: Byers -to accept the meeting minutes as revised. Seconded: DeOreo Vote: 4-0 in favor, Motion passed Agenda Item 3 - Public participation and comment. • There was none. Public participation was closed. Agenda Item 4 Matters From Staff - • Copies of draft table of contents and chart of water quality strategic plan mission statement distributed so that board may review prior to commenting in March. Matters from Board - • DiNatale: Had a question about the bookmarking of the recordings on the website. Agenda Item 5 - Final recommendation on Industrial Pretreatment, City Code changes. Linenfelser gave the presentation. Pretreatment staff has been working with the City Attorney's Office to update Boulder Revised Code Title 11 Chapter 3 Industrial and Prohibited Discharges. The purpose for the revision are 1) to insert new code language and modify existing code language to comply with changes to the Code of Federal regulations -40 CFR Part 403 published October 14, 2005, 2) to insert a reference to Rules Concerning Treatment and Disposal OfAmalgam Wastewater Within The City Of Boulder, April 21, 2007, and 3) correct a previously misstated flashpoint limit. Currently BRC 11-3 does not comply with changes made to the Code of Federal Regulations. WRAB is being asked by staff today to approve these changes to the BRC 11-3 to keep Boulder's pretreatment code current with federal and local regulations. Public Comment: • There was none. Public comment was closed. WRAB discussion included: Wording changes were discussed to lend clarity to the definition of "monthly average limit", "monthly average", "flow" and "TOC". If the document is represented as having no other substantive changes (housekeeping changes only) then the WRAB is comfortable recommending the document as presented though a limit is still needed in the formula. Motion: DeOreo: Recommend that Council adopt the final recommendation on the Industrial Pre- treatment as submitted to WRAB on December 17th and further modified by the WRAB at that meeting. 2nd Byers Vote: 4-0. Agenda Item 6- Final recommendation on Colorado Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CoWARN) mutual aid agreement. Gallo gave the presentation. A mutual aid agreement and process for sharing emergency resources among water and wastewater agencies statewide is extremely beneficial. The possibility of a disaster, either natural WRAB Summary December 17. 2007 Page No. 1 or man-made, that would stretch the resources of the Water and/or Waste Water utility is very real. Without the assistance of outside resources during an emergency, the goal of protecting and providing services for our customers and residents may be unreachable. During these types of events, another local municipal utility would be the best equipped and responsive to assist if requested. In turn, the city of Boulder Utilities Division would also make itself available to assist other municipalities in time of need. Colorado's Water/Waste Water Agency response Network (CoWARN) is a network of utilities helping one another to prepare for natural or man-made disasters, organize response according to requirements and share personnel and other resources statewide y agreement. There is no cost to participate, the agreement is consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and contains indemnification and worker's compensation provisions to protect the city and provide for reimbursement of costs as needed. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance and mutual aid assistance agreement. Public Comment: • None. Public participation was closed. WR AB Discussion included: Confirmation of the other entities and agencies involved. Motion: WHO? Recommend approval of the mutual assistance agreement 2ua Knopf Vote: 4-0 Agenda Item 7 - Final recommendation on water lease with several irrigation ditch companies. Williams and Elkins gave the presentation. The city is the owner of certain water that is reusable for irrigation after its first use for instream flow purposes according to the water court decree issued to the city and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1993 for the Boulder Creek Instream Flow Program. In 1995, the city signed an agreement with the Water Users Association of District No. 6 stating that the city will first make available to lease of any reusable portion of the instream flow water to members of District 6 for irrigation purposes. Three ditch companies that are District 6 members would like to exercise their right to lease the water through a five-year lease agreement. Leasing water to the ditch companies supports local farmers and would help sustain agricultural production in the Boulder Creek basin. In addition, leasing water would generate revenue for the city. Staff recommends that WRAB approve a motion recommending to City Council the approval of the water lease agreement with The New Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir & Ditch Company, The Boulder & Weld County Ditch Company, and Houck No. 2 Ditch Company for annual lease of up to 500 acre-feet of the city's reusable water remaining following the CWCB use of the water for instream flow purposes. Public Comment: • None. Public comment was closed. WRAB Discussion included: • One of the years covered by the lease has passed. WRAB member not comfortable approving except going forward. Elkins: lease drafted during first season but it took several months to get all parties to sign. Motion: Byers: Recommend that Council approve the lease agreement as a 4 year agreement, term to commence in 2008. 2na: DiNatale Vote: 4-0 Agenda Item 8 - Final recommendation on water storage agreement with Town of Nederland. Williams gave the presentation. The city purchased the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project, including Barker Reservoir, located just east of Nederland, for storage of the city's municipal water supplies since the 1950's under a series of lease agreements with Xcel. The Town of Nederland had also entered into a storage agreement with Xcel. The town's agreement was not binding on the city and was not transferred to the city at the time of the Barker system sale. The town has continued to use otherwise empty Barker Reservoir storage space on an informal basis since the city's purchase. Nederland operates its water system based on a water court decree that requires all water consumed by the town to be replaced, or augmented, at times when more senior water rights are entitled to the water. The town owns a water right which is art of WRAB Summary December 17. 2007 Page No. 2 this augmentation plan that originally was used for irrigation. A condition within the water court decree approving the change in use of this irrigation water right was that municipal diversions under the right can only e made during the irrigation season. However, Nederland required augmentation of its water use year- round, so a part of the water available to the town must be stored during the irrigation season for later use. The proposed intergovermuental agreement between the city and the town allows Nederland to use the same amount of storage space in Barker Reservoir that was available to it under its prior agreement with Xcel, which is about 40 acre-feet. The agreement does not require the City of Boulder to provide any water to the town, but only to allow use of reservoir storage space for storage of water owned by the town. In practice, Nederland's water will most likely use storage space in Barker Reservoir that would otherwise be empty at that time of year. Terms in the agreement assure that Nederland's storage use will affect Boulder's municipal water operations and water rights yields, minimally, if at all. Public Comment: • Chuck Howe: Collaboration makes good sense. Also a good chance to discuss collaboration on the possibility of limited recreational use of the reservoir. AVRAB discussion included: The concept that this item should have been included as part of a discussion with Nederland as a matter of their wastewater management. Whether this agreement satisfies Nederland's need for all time and that a clause should be included to revisit this issue if their needs increase in the future. Motion: DiNatale: recommend that council approve the agreement to allow Nederland storage in Barker Reservoir as submitted in Attachment A in the materials. 2nd: Byers Vote: 4-0 Agenda Item 9 - Final recommendation on wonderland Creek/Fourmile Canyon Flood Mitigation Planning - Phase A Report. Lessard gave the presentation. The Fourmile Canon Creek and Wonderland Creek Major Drainageway Planning - Phase A Report - Alternatives Analysis (Phase A Report) focuses on the development, evaluation, and recommendations of alternatives to mitigate future flooding in both the Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek flood hazard areas within the City of Boulder (City) and Boulder County. The work was jointly sponsored by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) and the City of Boulder, Colorado. The Phase A Report was prepared by the consultant Love & Associates. The Phase A Report presents information regarding flood mitigation planning and investigates a number of strategies to be evaluated by staff, the public and City review boards. Staff has coordinated the flood mitigation planning with other objectives of the Greenways Program and presented the report to the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC). An open house for affected citizens was conducted in addition to a presentation of the document to the Water Resources Advisory Board WRAB in October. Staff has prepared the recommended alternatives to be presented to WRAB. Upon referral by IAjRAB, a presentation of this information shall occur to Council and Planning Board early next year. The Phase A mitigation analysis evaluated a number of alternate drainageway planning concepts to mitigate existing flood damages, taking into consideration the impacts of the spill flows from Fourmile Canyon Creek to wonderland Creek. The study is divided into two phases. The first phase (Phase A) is the initial report that covers the hydrologic, hydraulic and alternate evaluation aspects of the project. The future, second phase (Phase B), will cover the preliminary design of the selected alternates. Public Comment: • Keith Farimont: Concerned about the fact that part of his property has been reclassified in the flood plain where it was not before. County has an easement on his property. Conflict between Foumiile and Wonderland owners which will need for other options to open up if resolution is to be had. Wants to see other options such as flood channel leading to other areas of lower impacts. • Steven Moore: Endorse the concept of a channel running adjacent to Violet to safely move water through Boulder through to US-36. This would help avoid conflict between Fourmile and Wonderland property owners. Proposed option is both lengthy and very expensive. If WRAB Summary December 17. 2007 Page No. 3 something is done in Wonderland, wants to know what city would pay to acquire the property. • Anne and Dale Stetina: Would like more clarification on current recommendation for over- excavation. Does this not create more problems for property owners down stream? Possibility for detention pond in adj acent County property'? • Skip Miller: Concerned about proposed pedestrian footbridge. City forced an easement on his property even though there was an untouched adjacent roadway. Property and house designed around the high-hazard zone. Footbridge will create an obstruction if flooding does occur. Support idea from previous speaker for detention pond. Does not support any of the recommendations proposed tonight. Status quo is fine. • Allen Goldstone: Concerned about maintaining the old trees in the riparian corridor along the reach his property is in. The proposed plan would remove the trees on the North side of the corridor. Had thought there was discussion about an alternative to broaden the creek north of the flood zone in order to diffuse flow and still preserve the riparian corridor. Lessard: Strategy is to create islands in excavation to preserve the old trees. Cannot give specifics as the plan is to work with the "on the ground" conditions during the design phase and construction work. • Olivier Brousse: Has been following this issue for about 10 years. Has always been concerned about "structural mitigation". Structural mitigation does not work and is very risky. Willing to take the risk of some minor flooding on his property in order to save the trees. Does not think it is necessary to plan for the 100 year event. Why not try something smaller'? 2-5 year event. Deeper analysis would be a good idea. Vk`RAB discussion included: Parameters of the proposed excavation and whether property or easements would have to be purchased. Relative merits of control methods including excavations, culverts, and detention reservoirs. Potential insurance premium savings for affected property owners. Whether and which other options should be considered before a recommendation can be made. What sort of non-structural alternatives have been examined. Potential impacts on Preble's mouse populations. Requests for breakout of City -vs- County funding. Relation of existing County easements to the proposed options. Staff response (Love & Associates): Cannot legally change the distribution of the spills between the two creeks. The recommendations take this limitation into account. Tree life-span over the span of project implementation is not something that can be predicted. Currently, advice should focus on the Master Plan to the effect that such things can be evaluated and responded to in future processes. At this conceptual stage, it is difficult to deal with such specific issues as there is not yet enough detail to evaluate the plans. Nothing will be developed until funding is available. At some point in the future, when one of these reaches re-develops, the pertinent portion of the plan can be reviewed and implemented at that time. Harberg: Staff recommendation removes all existing structures from the high-hazard zone. Both the 100 year channel and a high-hazard mitigation options can be explored and expanded as a next step, which is the LEAP process. A possible recommendation could be that no mitigations are made, but it is recommended to property owners that they take -independent action such as flood insurance and flood-proofing. Love: Did look at the option of a channel down Violet to US-36. There were significant design, excavation and cost issues in getting the water back to Boulder Creek with that option. Harberg: Property owners want the spill totally contained, but with that option there are legal issues regarding changing the historic pattern of the flow. Motion: Byers: Due to a number of questions proposed and the need for more data to address concerns, including by way of example but not limited to: Lack of support of property owners along the channel, the high costs of the project relative to the benefits identified, the uncertainty about the number of structures being removed from the high hazard zone, questions about the impact of the channelization project on downstream properties, what other alternatives may be viable, the status of Prebles' meadow jumping mouse corridors along the affected areas, the status of possible non-fee property interests along the affected reaches such as conservation easements, the land ownership along the affected reaches between County and City jurisdiction, the impact of the project on the overall number of developable lots in the area; the WRAB continues the item to a meeting as soon as as practical after Planning Board has discussed the issue. 2°``: Knopf Vote: 4-0 WRAB Summary December 17. 2007 Page No. 4 Agenda Item 10 - Final Recommendation on the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Lessard, Harberg and Williams made the presentation. They City of Boulder has been working with AMEC Earth and Environmental on completing a multi-hazard mitigation plan. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards. They City of Boulder is developing this multi-hazard mitigation plan to make the city and its residents less vulnerable to future natural hazard events. This plan is being prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in order for the City of Boulder to be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. To meet the identified goals and objectives of he program, the plan recommends a number of mitigation actions. Information in this plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to the city and its property owners by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption. Boulder has been affected by natural hazards in the past and is thus committed to reducing future disaster impacts and maintaining eligibility for federal funding. Upon formal adoption of the plan by the City, it will need to be regularly updated every five years. Public Comment: There was none. Public comment was closed. '"RAB discussion included: No questions. Motion: Byers: VVRAB recommends the Multi-Hazard mitigation plan be referred to FEMA for review as per the staff recommendation. 2n`' Knopf Vote 4-0 Agenda Item 11- Update on emerging contaminants / endocrine disruptors/ fish feminization. Bebler, Vajda, Barber, Norris and Linenfelser gave the presentation. Humans have benefited from the production of a large array of chemicals including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care product ingredients, cosmetics and plastics. Over this time period it is estimated that more than 80.000 different chemicals have been released into the environment world wide, with many released through the discharge of treated domestic wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent. Exposure to some of these chemicals, specifically endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), elicits physiological responses in plants and animals, including fish. Estrogenic EDCs present in WWTP effluents are capable of feminizing fish downstream of WWTP discharges as well as producing contraceptive-like effects. These changes have been documented in fish in Colorado streams, including Boulder Creek below the city of Boulder 75'" St. WWTP effluent discharge. City staff has been working in cooperation with the University of Colorado (CU) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) on evaluating EDCs in Boulder Creek and their effect on resident fish populations. Chemical analyses of the 75'" St. WWP effluent and Boulder Creek water indicated the presence of a number of EDCs downstream of the WWTP as well as in he effluent itself. Based on chemical data and the results of the controlled biological experiments, the estrogenicity of the WWTP effluent and its ability to feminize adult male fish in breeding condition appears to be significant. Public Comment: • There was none, public comment was closed WRAB discussion included: Costs of the program. Relevant time frame. Effects on drinking water. Agenda Item 12 - Update on Council study session about Water Budgets. Knopf, DeOreo and Williams gave the presentation. The Boulder City Council is scheduled to have a Study Session on February 12, 2008 to discuss Water Budgets. At the November 19 WRAB meeting, Jim Knopf and Bill DeOreo were the WRAB members appointed to work with city staff to draft the basis for a WRAB/Staff Consensus Recommendation to present at the Study Session. On November 29, Jim Knopf and Bill DeOreo met with city staff (Carol Linn, Bronwyn Weygandt and Ned Williams) to discuss issues and begin to draft the consensus recommendation. WRAB Summary December 17. 2007 Page No. 5 Public Comment: • There was none, public comment was closed WRAB discussion included: • Multi family unit budgets and allowable occupancy limits. Allocation based on number of bedrooms -vs- actual occupancy (1000 extra gallons per additional bedroom beyond two, not to exceed 7000 per unit, subject to review. Application must be submitted by owner). Wording changes were discussed for clarity. Remove clause for additional 1% for winter watering. • Commercial/Industrial: AMU option is not intended for customers with erratic indoor water use. The HMU option should use a 3 year rolling average for calculation. Agenda Item 13 - WRAB discussion about impacts of climate change on water supplies. At the November 19 WRAB meeting was an agenda item about the possible impacts of climate change on Boulder's water resources/supplies. Stratus Consulting, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants and city staff presented some prelinunary results. WRAB members requested an agenda item for the December 17 meeting in order to discuss thought and ideas about this topic after reflecting upon it for a month. Subsequent to the November 19 WRAB meeting, the consultants have re-examined the climate change scenarios they selected and realized that the "dry" scenario , while having the largest annual percentage decrease in precipitation, may not present the worst case for Boulder among the climate models. The dry scenario they used projects an increase in winter and spring precipitation. This can offset the projected very large decreases in summer and fall precipitation. The consultants decided to use another climate change model that has a reduction in winter and spring precipitation. While the annual reduction in precipitation is smaller than the previous model, they think the consequences of a decrease in winter and spring precipitation may be more significant. The consultants plan to complete this new model run in the next few months and will then issue a final report. Public Comment: • There was none, public comment was closed WRAB discussion included: It would be helpful to have each scenario give a more specific frequency to events. More info on hydrology. Agenda Item 14 - Consideration about policy related to materials and presentations at WRAB meetings. On December 5, 2007, a WRAB member requested that the WRP.B consider developing a policy or guideline about providing materials (including PowerPoint programs) presented to WRAB by anyone. It was suggested that, whenever possible, materials should be provided to WRAB members, should be in electronic form and PowerPoint program, and should be in original format as projected and presented. If WRAB is interested in developing such a draft policy or practice, staff will submit it to the City manager's Office and City Attorney's Office for review and consideration. Public Comment: • There was none, public comment was closed WRAB discussion included: Motion: DiNatale: All materials presented at a WRAB meeting should be made available to the public in electronic format and posted on the City website, whether they be a product of staff or consultants or members of the public. 2na: DeOreo Vote: 4-0 Agenda Item 15 - Update on Carter Lake Pipeline WRAB/Staff consensus. Williams presented the update. On September 17, 2007, a WRAB/Staff Recommendation about the Carter Lake Pipeline Project was approved at the VNjRAB meeting. A status update was provided including progress and the current status of each of the nine sections of the joint recommendation. Public Comment: • There was none, public comment was closed WRAB Summary December 17. 2007 Page No. 6 WRAB discussion included: None Agenda Item 16 - Discussion of schedule and agenda items for future meetings. Agenda Item 17- Adjournment Motion: Motion to adjourn by DiNatale Seconded by: Knopf Vote: 4-0 in favor, passed. Meeting adjourned at 12:55 AM Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, January 28 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, Municipal Services Center, 5050 East Pearl Street unless otherwise decided by staff and the board. These are summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record are available through Central Records. Minutes approved by: Date: WRAB Summary December 17. 2007 Page No. 7